Did you guys see his hair melting off his face?

(11-20-2020 03:32 PM)Morkai Wrote:  Did you guys see his hair melting off his face?

Too much math for you, eh? Had to take the discussion to the playground where you are more comfortable.

(11-20-2020 04:09 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:32 PM)Morkai Wrote:  Did you guys see his hair melting off his face?

Too much math for you, eh? Had to take the discussion to the playground where you are more comfortable.

A lot of things in that press conference, but you can't say "math" was one of them.

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:02 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:46 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:42 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  All you are showing is if they allowed the mail in ballots to be counted ahead of time there would be no argument.

Georgia has physical ballots to back up their numbers. We know that because of the recount and the audit.

Do we have these graphs for Georgia? We shouldn't. If we do this whole line of argument seems suspect.

But if Georgia does NOT show these trends, then we need the Georgia recount and audit procedures applied to the states that do show them.

The top graph is Georgia to illustrate how the algorithm works. The plot isn't time dependent. The X-axis is the total votes cast. The Y-axis is percentage of votes received. The counties are ordered from least votes cast to most votes cast. The red line is Trump, dark blue is Biden, light blue is Jorgensen. Note how Jorgensen’s line is horizontal. The attempt is to show that the results from the smaller counties tend to be an indicator of where the total will end up. Historically, once 20-30% of the votes are tabulated, the statistics will tell you the odds of a candidate winning a particular race are 98% and all the news people will project a winner at that point.

The anomaly is that this data set goes nearly linear as the larger counties are added. As you move along the X-axis, after over one million votes, the curves show almost a one-to-one (0.9815) vote add for Biden and resulting delete for Trump as a part of the whole. Now I get it that larger suburban counties surrounding large cities tend to favor the Dems, but it shouldn't be this clean of trend. The claim is that this was accomplished by a correction factor in the software, hence the need for extra time to tabulate.

The software was either transferring votes from Trump to Biden or dumping votes to 3rd party or non-Trump / non-Biden candidates. Overnight counts were stopped in certain states when it was mathematically impossible to dump enough votes to allow Biden to catch up necessitating the need for physical ballot dumps. The numbers had to made to look "plausible" or close and when it wasn't possible they needed more physical ballots.

Plots below show irregularities of non-repub / non-dem votes increasing over time. States include Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others. See sideways bell shaped trend.

Georgia executed a hand recount of paper ballots that was fundamentally the same outside of the poorly run counties that lost the cards. They finished wed and certified yesterday.

How did the algorithm change the election by adding votes or miscounting votes, when the paper count matches with the electronic count?

Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

You started out saying "Trace showing when the software intervened after the algorithm had run long enough and the AI learned what correction factor to apply. That is when the curve goes linear in vote swapping for Biden."

From a conspiracy perspective saying someone manipulated the software to inject or change votes for biden is more plausible, although if that is what had happened the GA recount would have caught it. The reason this is slightly plausible is that it could be executed with a small number of people (1-2). If you are going to commit treason you probably want to keep that close to the vest.

Now you are changing the scenario to "the algorithm figured out how many ballots to print". This scenario is much less plausible, because it takes a ton more people.

You have to develop the ability to print ballots and make them look decent. Same paper, same size, right design. You need more people involved to print and mark 10's of thousands of ballots. This takes a decent amount of people, you are saying it happened in hours when they "stopped counting".

Once they are printed and marked you need to bundle them and send them to the ballot counting center. I need another person willing to commit a felony to get them into the ballot counting center and distribute to the ballot counters.

That is a lot of fraud. It's hard for a bunch of people to keep a secret without someone talking.

And then, after all that work, they forgot to cheat for the down ballot elections and we still have to have runoffs.

I'm not buying it.

(11-20-2020 04:10 PM)Morkai Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 04:09 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:32 PM)Morkai Wrote:  Did you guys see his hair melting off his face?

Too much math for you, eh? Had to take the discussion to the playground where you are more comfortable.

A lot of things in that press conference, but you can't say "math" was one of them.

Right, the math was being covered on page 9. Then you added this little nugget to derail the discussion.

Where's this video showing "trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes"?

(11-20-2020 04:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:02 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:46 PM)Claw Wrote:  Georgia has physical ballots to back up their numbers. We know that because of the recount and the audit.

