The those who have short time available, roll to :25 minutes if you have some understanding that within the software used in 30 states and Michigan in particular there is a weighty system to alter vote totals.
This is demonstrated by the analysis.
Irrefutable evidence seems to be the result of this presentation.
Hopefully, the court challenge uses this analysis
Best of all, consume the entire video. Then you will have the education to understand the fraud perpetrated.
Even when 100% honest voting, both with Trump and Biden, their votes don’t follow Benford’s Law. So be careful when too easily fall in this trap.
We have to ask certain questions like: why did Biden win with mail-votes staggering over 58% in Pennsylvania while also in close elections of Arizona, N.Carolina and Georgia with just 4-6% marginal. The gap in Michigan was around 38% for Biden. We have to ask – what made Michigan and even more Pennsylvania so much exceptional. There may have been similar first try in Ohio until they found it was impossible to beat Trump (Biden won mail-votes with 15% marginal, but Trump beat him with 8% of all votes).
I watched this earlier today. As soon as I saw the tilted scatter graph, it became absolutely obvious that something was skewing the results into a biased direction. I didn’t need the orange lines to see it.
Basically it’s a feedback loop that ensures that as the republican vote gets higher, the Biden vote gets an increased proportion of the Trump vote.
This would surely explain the questions that people raise about why the Senate and Congress votes aren’t following the Presidential vote trend.
I haven’t researched it further, but I feel that the nature of a feedback loop is also partly responsible for results being so close.
This was one fantastic presentation; not only did the MIT professor an excellent job making semi-arcane concepts accessible to the wider audience, but he also presented irrefutable evidence that fraud was conducted on an industrial scale in cahoots with the companies making the ballot machines and the global finance oligarchs.
I totally agree with Larchmonter, this is a must see, on so many levels!
Yes, after seeing this you have to ask: How far does is the fraud go? I don’t have proof, but this stuff has most likely been happening in lots of places, so the numbers could be anything, even more than a million. You get the clear impression that it is systemic, the fraud is built into the system and tuned so that the outcome would be a narrow win for Biden no matter what. I will never trust a narrow victory in an election again.
The presentation was excellent indeed.
When we saw the demented Biden in front of nobody but empty cars, we are supposed to believe he won the majority? The guy who says he organised the largest voter fraud in the US history? The guy who sat in his basement? The guy who wears a black mask like a criminal? The guy who’s son provided him with illegal money from Ukraine? The guy who threatened the Ukrainian president to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his corrupt son, and then bragging about it in front of cameras? It goes on and on.
I don’t like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria, Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections again.
“I don’t like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria, Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections again.”
Amen.
Because I say things sort of like this, family members won’t talk to me!!
I guess I’ll have Thanksgiving by myself (sob!) ((:-))
“I don’t like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria, Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections again.”
Amen.
Because I say things sort of like this, family members won’t talk to me!!
I guess I’ll have Thanksgiving by myself (sob!) ((:-))
BTW. was unable to watch the video myself. I got this message:
“An error occurred. Please try again later. (Playback ID: ifMdcKbpCAEFAPjm)
Learn More
This is clearly far more compelling evidence than any talk of dead voters or observers being denied access.
It makes me wonder if both parties are colluding and we’re actually watching a choreographed dance / a divide and conquer operation designed to run and run.
Perhaps I’m just too suspicious, but if this irrefutable evidence is ignored / goes nowhere and instead there’s a continuing pantomime about dead voters, then there is clearly no intention to uncover the truth.
Pay attention to the 1 minute 19 second mark, which shows how a voter’s choice is translated to a candidate.
The video suggests each machine has a master table that lists all the candidates on the ballot associated with the intersection of the two coordinates on the ballot that translates to a candidate’s matching number. The machine then tallies the vote based upon the matching number.
This tells me at some point prior to election night, the hundreds of electronic voting machines have their master table updated with all the candidates and the location of their name on the ballot identified by the intersecting coordinate matching process.
In my opinion, this design lends itself to software fraud and here is why.
For example, if the machine knows that 091511 corresponds to Donald Trump’s name on the ballot, it could have a malicious algorithm that examines the trend of the votes tallied and reassign a portion of the tally to another candidate’s number. It it a technological form of ballot stuffing.
