The simulation he has in another video does a half-decent job. Thing is, this needs to be squared up with the late night ballot dumps and what happened on the ground to paint a cohesive picture. The team is almost there, and for them to have accomplished so much in 30 days' time is quite remarkable.
If he could also link his virtual district system to one of the “glitches”, perhaps he could then predict a glitch in another precinct. If he has the algorithm matching the one used, and has a real world match, perhaps he can perfectly correlate the real world data and that can be used to prove his algorithm to an investigation.
i think he's saying based on number of votes, he can calculate the number of votes biden and trump get. and he finds that exact ratio in multiple locations. No way its chance.
So if that's true he could predict it and recreate it correct?? To show proof??? ... Like set up a program that as the votes come in it does the same thing to show that it is in fact a algorithm?? ... I'm not big on this kind of stuff at all!!!.... But I'm trying to grasp it.... Does what he have here REALLY show absolute proof or just another anomaly... And any idea what happened with the protection request or if this guy has got this too the right people??
It's remarkable proof. He did show it, though not quite in a way I understood. He substituted any number into the numerator and denominator and it spit back the same ratio. Organic data sets could never have the same formulas found in the actual vote tallies from election night.
Basically the video showed that the software used by the voting machines can manipulate the vote outcome by using liner algorithm (ratio).
He proved this by statistical proving of voting irregularities and eventually reversed engineered the algorithm used. He proved out that his reverse engineered solution (theory) matches the fraudulent data (actual?) available today.
IMO - this should be the final straw for contracting a company to provide such a voting machine.. plus, also makes me upset that we cannot look into the dominion (misspelled?) system because “it’s their IP” argument..
I learned the hard way about gunpowder when I was about 11 years old. You can't run a trail
out and light it like gasoline. And when you do so to show off to your friends if a little bits good a lot is not better.
I was going to point that out. You beat me to it! But good job. There is plenty to pay attention to around here. I have that post bookmarked. It was excellent.
Russell Ramsland did a quick chalkboard explanation of Edward Solomon's work during his last interview on America Can We Talk. He didn't give Edward Solomon's name but I knew who he meant as I had watched all of Edward's videos as his work progressed.
Yeah, it’s a little deep however the important thing is he basically found the primer which can be tested and should be admissible in court. I suspect that if you used the same process you would find it was used consistently across all the suspected states.
The mathematician called it a smoking gun. There's only one problem. It wasn't found on a computer.
Let's assume for the sake of argument he is correct.
Who used it?
Was it a rogue Democrat in Georgia? Was it somebody at Dominion? Or was it a programmer in Venezuela?
We just don't know. We are led to believe an algo can be run from a USB drive or remotely over the internet.
We would want to know if the same algo was used in other states. But even then we don't automatically know who used it.
If you can find the code of Dominion software and find it in there, then there's your smoking gun. Otherwise its value is limited in court.
Its real value most likely is in future policy changes. It could be used to show lawmakers how sophisticated and insidious voting schemes can be and why huge changes need to be made so nothing like this can ever happen again.
Judging by the CEO of Smartmatic being appointed to the chair of the Open Societies Foundation today....I'd say it was company wide on all the machines.
I saw that story. Sidney Powell is on top of it, too. A lot of people are forgetting she named Malloch-Brown and Soros during her first press conference with Rudy and Jenna Ellis.
Well that's probably a huge event. Smartmatic rigged the election...their website says they weren't even in use in 3026 but now...wow, what a difference four years makes.
ANow he's on easy street. 2016 his company isn't heard of and 2020 he does such a good job he's promoted to the head of the Open Societies Foundation.
Tantalizing information, isn't it. Does it make you horny? Does it make you want to.....google it?
Not true, that's like saying you have to find the murderer to prove someone died of an unnatural death. In this case, the poison in the body has been identified. That's proof enough that the death is unnatural, independent of who did it.
Proving election fraud is equivalent. The formula (poison) has been identified. Who did it is irrelevant. Useful for a criminal case, yes, but not necessary to prove election fraud itself.