Do we have these graphs for Georgia? We shouldn't. If we do this whole line of argument seems suspect.

But if Georgia does NOT show these trends, then we need the Georgia recount and audit procedures applied to the states that do show them.

The top graph is Georgia to illustrate how the algorithm works. The plot isn't time dependent. The X-axis is the total votes cast. The Y-axis is percentage of votes received. The counties are ordered from least votes cast to most votes cast. The red line is Trump, dark blue is Biden, light blue is Jorgensen. Note how Jorgensen’s line is horizontal. The attempt is to show that the results from the smaller counties tend to be an indicator of where the total will end up. Historically, once 20-30% of the votes are tabulated, the statistics will tell you the odds of a candidate winning a particular race are 98% and all the news people will project a winner at that point.

The anomaly is that this data set goes nearly linear as the larger counties are added. As you move along the X-axis, after over one million votes, the curves show almost a one-to-one (0.9815) vote add for Biden and resulting delete for Trump as a part of the whole. Now I get it that larger suburban counties surrounding large cities tend to favor the Dems, but it shouldn't be this clean of trend. The claim is that this was accomplished by a correction factor in the software, hence the need for extra time to tabulate.

The software was either transferring votes from Trump to Biden or dumping votes to 3rd party or non-Trump / non-Biden candidates. Overnight counts were stopped in certain states when it was mathematically impossible to dump enough votes to allow Biden to catch up necessitating the need for physical ballot dumps. The numbers had to made to look "plausible" or close and when it wasn't possible they needed more physical ballots.

Plots below show irregularities of non-repub / non-dem votes increasing over time. States include Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others. See sideways bell shaped trend.

Georgia executed a hand recount of paper ballots that was fundamentally the same outside of the poorly run counties that lost the cards. They finished wed and certified yesterday.

How did the algorithm change the election by adding votes or miscounting votes, when the paper count matches with the electronic count?

Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

You started out saying "Trace showing when the software intervened after the algorithm had run long enough and the AI learned what correction factor to apply. That is when the curve goes linear in vote swapping for Biden."

From a conspiracy perspective saying someone manipulated the software to inject or change votes for biden is more plausible, although if that is what had happened the GA recount would have caught it. The reason this is slightly plausible is that it could be executed with a small number of people (1-2). If you are going to commit treason you probably want to keep that close to the vest.

Now you are changing the scenario to "the algorithm figured out how many ballots to print". This scenario is much less plausible, because it takes a ton more people.

You have to develop the ability to print ballots and make them look decent. Same paper, same size, right design. You need more people involved to print and mark 10's of thousands of ballots. This takes a decent amount of people, you are saying it happened in hours when they "stopped counting".

Once they are printed and marked you need to bundle them and send them to the ballot counting center. I need another person willing to commit a felony to get them into the ballot counting center and distribute to the ballot counters.

That is a lot of fraud. It's hard for a bunch of people to keep a secret without someone talking.

And then, after all that work, they forgot to cheat for the down ballot elections and we still have to have runoffs.

I'm not buying it.

Then I think you are saying the same thing Sidney Powell is saying. I'm just trying to interpret it and put some teeth to the claim with some data. I'm theorizing that the original plan was scenario #1 like you mentioned, fully a manipulation within the software to move votes one way or another. It started out as just that and when the huge numbers came in for Trump early they had to move into scenario #2 where more votes had to be physically generated (i.e. fabricated) since there would be no way to pass an audit by just moving the numbers virtually. #2 was built off of the information learned from #1. If the race had been tighter based on in-person voting it might have been easier to cover without the need for a paper trail. I agree that it is a huge undertaking relying on lots of people. With a lot of opportunities for mistakes. That's why people are digging into this and doing the analysis.

(11-20-2020 04:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:02 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:46 PM)Claw Wrote:  Georgia has physical ballots to back up their numbers. We know that because of the recount and the audit.

Do we have these graphs for Georgia? We shouldn't. If we do this whole line of argument seems suspect.

But if Georgia does NOT show these trends, then we need the Georgia recount and audit procedures applied to the states that do show them.