The software must be re-designed to eliminate the master table and only tally the count of the intersecting coordinate on the ballot. At the end of the election day, the counts for each of the intersecting coordinates on the ballot are electronically uploaded to a central server that matches the candidate’s name on the ballot.
That means the position of a candidate’s name on a ballot must be kept confidential until they are handed out on election day to the voters and no software upgrades for the voting machines must be allowed.
The potential for fraud at the central server does exist but an audit of all the polling place results should catch that during a recount.
But I think this is an interesting little scenario for Google/Youtube, in that they have now created their own . . . maybe it is a feedback loop?
Whereby they are now suspected of chicanery if they have an actual tech problem.
Is that really in their own interest—to have created this level of suspicion of their motives and actions?
If they weren’t actually suppressing videos then the viewing public would not immediately jump to the conclusion that they are suppressing material.
In particular in this case it is perfectly reasonable, after Big Tech’s performance of the past weeks, to assume the worst: that there is no barrier they will not breach in the service to their political agenda and that they simply bury whatever they please.
I expect that Google’s “brand managers” don’t give a s— what the public thinks, since they have a virtual l monopoly and their true clients are not the public but TPTB.
This work graphically exposing the fraud is excellent and very educative.
Each passing day, I see a new analysis exposing statistical incoherence in swing states results.
I hope Sydney Powell & Co have the team and the time to prepare all this for use in court.
I was also happy to learn about a Rockefeller sponsored non profit organization dedicated to elections (fraud). Does that mean Trump was the chosen one in 2016? I still doubt it, I think they miscalculated.
Around the 50 minute mark, a Permanent Voter Registration Card is suggested.
It made me wonder wether the excuse of fraud also will be used to introduce the digital ID.
I have a problem with the way they present the data, why haven’t they done the same with the Democrat side for the four Michigan counties ?
In thinking through what they show (x-axis: straight Rep.-voting, y-axis: singlePres-vote – straight Rep.-voting) there can very well be a ‘disconnect’ between the two in favor of one:
The more a preccinct leans to the party in general, being perfectly happy with anything (including the Pres.) they will use predomninatnly straight voting, and vice versa (thus the ‘ball’ distribution for Wayne county) in tendency.
How uniform a preccinct in general votes is dependent on very many socio-economic factors within it, thus we might see very specific patterns in using this specific tabulation, and thus they are useless to detect fraud or software error or manipulation.
However this doesn’t change the fundamental criticism they have with the voting-software, all points they make are valid and should be a certification criteria.
Regarding the cheating one could analyze how likely it is that all ‘strategic’ States in the final result show hair-thin vote number differences AND that in all of them there was a very marked trend reversal AFTER 3.11 and of course all the other hair raising issues like cast votes % to registered voters etc., etc.
“why haven’t they done the same with the Democrat side for the four Michigan counties ?”
I wonder whether doing that would reveal a kind of mirror image of the graphs presented.
One of the mistakes that Gore made in 2000 (I believe) was to ask for recounts just in particular counties.
It w ould have been better to ask for a recount in all counties. IOW cherry-picking counties that wuld prove his win I think might have undermined his “high road” standing. If a few counties had legitimately been added tot he Bush column, so be it . . .
So it would be great to do this analysis for all counties in all of the swing states that miraculously “swung” at ca. 4:00 a.m. on Nov. 4. But is there time for this before Dec. 12? And who pays for it?
It seems to me that all costs of recounting and analysis should come out of state coffers.
I agree that while the presentation makes the data look pretty damning–and it may indeed be damning–the scientific part of my mind would like to see other potential variables addressed to either strengthen this possible indicator of fraud, or weaken it if it should be weakened. It would be nice if they can obtain similar data from (a) counties with similar demographics but in which manual recounts have been completed, (b) more than one county with the opposite demographic, to see if Biden suffers a similar linear drop-off in increasingly Democratic-leaning counties; (c) similar counties in other states which use the same computer counting systems, and (d) similar counties in other states which do not use these manipulable computer counting systems. Depending on what they discovered in these scenarios, that could potentially really make this an iron clad method of detecting fraud in the future; or might point to some variable which naturally explains the results (much less likely, but would still be of great interest to academics).
