Piton's Twitter account was suspended WHILE he was giving this testimony. It's still suspended at this time. In the meantime, he's set up a new handle: @realBobbyPiton
Edit: He's also on Parler at @BobbyPiton
Edit: His new Twitter handle @realBobbyPiton has now also been suspended: https://twitter.com/realbobbypiton
1:04 = "I think that the biggest fraud in the history of our constitutional republic is taking place right before our eyes"
5:57-7:10 = Explanation of how 'U' votes account for an abnormally high NINETY-FOUR PERCENT correlation. Men and women typically only have a 38% correlation (more explanation in the vid)
7:45 = "I think they're cheating"
9:17-10:35 = Correlation per year group was over 97%
10:36 = "Holy Cow, I think I reverse-engineered the algorithm that they're using to - to do these damn votes. But unless you're willing to create 980,000 buckets, you're going to have a hard time seeing it."
11:06 = Petition to POTUS to have audits of EVERY county in the US after seeing this data
12:06 - 14:28 = Explanation of extrapolation of county growth done before the election and how many people would be of legal voting age.
14:36 = "Voting fraud has been happening in this state and in this nation much longer than the past 4 years"
15:26-15:55 = Explanation of voter turnout calculations
15:58 = In Apache, the change from average turnout during presidential election cycles in past years went from 87% to 99% of all eligible voters in 2020. Doesn't make any sense
19:53 = Rudy asks Piton about validity of numbers that were certified in AZ
20:12 = Piton: "If I were an executive of a publicly-traded company, I would never sign that because I would risk jail time and have all of my money taken in lawsuits... I would never ever have certified. I would rather resign than have certified those results"
20:36 = Piton: "I believe [the numbers are fraudulent] based on the data... I'd be willing to put my life on it, assuming that the data is accurate..."
--
May have missed a few but I've watched it twice. Probably more zingers in this 22 min vid
Wow! I’m not a huge math guy, but I do work in data, and I’ve seen blatant fuckery in every dataset I’ve looked at across the country-weird shit. Not anomalous-just nonsensical, like hundreds of “voters” with DOBs of 1-1-1800.
The Buckets! Man, it’s like a light bulb going off about 1 million lumens! This explains so much. Chop it up and spread it out across outlying demographics where it’s generally buried by noise.
I've only watched it once but I missed what the explanation of what 'correlation' meant. Is talking about turnout or who they voted for, or something else?
They are part of U, but it isn't about gender identity, it's about a big inexplicable blob of voters who are consistent over years in a manner not consistent with groups of known gender.
This guys presentation was too all over the place for me to follow. He would switch subjects, jump back and forth, and give too much non essential info.You never really got a good look at the data, amdI feel like his messy presentation undermined the importance of what he was stating in the eyes of many.
His second presentation he did went into more depth, but that was because people were trying to debunk his first one because they didn't understand his methods.
He made it a point of not being too technical, so anybody could easily digest it. Same thing with Matt Braynard. He specifically said he didn't want to get too detailed, because that would mean that people who aren't a mathematician would have to just trust him on face value. He wanted to make sure you didn't need any special education or qualifications, so anybody could go over and easily understand the point.
But, it want just the way he phrases it, it just seemed like he was nervous or something, and he jumped around to different data without clarifying the significance or how he came to the conclusion. I wasn't sure what specific data he was referring to when making some statements. It didn't help that I couldn't really see his data on the screen either, and he had to rush towards the end. I think he may have benefited from having a script written up where he could systematically go through the import points instead of just playing it by ear, ESPECIALLY with the amount of data he was presenting.
It SEEMED like he was nervous, especially after the dude yelled "what are you gonna do about it" and they told him he had limited time. He kept tapping his hand rapidly like a nervous tick.
If you aren't used to publicly speaking, I feel like that would be a LOT of pressure, speaking under oath, with the fate of the country hanging in these people statements.
I agree. He would derail himself too often and it made it more difficult to follow along. It was like every sentence has a backstory or needed to be unpacked.
He also showed a lot of bias; almost in the same breath as saying "i had to fill in the data myself". He made a lot of political sermons in a critical time to be objective and it doesn't come off as credible. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Seems of goodwill and intentions. Not the best presentation.
He was also operating a laptop that was projected, which we couldn't see, presumably with graphical representations of this. Audience members could see it.
I appreciate his work ... but. I have briefed some pretty darned senior people. He should have never stated that he supported one side or the other, just that he is analyzing the data. But the presentation was horrible. He never put it in terms that regular people could understand. He said "there is a 98% correlation" but never said "this means..."
There were much bigger flaws than that. He never explained what correlated to what. He never explained what methodology he used to bucketize people into hardcore left/right, moderates, and swing.
Agreed, his presentation was D- at best. He saved it at the end with something we can actually dig (population growth vs. voter growth). Would need to compare to other western states to see how that data compares and correlates. Outliers would be extremely interesting and flag potential fraud.
I wish this guy had a speech writer because he is a mess of a run on sentence for the first 15 minutes. Without seeing what he was showing as far as #s the words are meaningless. He didn't describe what data he used to bucketize people into the 5 political buckets.