The top graph is Georgia to illustrate how the algorithm works. The plot isn't time dependent. The X-axis is the total votes cast. The Y-axis is percentage of votes received. The counties are ordered from least votes cast to most votes cast. The red line is Trump, dark blue is Biden, light blue is Jorgensen. Note how Jorgensen’s line is horizontal. The attempt is to show that the results from the smaller counties tend to be an indicator of where the total will end up. Historically, once 20-30% of the votes are tabulated, the statistics will tell you the odds of a candidate winning a particular race are 98% and all the news people will project a winner at that point.

The anomaly is that this data set goes nearly linear as the larger counties are added. As you move along the X-axis, after over one million votes, the curves show almost a one-to-one (0.9815) vote add for Biden and resulting delete for Trump as a part of the whole. Now I get it that larger suburban counties surrounding large cities tend to favor the Dems, but it shouldn't be this clean of trend. The claim is that this was accomplished by a correction factor in the software, hence the need for extra time to tabulate.

The software was either transferring votes from Trump to Biden or dumping votes to 3rd party or non-Trump / non-Biden candidates. Overnight counts were stopped in certain states when it was mathematically impossible to dump enough votes to allow Biden to catch up necessitating the need for physical ballot dumps. The numbers had to made to look "plausible" or close and when it wasn't possible they needed more physical ballots.

Plots below show irregularities of non-repub / non-dem votes increasing over time. States include Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others. See sideways bell shaped trend.

Georgia executed a hand recount of paper ballots that was fundamentally the same outside of the poorly run counties that lost the cards. They finished wed and certified yesterday.

How did the algorithm change the election by adding votes or miscounting votes, when the paper count matches with the electronic count?

Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

You started out saying "Trace showing when the software intervened after the algorithm had run long enough and the AI learned what correction factor to apply. That is when the curve goes linear in vote swapping for Biden."

From a conspiracy perspective saying someone manipulated the software to inject or change votes for biden is more plausible, although if that is what had happened the GA recount would have caught it. The reason this is slightly plausible is that it could be executed with a small number of people (1-2). If you are going to commit treason you probably want to keep that close to the vest.

Now you are changing the scenario to "the algorithm figured out how many ballots to print". This scenario is much less plausible, because it takes a ton more people.

You have to develop the ability to print ballots and make them look decent. Same paper, same size, right design. You need more people involved to print and mark 10's of thousands of ballots. This takes a decent amount of people, you are saying it happened in hours when they "stopped counting".

Once they are printed and marked you need to bundle them and send them to the ballot counting center. I need another person willing to commit a felony to get them into the ballot counting center and distribute to the ballot counters.

That is a lot of fraud. It's hard for a bunch of people to keep a secret without someone talking.

And then, after all that work, they forgot to cheat for the down ballot elections and we still have to have runoffs.

I'm not buying it.

A lot of people have stepped forward. Hundreds of sworn affidavits.

I'd like one of the poo-pooers take a crack at actually explaining these graphs instead of simply dismissing them because they point to some really unusual and incredibly hard to believe similarity.

Why did all these graphs break late for one candidate? Trump didn't outperform Sloe in any single State? Even though the predicted "blue wave" of early cheat by mail voting never materialized? All these ballots coincidentally had voters uninterested in ANY of the down ballot issues or candidates?

Talk about what you shouldn't be buying. Why were these same ballots not folded as per instruction either? Not one chance in hell that happens to the tune of 100,000 ballots. Unless, of course...

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

This is not tto difficult an issue to solve--the evidence of fraudulent ballots exists in the ballot boxes, which are supposedly secure. Just have representatives from both parties there at a table and start with one box, any box, say one from Fulton, deKalb or gwinnett Counties, and video a person opening the box, taking out one ballot, examining it so that both parties see it in good lighting, and look for the following: no creases if a "mail in ballot", circle looking like it was stamped instead of filled in with a pen or marker, only a vote for President on ballot with the rest blank,, or other irregularities where BOTH parties cannot agree on the true validity of the ballot--set those aside. Once you have about 30,000 of those, that according to multiple affidavits from multiple witnesses filed in court under penalty of perjury, bring those 30,0000 problem ballots out to be more carefully scrutinized. If you can find more than 12,500 or whatever the number is that look invalid, that's all you need to do.Really should not take too long to do as Rep Paul said and go through and do random samples of ballots to look at each one closely for errors...kinda like they used to do in, oh, I don;t know, Bush Vs. Gore. Let the media film it all in real time and make it all available online for free to anyone who wishes to see.