The professor showed you over 100 precincts, probably 150. That’s a huge universe of facts. It involves thousands of voters. You don’t need to test a million apples falling to the ground to prove gravity exists. One apple, or in this case 100+ will suffice.
I don’t know why you need to see more. You have a clear demonstration of the crime, the fraud, the illegal manipulation of the vote totals. Where it was done, how it moved votes from Trump to Biden.
You have the name of the machines, the name of the softwares, the name of module to “weight” the tally.
Did a crime occur? Could it be a glitch? Yes to the first, impossible to the second.
You cannot disprove the reality you see.
Now, there were 47 locales in Michigan that had the same system.
And there were 28-30 states that had the same system.
The technology was exposed in 2000 by the NYTimes.
Snowden showed how the CIA used this in elections abroad.
Do you want God to come explain it more clearly? Is that the “proof” you need?
Recounts mean nothing if you are recounting paper that was bogus in the beginning. A rigged tally produces rigged ballots to recount.
It’s meaningless if Biden lost votes. Logic tells you that he didn’t lose anything in the tally. He wound up with more votes that were illegal. His victory is bogus.
The realization that Trump pulled 8-9 million more voters to the Red this election, increased Congressional seats, held the Senate seats, helped women in large numbers win Congressional and Senate seats, pulled more Blacks, Latinos and Asians to the Red, but he alone lost is incredulous. That is more than an anomaly. That’s proof by any rational analysis (less specific facts such as Dr. Shiva’s) that a fraud was perpetrated on Trump votes. They were redirected to Biden as Dr. Shiva has demonstrated.
This election will never be accepted by 72 Million Americans. Never. It is the final attempt at an on-going Deep State + Dems coup against Trump and MAGA voters. They have been at it since 2015 when he announced his candidacy.
his primary point is that we know we are in a color revolution when the media are in lockstep, even though the election result is officially open.
However, he interprets the full-court press to anoint Biden as a sign of weakness, not strength.
He also see the alacrity of foreign nations to jump on board with the “recognition” of Biden as a sheep/goats moment: the sheep being those who are going along with the color revolution in the USA.
Mr. Matt Parker analysis does not seem to contradict to Dr. Shiva. Moreover he actually helped
Shiva and Shiva thanked him.
One instead of being confused or arguing just do own thinking. In this case, the
Math is below K12 level.
Secondly, Mr. Parker does not reach the point where analysis just begins. He does some plots and stops at them. See the second Shiva’s presentation.
Thirdly:
There are “complains” in Youtube comments about missing analysis for Biden as
a “bias”. But the “curve for Biden” is just a flip of Trumps curve.
Fourthly, there is an idea:
the flip we saw on CNN was because it happened in time interval inside which
the algorithm applied weighting raise ( which describe by Dr. Shiva ) transformation.
Someone should explore this idea.
Finally, here is the Math:
Part A.
======
For given precinct, full metric y is:
y = (C-x)p,
where
x = a percentage of votes for party “c” in straight-party-votes:
x = 100 * c / P,
P = straight-party-votes,
c = votes for party c in pull of P,
C = percentage of votes for presidential candidate C of party c in individual-votes
C = 100 * K / I,
I = individual-votes;
K = votes for candidate C in pull of I,
p – is a fraction of individual-votes at precinct,
p = I / ( I + P ),
(mnemonics is “person’s fraction”, “i” as for “individual” is not a good notation)
We do index precincts via variable x, so all parameters become functions of x
y(x) = (C(x)-x)p(x)
These are the curves displayed on Mr. Siva and Mr. Parker posts.
For Trump:
y(x) = (T(x)-x)p(x)
for Biden
y'(x’) = (B(x’)-x’)p(x’)
x’ = 100 – x.
B = 100 – x.