Where he hits the mark is on population growth rate vs. voting growth rate. I believe he is dead nuts on the money that people gradually cheated more and more every year, to the point now that it is obvious (assuming his input data isn't garbage...it's gummint data so it certainly could be trash).
I wouldn't get too excited about this guy until/unless the data is posted on .win for peer review.
He seemed a little socially awkward, hard to tell if it was because of his personality, audience or the cameras. Though I think he definitely sacrificed the technicality, structure and form of his presentation in order to make it more understandable. Here's to hoping that the underlying data is solid
He used voter data over the last 22 years, to track how men, women, and U voted across all repub, mostly repub, half and halfs, mostly dem, all dem.
Basically like taking a 3 number combination lock, and trying every single combination.
So based on total number of registered voters, at any given age group, for male, or female, he could tell you the basic percentage of them that would fall into any of the 5 political buckets, and he ran that across every variable to come up with the 980,000 buckets, and he had 22 years of voter data to use. And things started going sideways in 2008.
I only ran through once, but what I understood was the party affiliation was used for the basis of the five categories. That makes the most sense to me from a statistical standpoint.
This man, single handedly, proves without beyond any reason, that the entire DOJ requires complete disbandment.
There is noooo excuse why this wasn't dealt with. None.
Also, I'm not sure why comments are hating or throwing shade on his presentation. He followed up after braynard and right after shiva and I thought knocked it out of the park considering he ONLY WORKED ON IT FOR TWO DAYS
Piton's Twitter account was suspended WHILE he was giving this testimony. It's still suspended at this time. In the meantime, he's set up a new handle: @realBobbyPiton
Edit: He's also on Parler at @BobbyPiton Edit: His new Twitter handle @realBobbyPiton has now also been suspended: https://twitter.com/realbobbypiton
Thank you Patriot Piton!
It's scared
Some key timestamps:
1:04 = "I think that the biggest fraud in the history of our constitutional republic is taking place right before our eyes"
5:57-7:10 = Explanation of how 'U' votes account for an abnormally high NINETY-FOUR PERCENT correlation. Men and women typically only have a 38% correlation (more explanation in the vid)
7:45 = "I think they're cheating"
9:17-10:35 = Correlation per year group was over 97%
10:36 = "Holy Cow, I think I reverse-engineered the algorithm that they're using to - to do these damn votes. But unless you're willing to create 980,000 buckets, you're going to have a hard time seeing it."
11:06 = Petition to POTUS to have audits of EVERY county in the US after seeing this data
12:06 - 14:28 = Explanation of extrapolation of county growth done before the election and how many people would be of legal voting age.
14:36 = "Voting fraud has been happening in this state and in this nation much longer than the past 4 years"
15:26-15:55 = Explanation of voter turnout calculations
15:58 = In Apache, the change from average turnout during presidential election cycles in past years went from 87% to 99% of all eligible voters in 2020. Doesn't make any sense
19:53 = Rudy asks Piton about validity of numbers that were certified in AZ
20:12 = Piton: "If I were an executive of a publicly-traded company, I would never sign that because I would risk jail time and have all of my money taken in lawsuits... I would never ever have certified. I would rather resign than have certified those results"
20:36 = Piton: "I believe [the numbers are fraudulent] based on the data... I'd be willing to put my life on it, assuming that the data is accurate..."
-- May have missed a few but I've watched it twice. Probably more zingers in this 22 min vid
Wow! I’m not a huge math guy, but I do work in data, and I’ve seen blatant fuckery in every dataset I’ve looked at across the country-weird shit. Not anomalous-just nonsensical, like hundreds of “voters” with DOBs of 1-1-1800. The Buckets! Man, it’s like a light bulb going off about 1 million lumens! This explains so much. Chop it up and spread it out across outlying demographics where it’s generally buried by noise.
I've only watched it once but I missed what the explanation of what 'correlation' meant. Is talking about turnout or who they voted for, or something else?
He is correlating what, with what?
What exactly, is a "U" vote?
There are registered voters who are male.
There are registered voters who are female.
Then there are registered voters who are have an unspecified gender.
They are designated as 'u'.
what about xirs? Did he take xirs into account?
They are part of U, but it isn't about gender identity, it's about a big inexplicable blob of voters who are consistent over years in a manner not consistent with groups of known gender.
Fuck yeah it was Technical. He’s a math nut but the end is amazing!
Protect this man before he gets Hillary’d
Typical Quant! LOL
This guys presentation was too all over the place for me to follow. He would switch subjects, jump back and forth, and give too much non essential info.You never really got a good look at the data, amdI feel like his messy presentation undermined the importance of what he was stating in the eyes of many.
His second presentation he did went into more depth, but that was because people were trying to debunk his first one because they didn't understand his methods.
He made it a point of not being too technical, so anybody could easily digest it. Same thing with Matt Braynard. He specifically said he didn't want to get too detailed, because that would mean that people who aren't a mathematician would have to just trust him on face value. He wanted to make sure you didn't need any special education or qualifications, so anybody could go over and easily understand the point.