Now, if you're telling me you don't believe they will possibly find just 12,5000 invalid votes for Biden if they do that, well, I got some swampland you just need to see with a bridge nearby to boot. Can this be corrected? yes. Are they likely to find the needed number of invalid ballots to change the outcome: highly, highly likely if the just look. Did they look at ballots in the re-count? No. they just separated them into Biden/ and Trump piles without considering if anything looked wrong or invalid--so they got the same result as before. If I have 1,000,000 invalid or fake ballots and I count them, and then I recount those same 1,000,000 fake or invalid ballots again I get..wait for it...1,000,000 fake or invalid ballots still! It's amazing how that works. BUT if I take the time to REMOVE any invalid ballot from the pile and THEN recount after doing that, I will get a VERY different result, and THAT result will be valid since I removed all the ballots that were not. A third grader could probably do this in good conscience with little problem. But it's too much to ask of our government officials? That's the BS of this so far. Just do it right and move on with it, instead of LYING about recounting that doesn;t remove invalid ballots from the count.

(11-20-2020 04:09 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:32 PM)Morkai Wrote:  Did you guys see his hair melting off his face?

Too much math for you, eh? Had to take the discussion to the playground where you are more comfortable.

Daily Blast was on the set and the liberal woman lead with the comment about his hair color dripping down his face. At the end of the segment one of the other people said it wasn't ok to make fun of someone for that. It could happen to any of us. You could just see the steam coming out of the ears of the two liberals on the panel.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasrei...9d3635135e

Part of the legal brief they filed in Michigan claiming that there were more votes cast than estimated registered voters were based on Minnesota towns and not Michigan ones. Apparently, they don't know the difference between MI and MN.

Unbelievable. This is the bombshell evidence they have? Even the conservative powerlineblog.com is ripping them a new arsehole to repeat the original highly laughable post in this thread.

From their blog article (entitled Do Trump's Lawyers Know What They Are Doing?)
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2...-doing.php

Here’s the problem: the townships and precincts listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the affidavit are not in Michigan. They are in Minnesota. Monticello, Albertville, Lake Lillian, Houston, Brownsville, Runeberg, Wolf Lake, Height of Land, Detroit Lakes, Frazee, Kandiyohi–these are all towns in Minnesota. I haven’t checked them all, but I checked a lot of them, and all locations listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 that I looked up are in Minnesota, with no corresponding township in Michigan. This would have been obvious to someone from this state, but Mr. Ramsland is a Texan and the lawyers are probably not natives of either Minnesota or Michigan.

Evidently a researcher, either Mr. Ramsland or someone working for him, was working with a database and confused “MI” for Minnesota with “MI” for Michigan. (The postal code for Minnesota is MN, while Michigan is MI, so one can see how this might happen.) So the affidavit, which addresses “anomalies and red flags” in Michigan, is based largely, and mistakenly, on data from Minnesota.

This is a catastrophic error, the kind of thing that causes a legal position to crash and burn. Trump’s lawyers are fighting an uphill battle, to put it mildly, and confusing Michigan with Minnesota will at best make the hill steeper. Credibility once lost is hard to regain. Possibly Trump’s lawyers have already discovered this appalling error, and have undertaken to correct it. But the Ramsland Affidavit was filed in Georgia just yesterday.

A postscript: has Mr. Ramsland inadvertently stumbled across evidence of voter fraud in Minnesota? I seriously doubt it. The venues in question are all in red Greater Minnesota, not in the blue urban areas where voter fraud is common.

(11-20-2020 09:44 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 09:36 AM)DFWMINER Wrote:  They said some precincts had up to 300% of their registered voters vote. Whatever evidence they have, it will be shown soon enough. I just don't think it will be in time. But again it sets the stage for the next election.

What state and what county had this?

They tried saying this about WI right after the election and it was complete BS and the source was a propaganda network built to influence the election by looking like a local paper.

Michigan has turnout by precinct and county on their site, so if MI should be easy to verify. WI let’s you download it as an excel.

Look at my post above. They thought it was Michigan, but it was Minnesota towns (another state which does allow election day registration by the way).

This is a national embarrassment. All it's doing at this point is creating more positive covid cases.