In Dr. Shiva’s November 10 and 16 Youtube posts [1], [2], and in Mr. Parker post [4]:
p = 1,
for Trump, horizontal axis is x,
for Biden, horizontal axis is x’,
If one wants to match B and T curves along the same variable, then
axes can be synchronized by selecting the only one variable,
for example x:
y(x) = T-x
y'(x) = 100-T-(100-x) = -(T-x)
so the curve for Biden will have “opposite” slope as many bloggers expected:
t(x) = T-x
b(x) = -(T-x)
for simpler notations for y and y’.
Note, this does not change Dr. Shiva’s analysis and conclusion, because interpretation of curves
stays the same. (Matt actually did a good job. He did not synchronize axes at the end which may
confuse some readers. Dr. Shiva even thanked Mr. Matt Parker. (video [2], time ~ 1:07)
Part B.
======
But this analysis stops half way. It does not tell a number. A number which is a
probability of a fraud. The words “highly likely”, “nearly impossible” must be supported
by a number.
For example, in Physics, in gases statistical theory, probabilities usually never zero, but
smaller than threshold when processes become a “law”. If a knife placed on the table which
jumps by gas moleculas speed fluctuation and hits a person, this probability is around 10^-23.
No judge will ever consider the possibility of a knife by its own alone killing the person.
All the laws of Thermodynamics based on small probability, making their break “nearly impossible”.
It is possible that all the cars in the World suddenly stop working because they govern
by the Thermodynamics laws, but again, nobody considers this.
So what is a fraud probability implied from 2020 election data?
I remember going to Brighton peer on a school outing when I was 11 years old
their was a penny in the slot gambling arcade on the peer .I selected what appeared to be the gambling machine with the most opportunity of winning
A machine which involved rolling in a penny which fell sideways onto a reciprocating table that shunted forward and backwards until a surplus of pennies gathering in layers spilled over the edge as winnings
After skillfully being able to place pennies into the optimum position to produce a winning overspill I noticed that the “payout “was about 30% of the overspill
So instead of standing in front of the penny in the slot machine I stood at the side as i rolled in the coin, in order to look down into the machine overspill edge in real time ,only to see that overspill “winnings” were collected by the machine itself which shot out flaps to collect a large percentage of thatoverspill on the way down into the “winnings” tray
I Lost 70 pence that day but i learned that the world is run by devious crooks who seduce punters with their deceptions
The elective Democracy has been turned into an unelective dimocrazy
The dominion riggable voting machines create a selective environment promoting the survival of the filthiest
If Joe Biden gains the Presidency despite the above—and other—evidence of an election steal, then the Varsity-Blues students, whose parents bribed their kids’ ways into top universities but subsequently got kicked out, should be allowed to re-enroll.
The those who have short time available, roll to :25 minutes if you have some understanding that within the software used in 30 states and Michigan in particular there is a weighty system to alter vote totals.
This is demonstrated by the analysis.
Irrefutable evidence seems to be the result of this presentation.
Hopefully, the court challenge uses this analysis
Best of all, consume the entire video. Then you will have the education to understand the fraud perpetrated.
The point here is that the Benford Law doesn’t have 100% waterproof testimone when estimating voting fraud.
Watch this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78&t
Even when 100% honest voting, both with Trump and Biden, their votes don’t follow Benford’s Law. So be careful when too easily fall in this trap.
We have to ask certain questions like: why did Biden win with mail-votes staggering over 58% in Pennsylvania while also in close elections of Arizona, N.Carolina and Georgia with just 4-6% marginal. The gap in Michigan was around 38% for Biden. We have to ask – what made Michigan and even more Pennsylvania so much exceptional. There may have been similar first try in Ohio until they found it was impossible to beat Trump (Biden won mail-votes with 15% marginal, but Trump beat him with 8% of all votes).
The video isnt about Benford’s Law.
I watched this earlier today. As soon as I saw the tilted scatter graph, it became absolutely obvious that something was skewing the results into a biased direction. I didn’t need the orange lines to see it.
Basically it’s a feedback loop that ensures that as the republican vote gets higher, the Biden vote gets an increased proportion of the Trump vote.
This would surely explain the questions that people raise about why the Senate and Congress votes aren’t following the Presidential vote trend.
I haven’t researched it further, but I feel that the nature of a feedback loop is also partly responsible for results being so close.
