As mentioned before, we use Benford’s law to justify an investigation and/or audit. The investigation or audit will reveal the evidence that we can use in court.
Exactly. Benford's law is just step 1 of analysis. If something does not pass it, it is either a) worth asking what is special about it or b) an indication it is not a natural sequence, there is probable artificial manipulation that is worth investigating further.
I agree, I don't think anyone, not even statisticians are suggesting that Benford's Law is proof positive of fraud. It is used as a preliminary tool to analyse large data sets to identify the probability that fraud might exist. From that point, a court might uphold a more in-depth investigation and force parties to release documents etc.
You're right. I've seen plenty on this site saying it is proof of shadiness, hence this post. I was under the impression that it was a smoking gun so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
We mainly used it to stabilize morale and show that there is good reason to believe that the results were not legitimate. Until these abnormalities are properly investigated, the results should not be legitimized.
Also, the guy in the video isn’t using the data sets that were actually called into question so he really isn’t debunking anything.
Matt, the guy in the video, is cucked and bathes in vegan milk.
But... he raises good statistical and mathematical points, both in this video and in the other (the Shiva one). And most importantly, statistically and mathematically correct.
Lawsuits better probably not even mention Benford, because it was always a red herring. It could make the case crumble down.
There are many other proofs of fraud, we don’t need to fabricate fake ones out of thin air.
Yes, imagine if democrats actually argued like this and it wasn't just information warfare. I guess they'd have to give up the BLM and climate alarmism pretty fast though.
It doesn't undercut it any more than any of the other statistical anomalies do.
This is the blog of an awesome author who used to be an accountant. The last three posts he has made (as of now) are all about the election's red flags, of which Benford's is one, and his most recent post involves asking all people who have worked with fraud if they have ever seen this much smoke without fire.
Universally they say no, and the reason is the sheer number of red flags. They shouldn't exclude a single one for any reason.
Most people like this that get book deals are cut outs. Their whole job is to build and then burn their credibility when the PR department of the corporation that bought them deems it necessary.
Never trust mainstream sources with corporate funding. They are paid to build credibility and then burn it. That is literally what they are paid for. A good example is Neil Ferguson. Another is Christopher Steele. Another is Michael Avenatti. Another is Max Boot. Another is David Corn.
Here is a CPA and Forensic Analyst with 50yrs experience that Explains Applying Benford’s Law to see Manipulated Data in the Georgia Election, says fraud is apparent.
The guy you linked to doesn't seem to understand that the datasets he is working with in his video are not large enough to expect the relationship to form the distribution. If you look at adult human heights and have a random sample of 1000 people it will look pretty close to a normal distribution if you have a million people, the datapoints will be so small it'll look like a perfect theoretical normal distribution. If you take just ten people, you will more often than not get things that don't conform.
No one in their right mind will "use Benford's" law to go to court. It will be used along with a million other things, to make a case. Some of it will be eye witness, some will be technical, some statistical and some circumstantial. All these evidence together will form a case. Not just Benford's law.
As mentioned before, we use Benford’s law to justify an investigation and/or audit. The investigation or audit will reveal the evidence that we can use in court.
Exactly. Benford's law is just step 1 of analysis. If something does not pass it, it is either a) worth asking what is special about it or b) an indication it is not a natural sequence, there is probable artificial manipulation that is worth investigating further.
I agree, I don't think anyone, not even statisticians are suggesting that Benford's Law is proof positive of fraud. It is used as a preliminary tool to analyse large data sets to identify the probability that fraud might exist. From that point, a court might uphold a more in-depth investigation and force parties to release documents etc.
You're right. I've seen plenty on this site saying it is proof of shadiness, hence this post. I was under the impression that it was a smoking gun so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
We mainly used it to stabilize morale and show that there is good reason to believe that the results were not legitimate. Until these abnormalities are properly investigated, the results should not be legitimized.
Also, the guy in the video isn’t using the data sets that were actually called into question so he really isn’t debunking anything.
Matt, the guy in the video, is cucked and bathes in vegan milk.
But... he raises good statistical and mathematical points, both in this video and in the other (the Shiva one). And most importantly, statistically and mathematically correct.
Lawsuits better probably not even mention Benford, because it was always a red herring. It could make the case crumble down.
There are many other proofs of fraud, we don’t need to fabricate fake ones out of thin air.
Yes, imagine if democrats actually argued like this and it wasn't just information warfare. I guess they'd have to give up the BLM and climate alarmism pretty fast though.
It's because lawyers are generally math retards.
Yes.
Yes but it undercuts other arguments and the courts confidence in the prosecution if they are pushing something that is so easily explained away.
It doesn't undercut it any more than any of the other statistical anomalies do.
This is the blog of an awesome author who used to be an accountant. The last three posts he has made (as of now) are all about the election's red flags, of which Benford's is one, and his most recent post involves asking all people who have worked with fraud if they have ever seen this much smoke without fire.
Universally they say no, and the reason is the sheer number of red flags. They shouldn't exclude a single one for any reason.
Maybe, I have no idea but if he has a book and a reputation it would seem stupid for him to undercut himself like that even if he had poor intentions.
Also, logically on its face his argument makes perfect sense for why the distribution would be as suggested.
Most people like this that get book deals are cut outs. Their whole job is to build and then burn their credibility when the PR department of the corporation that bought them deems it necessary.
Never trust mainstream sources with corporate funding. They are paid to build credibility and then burn it. That is literally what they are paid for. A good example is Neil Ferguson. Another is Christopher Steele. Another is Michael Avenatti. Another is Max Boot. Another is David Corn.
Here is a CPA and Forensic Analyst with 50yrs experience that Explains Applying Benford’s Law to see Manipulated Data in the Georgia Election, says fraud is apparent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoF3WS42w3M&feature=youtu.be
The guy you linked to doesn't seem to understand that the datasets he is working with in his video are not large enough to expect the relationship to form the distribution. If you look at adult human heights and have a random sample of 1000 people it will look pretty close to a normal distribution if you have a million people, the datapoints will be so small it'll look like a perfect theoretical normal distribution. If you take just ten people, you will more often than not get things that don't conform.
I think a guy with 50 years experience as a CPA understands the numbers.
CPAs are totally different then forensic accountants. CPAs literally do not need to use or understand statistics at all.
I take It that it is a good thing that the guy is also a forensic accountant then.
No one in their right mind will "use Benford's" law to go to court. It will be used along with a million other things, to make a case. Some of it will be eye witness, some will be technical, some statistical and some circumstantial. All these evidence together will form a case. Not just Benford's law.
You can see the soy oozing from that guy's pores