But, it want just the way he phrases it, it just seemed like he was nervous or something, and he jumped around to different data without clarifying the significance or how he came to the conclusion. I wasn't sure what specific data he was referring to when making some statements. It didn't help that I couldn't really see his data on the screen either, and he had to rush towards the end. I think he may have benefited from having a script written up where he could systematically go through the import points instead of just playing it by ear, ESPECIALLY with the amount of data he was presenting.
if you are inexperienced at speaking publicly to a crowd it would be very understandable. just thankful he had the nerve to come forward
It SEEMED like he was nervous, especially after the dude yelled "what are you gonna do about it" and they told him he had limited time. He kept tapping his hand rapidly like a nervous tick.
If you aren't used to publicly speaking, I feel like that would be a LOT of pressure, speaking under oath, with the fate of the country hanging in these people statements.
He had only looked into theis for about 2 days. Yes, he would have benefitted from a better presentation, but I am not sure there was enough time.
I agree. He would derail himself too often and it made it more difficult to follow along. It was like every sentence has a backstory or needed to be unpacked.
He also showed a lot of bias; almost in the same breath as saying "i had to fill in the data myself". He made a lot of political sermons in a critical time to be objective and it doesn't come off as credible. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Seems of goodwill and intentions. Not the best presentation.
It didn't help when they were telling him to keep it short and if he could do it in x minutes.
He was also operating a laptop that was projected, which we couldn't see, presumably with graphical representations of this. Audience members could see it.
He def needs to copy it. I need it dumbed down for me LOL
I appreciate his work ... but. I have briefed some pretty darned senior people. He should have never stated that he supported one side or the other, just that he is analyzing the data. But the presentation was horrible. He never put it in terms that regular people could understand. He said "there is a 98% correlation" but never said "this means..."
He never explained "so what"
There were much bigger flaws than that. He never explained what correlated to what. He never explained what methodology he used to bucketize people into hardcore left/right, moderates, and swing.
Agreed, his presentation was D- at best. He saved it at the end with something we can actually dig (population growth vs. voter growth). Would need to compare to other western states to see how that data compares and correlates. Outliers would be extremely interesting and flag potential fraud.
The person after him said he started crunching numbers on Friday and by Monday he was giving a speech on what he found that's only 3 days....
I wish this guy had a speech writer because he is a mess of a run on sentence for the first 15 minutes. Without seeing what he was showing as far as #s the words are meaningless. He didn't describe what data he used to bucketize people into the 5 political buckets.
Where he hits the mark is on population growth rate vs. voting growth rate. I believe he is dead nuts on the money that people gradually cheated more and more every year, to the point now that it is obvious (assuming his input data isn't garbage...it's gummint data so it certainly could be trash).
I wouldn't get too excited about this guy until/unless the data is posted on .win for peer review.
He seemed a little socially awkward, hard to tell if it was because of his personality, audience or the cameras. Though I think he definitely sacrificed the technicality, structure and form of his presentation in order to make it more understandable. Here's to hoping that the underlying data is solid
He used voter data over the last 22 years, to track how men, women, and U voted across all repub, mostly repub, half and halfs, mostly dem, all dem.
Basically like taking a 3 number combination lock, and trying every single combination.
So based on total number of registered voters, at any given age group, for male, or female, he could tell you the basic percentage of them that would fall into any of the 5 political buckets, and he ran that across every variable to come up with the 980,000 buckets, and he had 22 years of voter data to use. And things started going sideways in 2008.
At least that is how I understood it.
What voter data exactly? Last I checked this country votes via secret ballot. Did he use polling data? That is very different.
Check Arizona, specifically in this instsnce, and other states if curious about them.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists.aspx
No excuse for no peer review. Lots of volunteers here on .win and elsewhere.
He used standard deviation on a Bell Curve. Chop data up 5 times and ~70% end up in the middle, with ~30% at each end.
What bell curve? How did he bucketize people into the 5 categories? Based on what?
I only ran through once, but what I understood was the party affiliation was used for the basis of the five categories. That makes the most sense to me from a statistical standpoint.
Great but how in the fuck does that translate to hardcore dem vs. moderate dem vs. jerkoff vs. whatever?
First ~15% are unreliable, next three ~70% are hereditary, moderates, and committed, last ~15% are your hard-core.
Each affiliation has all these types.
based on what?
where can you save a 20 minute video other than youtube?
https://www.y2mate.com/youtube/VDf1j4IQz28
You just add pp after the youtube and before the .com in the link.
40% increase in population, triple the number of voters since 1998!!!
This man, single handedly, proves without beyond any reason, that the entire DOJ requires complete disbandment.
There is noooo excuse why this wasn't dealt with. None.
Also, I'm not sure why comments are hating or throwing shade on his presentation. He followed up after braynard and right after shiva and I thought knocked it out of the park considering he ONLY WORKED ON IT FOR TWO DAYS
What Piton said = The British Are Coming
Clearly knows what he’s talking about. ThinkPad.