This was one fantastic presentation; not only did the MIT professor an excellent job making semi-arcane concepts accessible to the wider audience, but he also presented irrefutable evidence that fraud was conducted on an industrial scale in cahoots with the companies making the ballot machines and the global finance oligarchs.
I totally agree with Larchmonter, this is a must see, on so many levels!
Yes, after seeing this you have to ask: How far does is the fraud go? I don’t have proof, but this stuff has most likely been happening in lots of places, so the numbers could be anything, even more than a million. You get the clear impression that it is systemic, the fraud is built into the system and tuned so that the outcome would be a narrow win for Biden no matter what. I will never trust a narrow victory in an election again.
The presentation was excellent indeed.
When we saw the demented Biden in front of nobody but empty cars, we are supposed to believe he won the majority? The guy who says he organised the largest voter fraud in the US history? The guy who sat in his basement? The guy who wears a black mask like a criminal? The guy who’s son provided him with illegal money from Ukraine? The guy who threatened the Ukrainian president to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his corrupt son, and then bragging about it in front of cameras? It goes on and on.
I don’t like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria, Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections again.
“I don’t like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria, Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections again.”
Amen.
Because I say things sort of like this, family members won’t talk to me!!
I guess I’ll have Thanksgiving by myself (sob!) ((:-))
Katherine
We’d have you over with great pleasure Katherine. What a shame we’re a bit far out of your neighbourhood (S-W of France).
Cheers!
Jacques
“I don’t like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria, Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections again.”
Amen.
Because I say things sort of like this, family members won’t talk to me!!
I guess I’ll have Thanksgiving by myself (sob!) ((:-))
BTW. was unable to watch the video myself. I got this message:
“An error occurred. Please try again later. (Playback ID: ifMdcKbpCAEFAPjm)
Learn More
Katherine
U-Tube was down across the board last night for about a hour.
This is clearly far more compelling evidence than any talk of dead voters or observers being denied access.
It makes me wonder if both parties are colluding and we’re actually watching a choreographed dance / a divide and conquer operation designed to run and run.
Perhaps I’m just too suspicious, but if this irrefutable evidence is ignored / goes nowhere and instead there’s a continuing pantomime about dead voters, then there is clearly no intention to uncover the truth.
Here is a 2 minute 20 second video that explains how some ballots are counted
See: https://www.essvote.com/blog/video/video-how-are-ballots-counted/
Pay attention to the 1 minute 19 second mark, which shows how a voter’s choice is translated to a candidate.
The video suggests each machine has a master table that lists all the candidates on the ballot associated with the intersection of the two coordinates on the ballot that translates to a candidate’s matching number. The machine then tallies the vote based upon the matching number.
This tells me at some point prior to election night, the hundreds of electronic voting machines have their master table updated with all the candidates and the location of their name on the ballot identified by the intersecting coordinate matching process.
In my opinion, this design lends itself to software fraud and here is why.
For example, if the machine knows that 091511 corresponds to Donald Trump’s name on the ballot, it could have a malicious algorithm that examines the trend of the votes tallied and reassign a portion of the tally to another candidate’s number. It it a technological form of ballot stuffing.
The software must be re-designed to eliminate the master table and only tally the count of the intersecting coordinate on the ballot. At the end of the election day, the counts for each of the intersecting coordinates on the ballot are electronically uploaded to a central server that matches the candidate’s name on the ballot.
That means the position of a candidate’s name on a ballot must be kept confidential until they are handed out on election day to the voters and no software upgrades for the voting machines must be allowed.
The potential for fraud at the central server does exist but an audit of all the polling place results should catch that during a recount.
I think I have found the video on Bitchute:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XAmigqBh8zAK/
Google/Youtube seems to be suppressing.
Katherine
Youtube had technical problems today.
https://sputniknews.com/viral/202011121081136443-users-worldwide-report-technical-glitch-on-youtube-company-says-issue-fixed/
OK. I believe that.
But I think this is an interesting little scenario for Google/Youtube, in that they have now created their own . . . maybe it is a feedback loop?
Whereby they are now suspected of chicanery if they have an actual tech problem.
Is that really in their own interest—to have created this level of suspicion of their motives and actions?