You wouldn't need to find anything on a computer, and you won't necessarily find anything, because as we know, Dominion was connected to the internet and managing it overseas. There are also multiple levels to this, where the machine might tabulate one thing, then Dominion connected to the internet basically double checks and decides how to allocate the manipulation to spread out across regions.
This is basically a footprint of the algorithm, and it analyzes the vote tabulation data, timestamped as it appeared live. So it's analyzing the output of the algorithm.
It is a smoking gun, because it shows statistics that would be impossible to obtain naturally. It proves manipulation. He even specifically points out updates where they came at the EXACT same timestamp in different areas and have the same ratio's of votes being reported. Not the same number, but the percentage difference between them, because it's not just balancing votes in one county, it's balancing them across all counties and precincts within those counties. So the algorithm is basically going "Ok, Trump is getting ahead, we need to flip X number of votes to Biden, and we'll do it here, and here, and there", all on the fly.
But it goes deeper than just percentage differences. The "wheel" system really is the key to understanding how the whole thing works. And wheel systems are artificial constructs, they don't just happen naturally, especially not with something as chaotic as counting shuffled votes. When people get in line to vote or put their ballots in a mail box or ballot box, it's no different than shuffling a deck of cards. That's exactly why it's impossible to have a machine suddenly report a stack of a hundred thousand votes for Biden.
You can think of the "wheel" as a load balancing mechanism. it's always trying to find equilibrium at a specific point, and rather than teeter totter with two big blocks, it's teetering thousands of tiny blocks of different sizes/weights on each end of the scale and moving them around to try to find the balance it's looking for. Those blocks represent every location where voting machines are being used.
When they update votes, they don't just spread it across just one machine either, they can spread it across every machine in a given region. So if they've got 20 machines in a given area, and they want to shift 20,000 votes for Biden, they will distribute that across all the machines in the area (not necessarily evenly either). But even when it's not spread evenly, there's a footprint, because timestamps show that load balancing is going on, and you wouldn't have such a thing arise from merely counting votes normally because it's an inherently chaotic/random venture. When you see an order to it, it's not by mistake, and indicates fraud.
Another part that makes it easier to see in action is the fact that they also needed to balance votes between a third party candidate, so you can see that the third party candidates vote updates fall in a specific range, in relation to the votes stolen from Trump, because of the "remainder" box they're using to balance the load, which means that basically, Biden and the third party candidate split some of Trump's votes to randomize things a bit, and because they need to do that to not end up with any errors in the balancing mechanism, otherwise errors could happen that actually throw votes back to Trump. It's like if you lean too far forward or backward, you're gonna fall over. And they need to account for the third party candidate, because they are part of the percentage of total votes. If the algorithm didn't factor them in, then you'd have a lot of issues where the fraud is even easier to see, and even issues where the algorithm reverses and gives votes to Trump instead of Biden.
Now you might think that "OK let's just count the actual ballots then, a recount should work". But the problem is, they also had a ground game that effectively threw away Trump ballots and replaced them with Biden ballots. So the algorithm is backed up by physical fraud too. The algorithm told them how many ballots they need to physically switch and replace, which they had plenty of time to do from election day until now, because it's highly likely that they were simply let in the door to do it, and they were also doing it on the fly on election day, which is exactly why people were sneaking ballots in the back door. It doesn't matter where or what order those ballots are in, only that they're present. So if you need 20K votes for Biden stuffed in an area, you just bring in 20K fraud ballots and mix them in with the pile, and then that aligns with the final fraud results that the machine reported.
How do you prove it was used across all states? Like, how do you know how it compares to what the REAL total actually WAS? Does it require an audit to prove it was right?
I suspect that if you used the same process you would find it was used consistently across all the suspected states
Afaik the analogous timeseries are available for all states, so this should be done now, rather than trying to popularize and making simulations in StarCraft
if hes right, the votes don't matter at all. it's just assigning random vote results based on how many that come in.
sounds like they needed to give biden a 70% win rate to get high enough numbers to win and overcome other areas in the state. And when they were too short even with 70% win, they had to dump more ballots into the system (with a 70% win) to push him over the top.
