https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGGlnHe3Rgc
Been watching
If this is not evidence of voter fraud, what is?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshLowry
It sure doesn't seem like an organic dump of votes. Looking forward to this all fleshing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Me too! I think Lin Wood is presenting a solid case in GA.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshLowry
I think the problem is going to be that it's evidence to suggest there was fraud, but no direct evidence of the fraud being committed. There's evidence of opportunity, and there's evidence of abnormalities, but there doesn't yet appear to be evidence of the ballots in question being fed into the count. Nor evidence that the ballots are not valid. So far, it's circumstantial.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
But it IS evidence and it IS credible.
The left will argue that Trump was telling his supporters not to trust mail-ins, so they didn't use them. So, to them, it's not surprising that the mail-in block would be so lopsided.
Where else was Trump Voter mail in turn out so bad? I remember reading something about the speed of the machines and how it limits the possible number of ballots that can be processed in a given period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptUSA
Bobblehead will be by to tell us that this isn't evidence of any sort.
There is NO EVIDENCE of voter fraud....
That’s now BALONEY
If 600,000 ballots can be processed in 90 minutes, why did it take so long to do the initial count or so long for recounts?
I think they were loading votes from memory cards or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
All you have to do is just start looking at other big cities to see that the only areas with these crazy abnormalities were in the swing states that Biden won.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptUSA
Cleveland had like a 50%+ voter turnout, and Milwaukee had like a 90%+ turnout.
The mail-in ballot ratio was also significantly different in these areas where Biden won, compared to other areas where he lost, including similar types of cities in swing states.
It's like we have a dead body, and the people with motive and opportunity for murder are saying "that doesn't prove anything."
No question. It certainly looks like fraud. But is it provable? So far, the evidence isn’t proof. It’s strong circumstantial, but no smoking gun. Yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannno
A man shoots another. He throws the pistol in a river and it is not recoverable. There is no forensic evidence. 100 eyewitnesses come forward and testify that they saw the man shoot another. They describe the crime, the place and the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!
That's the equivalent of the bullshit I keep hearing from bobbleheads.
Does anyone know what time this 600k ballot dump took place? Would it be safe to say that it happened in the morning hours the day after they election while the where supposedly shut down? There was total 2,600,000 mail in ballots? How could they count all those ballots in a few hours and take days and days to count the other 77%? Lets say it took 8 hours to count 23%, the remaining 77% should have been counted in another 27 hours. The counting would have been done much sooner.
It's auto-magical!Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Oh. Thanks now I get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by phill4paul
When you hear 600,000 for Joey and 3200 for Trump, that sounds excessive. When you look at it as 200 for Joe and 1 for Trump, it doesn't seem too terribly unreasonable. S/
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannno
I miss Bubs.
Also, I watched most of this thing today and it was badass.
This is just the beginning.
The snowball will continue to roll downhill until it is a D5 avalanche.
I'm still more fascinated by how MI, GA, and WI all seemed to quit counting ballots after Fox News declared AZ for Biden shortly after polls closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
And then to have some "ballot dumps" in the wee hours of the morning on 11/4...
I think it also needs to be said that many (most?) of us on here have never been big fans of Trump. But you have to admit, he really did piss off the Deep State, didn't he? I mean, all of 2016-2020 was the Deep State and their little fingers in the MSM trying to drown the dude and he refused to give in. He gained my respect, even though I'm still not a big fan of his. And honestly, I hope he pulls through all of this somehow because Biden/Xiden as a lot of folks are referring to him and his vicious little VP are 100% DS/NWO/UN lackeys. With Trump at the helm, it's possible we delay their plans a little bit longer.
It took longer to print 600,000 Biden ballots than it did to scan them all inQuote:
Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Give me physical access to the system and I can do it in a few minutes.
UPDATE VoteTotals SET BidenVotes = BidenVotes + 600000
Vote by punchcard. You can count those manually, mechanically or digitally. No funny business with ink etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkBuddha
..
