How come none of the lawsuits are focused on just witnesses and ballot witnessing, and no mention of the data analysis from various sources that demonstrate the statically impossible nature of Biden's votes? Don't they have to both get ballots thrown out AND do a recount to prove the machines flipped votes?
As a secondary note, can we get a list of all data analysts videos/tweets listed in the comments so we make she we can catalog it all?
Because judges are fucking old and stupid. Witnessed this in MI today. They would literally be like, F that techie mumbo jumo, the gentlemen fron the DNC say it was all fair, I see no reason to mistrust them.
What was the MI outcome?
Judge is a cuck. He will throw it out Friday and they will go to a higher court.
Besides with everyone making the information public, on video he is kinda backed into a corner unless he likes being targeted.
Yeah. You can tell he wants no part of it.
I guess i can't completely balme him. Cant he just forward it to a higher court?
He has to act like he is thinking about it and go through the process.
Maybe he won't. My fingers are still crossed
because it is not illegal to be a statistical anomaly... look at Yao Ming
only illegal actions can be punished not the outcomes
Democrats have filed election lawsuits based entirely on statistical analysis before
like?
as i understand data analysis is not actionable... there was a good video explaining this, sit tight i'll try to fish it up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3EgGeFzNQ&feature=emb_title
hopefully
Isn't that why there are expert witnesses to help authenticate the data and translate it's meaning?
I don't recall that picture of Biden in Africa. linky? ;)
Better to go in with witnesses andthen back up with the data
Data analysis has to be proven scientifically to hold up in court. Frankly, a lot of the stuff posted here, like the Benford's law thing, is deeply flawed and doesn't prove fraud at all
Statistical analysis like Benford's Law is not flawed, but you are correct that it's not legal proof on which you can win a case. The caveat to statistical analysis is that there are always outliers which are real. The statistical analysis tells you where you'll most likely find fraud. You then need to do a complete analysis, which may be impossible if the raw ballots were not retained. If you can look at the actual ballots, you have your proof.
The Benford's law meme posted here specifically was flawed. No one uses first-digit BL for election fraud analysis because it doesn't work. Matt Parker just released a video on it
I can see that.
The analysis by the MIT professor was more compelling. Enough that it should allow plaintiffs to get access to raw ballot data.
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8XLlUrg/numberphile-shows-how-benfords-l/c/
Data analysis will be used to support the evidence presented, not the other way around.
Besides not being actionable, 99.999% of the data analysis on here is bogus.