Here is a summary of that. He did an example and simulation so you can see it play out. The example 2 and simulation in the video describe it well. First example is kind of detailed.
https://youtu.be/i1N5bn4TJes
Here is a summary of that. He did an example and simulation so you can see it play out. The example 2 and simulation in the video describe it well. First example is kind of detailed.
https://youtu.be/i1N5bn4TJes
Here is a summary of that. He did an example and simulation so you can see it play out. The example 2 and simulation in the video describe it well. First example is kind of detailed.
Because obviously they brought in enough pre-printed ballots to match the vote switching.
The machines switch votes, that's all good, but it doesn't mean anything if they don't have the ballots ready for a recount. So obviously they plan ahead and print a whole bunch of Biden ballots so that they can add them into the system to match the votes stolen from Trump and given to Biden.
Because they don't know how many ballots are needed, obviously. The system, however, does. The vote switching happens when vote percentages are at a certain threshold. The system ensures enough switching to push Biden ahead of Trump. Once they know how many votes were actually switched, they can inject the fake ballots into the system to cover for the switched votes.
Whereas... scanning all those fake ballots has a much higher chance of being caught, and it's nowhere near precise enough to rig the election.
Okay. That makes sense that one would need the algorithm to calculate the extra number of ballots needed. But wouldn't the extra printed ballots counted after the fact just add the amount needed (and already added digitally to the count) over again?
And why have the vote switching algo built into tabulators instead of just a computer somewhere, since the number of extra ballots needed is somehow just messaged to the co-conspirators anyway?
They're not running the extra ballots through the machines. They're just placing them in a pile with the "counted ballots" at the end, to match the computer's numbers. So they don't get counted again.
The other thing is that they need to avoid leaving any statistical hallmarks of fraud because they are doing this in every election and if they leave any math traces they'll get caught. This is why it has to be so advanced and complicated.
The many ratios and 'seizing' different precincts spreads the switches around precincts without leaving traces. The switches will pass Benford's Law test, any kind of demographics analysis, it'll match up to the exit polls - off by 3% (or whatever) but within the +/- margin of error.
The reason is because you can't have a Venezuelan election where you got 300% of registered voters turning up. The strategy is meant to mask fraud by smoothing it out over as many precincts as possible so that you can use all of that extra wiggle room in every precinct without it looking like you just had 2000% voter turnout in Detroit alone. You then use the next couple weeks before the certification to produce the physical ballots if you need to. I'm positive that part of the reason they paused the counts for multiple days in a lot of places was to physically move ballots around and get them where they needed to be for recounts.
When they say that the victory was a landslide and that's why they got caught, they aren't just saying it. It's true. In a normal, low enthusiasm second term election, this fraud would likely have gone unnoticed because it would not have raised as many red flags.
They didn't know how many were going to be needed. Probably they didn't prepare enough - thus the need to stop counting once they knew how many votes needed to be produced. Not only to bring in the fake ballot, but to generate more. That's why all the ballots that showed up at the 11th hour with no folds in the paper or down ballot votes. They were produced in a panicked rush.
This is what gets me. I went full stop at Biden magically pulling ahead in all the states he needed despite Trump getting almost all Bellwethers and OH, FL — especially the margins he got those states
Please keep walking me through this. What Solomon says happens is that at certain times in the day, the machine ishijacked and it switches to a "virtual" precinct. This virtual precinct has be assigned to distribute votes in a certain pre-determined ratio, up to a certain amount of votes (say, "hijack 300 votes and distribute Biden-Trump in a ratio of 5-3"). Once this has been achieved, the machine switches from the virtual precinct back to the normal vote tallying. It then goes on to a different precinct and does the same thing.
In the time that the machine has been hijacked to the virtual precinct, what is happening on the ground? Is it that those 300 votes are still being fed into the system, but the machine is flipping Trump ballots to Biden to meet the ratio? Is it reading ballot images of fake votes that nobody on the ground is scanning into the machine, but is being read by a USB stick? These are the things I don't quite get, and the simulation video didn't quite answer.