Giuliani drives a point home
Your election is a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V44a7ZUHobI
I claim no particular expertise in statistical modeling, but I am trained in statistics, have taught undergraduate-level probabilistic modeling (computer science), and have a wickedly refined sense of the statistical nature things.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshLowry
That said, if what the witness has testified is in fact the truth, I must agree with his assessment that the observation is strong indication of something very rotten in Denmark.
The larger a sample, the closer to the mean will be its character. Six hundred thousand is a very large sample. If the mean separation between the candidates in the original official ballot count was even as high as twenty percent, indicating an extraordinary landslide, there is basically no statistically valid chance that one would see so freakishly lopsided a batch tally as that reported. Simply put, it is statistically not possible to see so vast a variance from the mean in a sample representing nearly 10% of the whole.
The actual stated numbers lead to a non-credible proportion that runs wildly from the mean. 1 - (3200/604000) = 0.99947. That Biden held 99.947% over so large a block of counts is simply not credible in any way or degree. It is statistically impossible. Even if the batch were taken from inner-city über-ghetto parasite-infested Philly, so absurd a skew from the mean is not possible. It wouldn't even be possible in NYC, which almost certainly runs farther left and parasite-skewed.
A single such variance in tallying would be close enough to impossible, but there is something else that would have had to have happened that was not mentioned in the video. If Biden had truly won as per the official story, then there would perforce have had to have been at least one equally anomalous instance of a batch as violently skewed in Trump's favor in order to put the final result at the thin final margin. A single such anomaly would make the overall probability at zero, which is to say there is no possible way that an "organic" process would yield two huge seismic waves of variance from the mean during counting. It is simply not possible, PERIOD.
Equally unlikely, even if it appear otherwise to an untrained observer, would be a larger number of less-skewed batch entries, all in Trump's favor, to drag the final result back to the percent or two final result difference. That, too, is vanishingly small in terms of possibility and when coupled with the single enormous variance once again constitutes a practical impossibility.
The actual numbers, taken from Wikipedia (I know, but it's 4 AM) are as follow:
Trump 3378263 votes, Biden 3459923. Biden won by just over one percent - nowhere nearly a landslide. Yet, in nearly nine percent of the total tally of 6838186 votes - the batch in question in the OP - he won by 99.947%. Ç'est impossible.
What we typically find in elections in terms of overall result v. time is an initial period with large spikes (proportionally speaking, with the absolute numbers being LOW) where the variance is large - this happens ALL THE TIME. But as more precincts report, the variances become proportionally ever smaller in relation to the total tally, which is why the curve normalizes with time, becoming smoother as the percent-reported grows. To have so violent a spike at any time during the counting demands equal compensation in the other direction, i.e. in Trump's favor. So if Trump lost by, say, one percent, he will have had to have done freakishly well in other quarters of the state in order to regain the devastating losses purportedly sustained in the precinct(s) that added up to 99.947%. This is pure fiction of the Twilight Zone variety.
Now, if we toss all those anomalous votes, which is the solution least injurious to the "dignity" and credibility of the state of Pennsylvania, the numbers come thusly:
Trump: 3375063, Biden: 2851923 -> Trump takes PA by between 16% and 19%, depending on how you calculate the ratio. That, my friends, is a landslide.
Anyone denying fraud in such a case would be prima facie either a liar, blitheringly ignorant of statistics, non-trivially brain-damaged, or some combination of all three.
Accepting the PA result, again assuming the witness speaks truthfully and accurately, would be analogous to believing a claim that they saw a 300 year old anvil in controlled flight from NYC to Los Angeles without the benefit of any aeronautical means whatsoever. Not possible under normal terrestrial conditions.
So either there was in fact massive fraud in PA, or the witness is a liar and should be imprisoned for life. My vote leans toward the former.
Get out your notebook. Soon @TheCount will be giving you a lesson.Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
As I've said before, don't get taken in by the urge to "do something" at the federal level (not saying that you are). That's a disaster waiting to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshLowry
Let the states handle it.