(11-20-2020 04:39 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  A lot of people have stepped forward. Hundreds of sworn affidavits.

I'd like one of the poo-pooers take a crack at actually explaining these graphs instead of simply dismissing them because they point to some really unusual and incredibly hard to believe similarity.

Why did all these graphs break late for one candidate? Trump didn't outperform Sloe in any single State? Even though the predicted "blue wave" of early cheat by mail voting never materialized? All these ballots coincidentally had voters uninterested in ANY of the down ballot issues or candidates?

Talk about what you shouldn't be buying. Why were these same ballots not folded as per instruction either? Not one chance in hell that happens to the tune of 100,000 ballots. Unless, of course...

I had read that those non folded ballots were supposedly 'mail in' ballots, which even our stupider posters should find..........strange. How'd they get them into the envelopes without folding them?

(11-20-2020 04:39 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 04:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:02 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  The top graph is Georgia to illustrate how the algorithm works. The plot isn't time dependent. The X-axis is the total votes cast. The Y-axis is percentage of votes received. The counties are ordered from least votes cast to most votes cast. The red line is Trump, dark blue is Biden, light blue is Jorgensen. Note how Jorgensen’s line is horizontal. The attempt is to show that the results from the smaller counties tend to be an indicator of where the total will end up. Historically, once 20-30% of the votes are tabulated, the statistics will tell you the odds of a candidate winning a particular race are 98% and all the news people will project a winner at that point.

The anomaly is that this data set goes nearly linear as the larger counties are added. As you move along the X-axis, after over one million votes, the curves show almost a one-to-one (0.9815) vote add for Biden and resulting delete for Trump as a part of the whole. Now I get it that larger suburban counties surrounding large cities tend to favor the Dems, but it shouldn't be this clean of trend. The claim is that this was accomplished by a correction factor in the software, hence the need for extra time to tabulate.

The software was either transferring votes from Trump to Biden or dumping votes to 3rd party or non-Trump / non-Biden candidates. Overnight counts were stopped in certain states when it was mathematically impossible to dump enough votes to allow Biden to catch up necessitating the need for physical ballot dumps. The numbers had to made to look "plausible" or close and when it wasn't possible they needed more physical ballots.

Plots below show irregularities of non-repub / non-dem votes increasing over time. States include Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others. See sideways bell shaped trend.

Georgia executed a hand recount of paper ballots that was fundamentally the same outside of the poorly run counties that lost the cards. They finished wed and certified yesterday.

How did the algorithm change the election by adding votes or miscounting votes, when the paper count matches with the electronic count?

Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

You started out saying "Trace showing when the software intervened after the algorithm had run long enough and the AI learned what correction factor to apply. That is when the curve goes linear in vote swapping for Biden."

From a conspiracy perspective saying someone manipulated the software to inject or change votes for biden is more plausible, although if that is what had happened the GA recount would have caught it. The reason this is slightly plausible is that it could be executed with a small number of people (1-2). If you are going to commit treason you probably want to keep that close to the vest.

Now you are changing the scenario to "the algorithm figured out how many ballots to print". This scenario is much less plausible, because it takes a ton more people.

You have to develop the ability to print ballots and make them look decent. Same paper, same size, right design. You need more people involved to print and mark 10's of thousands of ballots. This takes a decent amount of people, you are saying it happened in hours when they "stopped counting".

Once they are printed and marked you need to bundle them and send them to the ballot counting center. I need another person willing to commit a felony to get them into the ballot counting center and distribute to the ballot counters.

That is a lot of fraud. It's hard for a bunch of people to keep a secret without someone talking.

And then, after all that work, they forgot to cheat for the down ballot elections and we still have to have runoffs.

I'm not buying it.

A lot of people have stepped forward. Hundreds of sworn affidavits.

I'd like one of the poo-pooers take a crack at actually explaining these graphs instead of simply dismissing them because they point to some really unusual and incredibly hard to believe similarity.

Why did all these graphs break late for one candidate? Trump didn't outperform Sloe in any single State? Even though the predicted "blue wave" of early cheat by mail voting never materialized? All these ballots coincidentally had voters uninterested in ANY of the down ballot issues or candidates?