If they weren’t actually suppressing videos then the viewing public would not immediately jump to the conclusion that they are suppressing material.
In particular in this case it is perfectly reasonable, after Big Tech’s performance of the past weeks, to assume the worst: that there is no barrier they will not breach in the service to their political agenda and that they simply bury whatever they please.
I expect that Google’s “brand managers” don’t give a s— what the public thinks, since they have a virtual l monopoly and their true clients are not the public but TPTB.
Katherine
This work graphically exposing the fraud is excellent and very educative.
Each passing day, I see a new analysis exposing statistical incoherence in swing states results.
I hope Sydney Powell & Co have the team and the time to prepare all this for use in court.
I was also happy to learn about a Rockefeller sponsored non profit organization dedicated to elections (fraud). Does that mean Trump was the chosen one in 2016? I still doubt it, I think they miscalculated.
the video is deleted or banned.
Youi can see it here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XAmigqBh8zAK/
Katherine
It all is constructed to go that way The US is an oligarchic plutocracy!
Around the 50 minute mark, a Permanent Voter Registration Card is suggested.
It made me wonder wether the excuse of fraud also will be used to introduce the digital ID.
I have a problem with the way they present the data, why haven’t they done the same with the Democrat side for the four Michigan counties ?
In thinking through what they show (x-axis: straight Rep.-voting, y-axis: singlePres-vote – straight Rep.-voting) there can very well be a ‘disconnect’ between the two in favor of one:
The more a preccinct leans to the party in general, being perfectly happy with anything (including the Pres.) they will use predomninatnly straight voting, and vice versa (thus the ‘ball’ distribution for Wayne county) in tendency.
How uniform a preccinct in general votes is dependent on very many socio-economic factors within it, thus we might see very specific patterns in using this specific tabulation, and thus they are useless to detect fraud or software error or manipulation.
However this doesn’t change the fundamental criticism they have with the voting-software, all points they make are valid and should be a certification criteria.
Regarding the cheating one could analyze how likely it is that all ‘strategic’ States in the final result show hair-thin vote number differences AND that in all of them there was a very marked trend reversal AFTER 3.11 and of course all the other hair raising issues like cast votes % to registered voters etc., etc.
“why haven’t they done the same with the Democrat side for the four Michigan counties ?”
I wonder whether doing that would reveal a kind of mirror image of the graphs presented.
One of the mistakes that Gore made in 2000 (I believe) was to ask for recounts just in particular counties.
It w ould have been better to ask for a recount in all counties. IOW cherry-picking counties that wuld prove his win I think might have undermined his “high road” standing. If a few counties had legitimately been added tot he Bush column, so be it . . .
So it would be great to do this analysis for all counties in all of the swing states that miraculously “swung” at ca. 4:00 a.m. on Nov. 4. But is there time for this before Dec. 12? And who pays for it?
It seems to me that all costs of recounting and analysis should come out of state coffers.
Katherine
I agree that while the presentation makes the data look pretty damning–and it may indeed be damning–the scientific part of my mind would like to see other potential variables addressed to either strengthen this possible indicator of fraud, or weaken it if it should be weakened. It would be nice if they can obtain similar data from (a) counties with similar demographics but in which manual recounts have been completed, (b) more than one county with the opposite demographic, to see if Biden suffers a similar linear drop-off in increasingly Democratic-leaning counties; (c) similar counties in other states which use the same computer counting systems, and (d) similar counties in other states which do not use these manipulable computer counting systems. Depending on what they discovered in these scenarios, that could potentially really make this an iron clad method of detecting fraud in the future; or might point to some variable which naturally explains the results (much less likely, but would still be of great interest to academics).
@J Swift,
The professor showed you over 100 precincts, probably 150. That’s a huge universe of facts. It involves thousands of voters. You don’t need to test a million apples falling to the ground to prove gravity exists. One apple, or in this case 100+ will suffice.
I don’t know why you need to see more. You have a clear demonstration of the crime, the fraud, the illegal manipulation of the vote totals. Where it was done, how it moved votes from Trump to Biden.
You have the name of the machines, the name of the softwares, the name of module to “weight” the tally.