The algorithm as he explained it is used to flip a predetermined number of votes. The votes must already exist. Is that because the machine physically cant create votes out of thin air? Probably not. The reason the votes must exist is to mask the fraud. The denominator, the total number of votes, that has to line up with reality as close as you can get it, because ostensibly the people who created those ballots must exist on voter rolls, the phsyical ballots could be checked during a recount/audit, etc. You then take the SMALLEST portion of ballots you can get away with and apply your flipping algorithm to only those. When you use the algorithm to spread your fraud over many precincts, an audit of a random sample at any particular precinct is less likely to turn up fraudulent votes.
Is it being put in on a usb stick? Is it being fed directly over the internet? It isn't clear, but what is clear is that this type of coordination across precincts would not be possible without communication of some kind. There was a central location informing and being informed, and whether this happened over the internet directly from the machines or on the secondary laptops that we saw the usb sticks being plugged into, we don't know for sure yet. This is a sophisticated method in that it is specifically designed to cover its tracks by using the incredibly powerful combination of a fancy balancing algorithm and live vote count information.
You still have to sneak the physical ballots in to cover your tracks for a recount, but with this method you will have to sneak in the least number possible. They might have gotten even lower dem turnout than expected, which is why they were scanning physical ballots the night of the election to pad the vote totals that much more.
At least I think it's possible to figure out. Solomon has isolated which precincts were hijacked and in what time frame. The ballot images in that timeframe would explain everything: are these phony ballot images loaded by a USB stick that were never physically entered? In that case, was there a repository of fake mail in ballots on the USB stick that the machine could draw upon to manufacture its ratio? Or, were physical ballots entered into a machine that are actually 60-40 Trump-Biden, but were flipped by the machine "in error" to the predetermined ratio?
Given that we saw so much vote switching in live time, the latter is possible. But for this to square up with a hand recount, someone would have to have the exact number of swapped ballots done by the machine, and then sub out those Trump ballots with Biden ones (possibly to make it look like it's from the same voter). The ballot images would catch this as well, though.
If you want to be thorough, yes. I assume that is why Sidney Powell says she has huge bags full of shredded ballots. They remove any random chunk of ballots and replace it with the one at their predetermined ratio. I also have a feeling that this is part of the reason they stopped the counting. They needed time to not just produce physical ballots, but to move them to the places they needed to be once they doctored the vote counts so heavily. Once you're done counting the recounting can begin, and you can't have shredded ballots laying next to your uncreased ballots.
Also, by the way, that means we should expect to find both trump AND biden votes among the shredded ballots. It will be the ratio of those ballots that is important.
Allegedly the ballot stuffing may have been a separateand independent job. That's why it was so blatant because the algorithms are tuned to look natural but since they were putting in ONLY Biden ballots...well, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
When you say going through replication does that mean youre trying to replicate his results? If so, could you do it for other states as well? I know everyone is concerned about swingstates because of the actual election results, but my curiosity about California is killing me. I dont even know if they use Dominion but I just dont feel like the news coming out of California regarding lockdown protests is lining up with it being a blue state anymore.
write a proof that the observations are very improbable on a non-fraud mathematical model
Run the detection on other similar real-world data sets and see if it is selective
Run the detection on simulated non-fraud data. Repeat many runs. Same as (1) but easier to do, and could be extended to (1) using the generative model encoded by the program as the basis for the mathematical analysis
Dang. As for 1 I’m not sure I’d know exactly how to do that, even for me the math is quite difficult.probably Best to leave 2 to him.
3 was similar to what I was thinking. Could MC sim a number of normally distributed (or really any distribution) of ballot counts around a mean lead. Then show that no matter how you change it the number weights hold. An extension of what he did for the 0.25 & 0.17 stuff. Seeing the same number after changing the vote counts thousands of times would be a big normie red pill.
Re: (2), gathering the data from other elections is a bit of a pain in itself, so also kind of labor intensive
(3) seems easiest, especially if you already understand his theory (I have only made a cursory overview).
Could MC sim a number of normally distributed (or really any distribution) of ballot counts around a mean lead. Then show that no matter how you change it the number weights hold. An extension of what he did for the 0.25 & 0.17 stuff. Seeing the same number after changing the vote counts thousands of times would be a big normie red pill.