Talk about what you shouldn't be buying. Why were these same ballots not folded as per instruction either? Not one chance in hell that happens to the tune of 100,000 ballots. Unless, of course...

The graphs break late for Joe Biden because :

1. More democrats leveraged mail in voting, many of the states you are talking about didn't start counting mail in voting until the morning of. Everyone knew mail in was going to go for Biden, trump even admitted it.
2. Large counties swing democrat. Large counties have more votes to be counted under a single election commission. Results from large counties are verified and published later than results from less populous counties.

There is an easy logical explanation for biden catching up. Mail in voting and results from large cities came in later at night, and through the next couple of days.

Give ‘em hell, Rudy! You definitely come across as a sane, competent attorney. You don’t seem like a incompetent goofball with a serious drinking problem at all.

(11-20-2020 04:39 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 04:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:02 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  The top graph is Georgia to illustrate how the algorithm works. The plot isn't time dependent. The X-axis is the total votes cast. The Y-axis is percentage of votes received. The counties are ordered from least votes cast to most votes cast. The red line is Trump, dark blue is Biden, light blue is Jorgensen. Note how Jorgensen’s line is horizontal. The attempt is to show that the results from the smaller counties tend to be an indicator of where the total will end up. Historically, once 20-30% of the votes are tabulated, the statistics will tell you the odds of a candidate winning a particular race are 98% and all the news people will project a winner at that point.

The anomaly is that this data set goes nearly linear as the larger counties are added. As you move along the X-axis, after over one million votes, the curves show almost a one-to-one (0.9815) vote add for Biden and resulting delete for Trump as a part of the whole. Now I get it that larger suburban counties surrounding large cities tend to favor the Dems, but it shouldn't be this clean of trend. The claim is that this was accomplished by a correction factor in the software, hence the need for extra time to tabulate.

The software was either transferring votes from Trump to Biden or dumping votes to 3rd party or non-Trump / non-Biden candidates. Overnight counts were stopped in certain states when it was mathematically impossible to dump enough votes to allow Biden to catch up necessitating the need for physical ballot dumps. The numbers had to made to look "plausible" or close and when it wasn't possible they needed more physical ballots.

Plots below show irregularities of non-repub / non-dem votes increasing over time. States include Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others. See sideways bell shaped trend.

Georgia executed a hand recount of paper ballots that was fundamentally the same outside of the poorly run counties that lost the cards. They finished wed and certified yesterday.

How did the algorithm change the election by adding votes or miscounting votes, when the paper count matches with the electronic count?

Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

You started out saying "Trace showing when the software intervened after the algorithm had run long enough and the AI learned what correction factor to apply. That is when the curve goes linear in vote swapping for Biden."

From a conspiracy perspective saying someone manipulated the software to inject or change votes for biden is more plausible, although if that is what had happened the GA recount would have caught it. The reason this is slightly plausible is that it could be executed with a small number of people (1-2). If you are going to commit treason you probably want to keep that close to the vest.

Now you are changing the scenario to "the algorithm figured out how many ballots to print". This scenario is much less plausible, because it takes a ton more people.

You have to develop the ability to print ballots and make them look decent. Same paper, same size, right design. You need more people involved to print and mark 10's of thousands of ballots. This takes a decent amount of people, you are saying it happened in hours when they "stopped counting".

Once they are printed and marked you need to bundle them and send them to the ballot counting center. I need another person willing to commit a felony to get them into the ballot counting center and distribute to the ballot counters.

That is a lot of fraud. It's hard for a bunch of people to keep a secret without someone talking.

And then, after all that work, they forgot to cheat for the down ballot elections and we still have to have runoffs.

I'm not buying it.

A lot of people have stepped forward. Hundreds of sworn affidavits.

I'd like one of the poo-pooers take a crack at actually explaining these graphs instead of simply dismissing them because they point to some really unusual and incredibly hard to believe similarity.

Why did all these graphs break late for one candidate? Trump didn't outperform Sloe in any single State? Even though the predicted "blue wave" of early cheat by mail voting never materialized? All these ballots coincidentally had voters uninterested in ANY of the down ballot issues or candidates?

Talk about what you shouldn't be buying. Why were these same ballots not folded as per instruction either? Not one chance in hell that happens to the tune of 100,000 ballots. Unless, of course...

I've seen the screenshots send around from their affidavits. None of them are specific and actionable to the court.