Did a crime occur? Could it be a glitch? Yes to the first, impossible to the second.
You cannot disprove the reality you see.
Now, there were 47 locales in Michigan that had the same system.
And there were 28-30 states that had the same system.
The technology was exposed in 2000 by the NYTimes.
Snowden showed how the CIA used this in elections abroad.
Do you want God to come explain it more clearly? Is that the “proof” you need?
Recounts mean nothing if you are recounting paper that was bogus in the beginning. A rigged tally produces rigged ballots to recount.
It’s meaningless if Biden lost votes. Logic tells you that he didn’t lose anything in the tally. He wound up with more votes that were illegal. His victory is bogus.
The realization that Trump pulled 8-9 million more voters to the Red this election, increased Congressional seats, held the Senate seats, helped women in large numbers win Congressional and Senate seats, pulled more Blacks, Latinos and Asians to the Red, but he alone lost is incredulous. That is more than an anomaly. That’s proof by any rational analysis (less specific facts such as Dr. Shiva’s) that a fraud was perpetrated on Trump votes. They were redirected to Biden as Dr. Shiva has demonstrated.
This election will never be accepted by 72 Million Americans. Never. It is the final attempt at an on-going Deep State + Dems coup against Trump and MAGA voters. They have been at it since 2015 when he announced his candidacy.
This was also on Twitter.
I am really surprised that both forums didn’t censor it.
It has a long intro, and takes time to consume it all. Most people have attention spans for TikTok videos.
Look at how many views here for this location of the video. Over 3000 as I write. Yet, only 22 comments. And some are repeat commentators.
Most people want knowledge in the form of a fast-dissolving lozenge. They are programmed to 5 second presentations.
Even the classic “elevator pitch” of two minutes (used in Hollywood and some Business presentations, is now down to 15 seconds or less.
The world has been dumbed down to almost no “thinking”. Americans lead the pack. Not just sheep, but dim-witted sheep.
Add this article about Michigan chicanery to your knowledge.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2020-11-11/michigan-election-fraud-evidence-wolverine-state-chicanery-during-americas-2020
I’m so grateful that you spoke up with your Professional research. The truth matters!
Interesting analysis over at Strategic Culture.org by Tim Kirby:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/11/13/inter-election-period-breakdown-of-strange-moment-of-us-history-that-we-right-now/
his primary point is that we know we are in a color revolution when the media are in lockstep, even though the election result is officially open.
However, he interprets the full-court press to anoint Biden as a sign of weakness, not strength.
He also see the alacrity of foreign nations to jump on board with the “recognition” of Biden as a sheep/goats moment: the sheep being those who are going along with the color revolution in the USA.
FWIW. Worth a read, IMO.
Katherine
AMAZING!!! This is what we need: independent intellectual engineers running the show. Put these guys in charge!!!!!
LOVE IT!!! I keep reposting this to Parler, friends, Twitter, Rush Limbaugh & even sent it to Lindsey Powell…. I don’t see it anywhere!!!
The video by Dr Shiva has been debunked by this other youtuber that is funded by one of the hedge funds.
https://youtu.be/aokNwKx7gM8
Apparently the Math is wrong.
Can anybody trained in Statistics check the claims?
Also listen to the November 24 CORSI NATION podcast. I listened to it on Apple’s Podcast app.
This is my point of view,
Mr. Matt Parker analysis does not seem to contradict to Dr. Shiva. Moreover he actually helped
Shiva and Shiva thanked him.
One instead of being confused or arguing just do own thinking. In this case, the
Math is below K12 level.
Secondly, Mr. Parker does not reach the point where analysis just begins. He does some plots and stops at them. See the second Shiva’s presentation.
Thirdly:
There are “complains” in Youtube comments about missing analysis for Biden as
a “bias”. But the “curve for Biden” is just a flip of Trumps curve.
Fourthly, there is an idea:
the flip we saw on CNN was because it happened in time interval inside which
the algorithm applied weighting raise ( which describe by Dr. Shiva ) transformation.
Someone should explore this idea.
Finally, here is the Math:
Part A.
