1569
Comments (53)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
50
Crop1w [S] 50 points ago +50 / -0

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

17
pddx22 17 points ago +17 / -0

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.

2
Lapstrake 2 points ago +2 / -0

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?

1
fat50 1 point ago +1 / -0

What exactly, is a "U" vote?

10
Lapstrake 10 points ago +10 / -0

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'.

2
fapoo 2 points ago +2 / -0

what about xirs? Did he take xirs into account?

3
inquimouse 3 points ago +3 / -0

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.