You saw ballots with no crease, which you think is a sure sign of fraud, but you didn't write down the box, lot, table, who was counting, and the time?

I haven't read all of them. Which ones have you read that are specific and actionable, and aren't just a generality of "the circle was filled in too good". What box, lot, table, and time had a bunch of ballots where the circle was filled in too good.

2000 was very specific. Bad punches and how they should be counted. One thing to not the recount was stopped because Gore only wanted to count one county, which trump is doing in WI. They specifically didn't set a precedent in 2000, but something to keep an eye on.

(11-20-2020 07:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 04:39 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 04:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 03:21 PM)DtownBronco Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 01:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Georgia executed a hand recount of paper ballots that was fundamentally the same outside of the poorly run counties that lost the cards. They finished wed and certified yesterday.

How did the algorithm change the election by adding votes or miscounting votes, when the paper count matches with the electronic count?

Trump broke the algorithm. He had such a lead that the number of votes that the software calculated for Biden to take the lead exceeded the number of votes normally available in every other election in history. Explains why we are seeing reports of 99.9% voter turnout and in some strange instances over 100%. This is the reason why count stoppages occurred in the night, to manufacture more physical ballots. As GoodOwl pointed out above that is exactly why the ballots counted in the audit matches the machine count in Georgia. The AI identified the target and the ballots were created to meet it. This explains why you have all these reports of "mail-in" ballots not being folded, ballots with only one circle filled in for Biden and no other down ballot, etc. Also explains all the odd reasons we were told why the count had to stop whether it be a water main break or a break for dinner or whatever. Also explains the video of trucks driving up to the TCF center in the middle of the night in Detroit unloading wagons full of boxes.

You started out saying "Trace showing when the software intervened after the algorithm had run long enough and the AI learned what correction factor to apply. That is when the curve goes linear in vote swapping for Biden."

From a conspiracy perspective saying someone manipulated the software to inject or change votes for biden is more plausible, although if that is what had happened the GA recount would have caught it. The reason this is slightly plausible is that it could be executed with a small number of people (1-2). If you are going to commit treason you probably want to keep that close to the vest.

Now you are changing the scenario to "the algorithm figured out how many ballots to print". This scenario is much less plausible, because it takes a ton more people.

You have to develop the ability to print ballots and make them look decent. Same paper, same size, right design. You need more people involved to print and mark 10's of thousands of ballots. This takes a decent amount of people, you are saying it happened in hours when they "stopped counting".

Once they are printed and marked you need to bundle them and send them to the ballot counting center. I need another person willing to commit a felony to get them into the ballot counting center and distribute to the ballot counters.

That is a lot of fraud. It's hard for a bunch of people to keep a secret without someone talking.

And then, after all that work, they forgot to cheat for the down ballot elections and we still have to have runoffs.

I'm not buying it.

A lot of people have stepped forward. Hundreds of sworn affidavits.

I'd like one of the poo-pooers take a crack at actually explaining these graphs instead of simply dismissing them because they point to some really unusual and incredibly hard to believe similarity.

Why did all these graphs break late for one candidate? Trump didn't outperform Sloe in any single State? Even though the predicted "blue wave" of early cheat by mail voting never materialized? All these ballots coincidentally had voters uninterested in ANY of the down ballot issues or candidates?

Talk about what you shouldn't be buying. Why were these same ballots not folded as per instruction either? Not one chance in hell that happens to the tune of 100,000 ballots. Unless, of course...

I've seen the screenshots send around from their affidavits. None of them are specific and actionable to the court.

You saw ballots with no crease, which you think is a sure sign of fraud, but you didn't write down the box, lot, table, who was counting, and the time?

I haven't read all of them. Which ones have you read that are specific and actionable, and aren't just a generality of "the circle was filled in too good". What box, lot, table, and time had a bunch of ballots where the circle was filled in too good.

2000 was very specific. Bad punches and how they should be counted. One thing to not the recount was stopped because Gore only wanted to count one county, which trump is doing in WI. They specifically didn't set a precedent in 2000, but something to keep an eye on.

I personally really enjoyed the affidavit where the guy reviewed his meal from Checker's.

My parents told me not to make fun of the handicap. I had to apologise after laughing at trump supporters for 4 years.