======
For given precinct, full metric y is:
y = (C-x)p,
where
x = a percentage of votes for party “c” in straight-party-votes:
x = 100 * c / P,
P = straight-party-votes,
c = votes for party c in pull of P,
C = percentage of votes for presidential candidate C of party c in individual-votes
C = 100 * K / I,
I = individual-votes;
K = votes for candidate C in pull of I,
p – is a fraction of individual-votes at precinct,
p = I / ( I + P ),
(mnemonics is “person’s fraction”, “i” as for “individual” is not a good notation)
We do index precincts via variable x, so all parameters become functions of x
y(x) = (C(x)-x)p(x)
These are the curves displayed on Mr. Siva and Mr. Parker posts.
For Trump:
y(x) = (T(x)-x)p(x)
for Biden
y'(x’) = (B(x’)-x’)p(x’)
x’ = 100 – x.
B = 100 – x.
In Dr. Shiva’s November 10 and 16 Youtube posts [1], [2], and in Mr. Parker post [4]:
p = 1,
for Trump, horizontal axis is x,
for Biden, horizontal axis is x’,
If one wants to match B and T curves along the same variable, then
axes can be synchronized by selecting the only one variable,
for example x:
y(x) = T-x
y'(x) = 100-T-(100-x) = -(T-x)
so the curve for Biden will have “opposite” slope as many bloggers expected:
t(x) = T-x
b(x) = -(T-x)
for simpler notations for y and y’.
Note, this does not change Dr. Shiva’s analysis and conclusion, because interpretation of curves
stays the same. (Matt actually did a good job. He did not synchronize axes at the end which may
confuse some readers. Dr. Shiva even thanked Mr. Matt Parker. (video [2], time ~ 1:07)
Part B.
======
But this analysis stops half way. It does not tell a number. A number which is a
probability of a fraud. The words “highly likely”, “nearly impossible” must be supported
by a number.
For example, in Physics, in gases statistical theory, probabilities usually never zero, but
smaller than threshold when processes become a “law”. If a knife placed on the table which
jumps by gas moleculas speed fluctuation and hits a person, this probability is around 10^-23.
No judge will ever consider the possibility of a knife by its own alone killing the person.
All the laws of Thermodynamics based on small probability, making their break “nearly impossible”.
It is possible that all the cars in the World suddenly stop working because they govern
by the Thermodynamics laws, but again, nobody considers this.
So what is a fraud probability implied from 2020 election data?
References originally missed in Bitlab comment:
References:
[1] presentation Nov 10,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk&feature=emb_logo
[2] presentation, Nov 16:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8xb6qJKJqU&feature=emb_logo
[3] Dr. Shiva site:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Esh5OiaDMUt-iEHYCbQCg
[3′] Another analysis: Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presents his data at the Arizona Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZjICAqY0B4
Mr. Matt Parker
[4] presentation:
Do these scatter plots reveal fraudulent vote-switching in Michigan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8&feature=youtu.be
[5] site: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSju5G2aFaWMqn-_0YBtq5A
I remember going to Brighton peer on a school outing when I was 11 years old
their was a penny in the slot gambling arcade on the peer .I selected what appeared to be the gambling machine with the most opportunity of winning
A machine which involved rolling in a penny which fell sideways onto a reciprocating table that shunted forward and backwards until a surplus of pennies gathering in layers spilled over the edge as winnings
After skillfully being able to place pennies into the optimum position to produce a winning overspill I noticed that the “payout “was about 30% of the overspill
So instead of standing in front of the penny in the slot machine I stood at the side as i rolled in the coin, in order to look down into the machine overspill edge in real time ,only to see that overspill “winnings” were collected by the machine itself which shot out flaps to collect a large percentage of thatoverspill on the way down into the “winnings” tray
I Lost 70 pence that day but i learned that the world is run by devious crooks who seduce punters with their deceptions
The elective Democracy has been turned into an unelective dimocrazy
The dominion riggable voting machines create a selective environment promoting the survival of the filthiest
If Joe Biden gains the Presidency despite the above—and other—evidence of an election steal, then the Varsity-Blues students, whose parents bribed their kids’ ways into top universities but subsequently got kicked out, should be allowed to re-enroll.