You're talking about adding noise to the original data? This may be a good approach but I really would like a control ("non-fraud") synthetic or real dataset, to make sure that this algorithm doesn't appear to manifest in random data
I.e. looking at a random bit string of sufficient length you will eventually find a run of 100 zeros. It looks like it is clamped to zero, and by itself it is extremely improbable, but it will eventually happen by chance (almost surely or something like that)
Using non dominion state/precinct data would be a good way to create a real control. If there’s 30+ sets of it a synthetic control would not be difficult to derive.
Yeah actually what data is he using? Is it a mix of dominion and non-dominion counties? If so, it seems like he should have already recapitulated which precincts use dominion and which don't. Or is GA fully dominion? I know WI is a mix.
Any chance you could pedagogically try to summarize what the basic premise behind his vote-flipping theory is or share the code/sheet you used to replicate his results?
I too would like to understand his theory to be able to verify it myself and try it on different states — I’ve watched several of EdwardSolomon’s videos, but I find his explanation style very incongruent and difficult to take in. Even in the “laymans” explanation video he starts out straight away with a wheel of numbers and talks about hijacked precincts etc. with little to no introduction, so I’m lost after just a few seconds. It’s not that the math is complicated, I just completely miss the bigger picture behind what he is saying.
All makes sense especially considering they "stopped counting" aka we realized dominion wasn't going to cut it by itself so they had to inject enough votes to make up the massive loss biden was having on election night.
What I have seen him propose is that the reason counting had to stop is that their algorithm was set to have a specific target percentage, but as they got closer to the end they realized that Trump's turnout in a number of states was a bit higher than they'd originally estimated and they weren't going to win on their current trajectory, so they had to stop and recalculate and set the system to a new, higher percentage of stolen votes, which is why they were forced to insert a number of large boosts in these states. That made the whole scheme more obvious than originally intended, which is why they've had to go into overdrive compelling their media allies to convince people everything is normal.
This is my understanding as well. The algorithm is predicated on the expected Trump turnout, with the ratios deriving from that estimate. They essentially thought, "we expect an organic Trump-Biden split of 58-42. We will let that split comprise of 70% of the vote, and then based on that figure, run an algorithm for the remaining 30% to manufacture an overall election result of 49-51 in Biden's favor."
If Trump's turnout was higher than projected, and the organic ratio ended up being a split of, say, 62-38, the programmed algorithm can no longer compensate with the given data set. It would need more ballots to flip. My guess is that there weren't enough ballots left to flip, and they also couldn't let the algorithm distribute them in more innocuous ratios like before without having the total number of ballots exceed the population. So, they brought in 100,000 fake ballots which put voter turnout at peak capacity, and then had to distribute them 98-2 for Biden.
I think your spot on. When I look at how the algorithm would have functioned normally, and then think about how easy it would be to take ANY random box of 1k votes and switch it for a different 1k vote box with the correct ratio, the construction of it makes even more sense. You have 200k ballots in predetermined ratios and youre asking the computer where to put them to make it the least noticeable. It becomes a very simple swap of your boxes of ballots for the ones that are already there, and the algorithm has done all the heavy lifting to make sure that statistically its going to work out.
He also made a simulation video that is 20 minutes long. It's much easier to understand. But this information needs a normie translator and some powerpoint
Correct, you don't have to peek at the source code, you can figure out how the data was massaged if you know the difference between the actual result and the fake result. And yes, that result can be proven by duplication.
BUT, knowing that and confirming that convincingly to a courtroom is difficult when one side insists that the post algorithm number is actual, and the delta is fictitious.
The smoking gun is the machine that executed the source code, and the actual lines of code that reduced Trump votes by 25 percent and increased Biden votes by 25 percent.
The smoking gun for me is not the fact that you would see a set number of precincts all have the same ratio of votes, but the fact if one precinct stopped reporting at the very specific ratio, low in behold another would start reporting at that ratio. If 5 stopped reporting at the specific ratio then exactly 5 different precincts would start reporting at the same ratio.
Yeah, the timeline of ratio-flipping along counties paints a pretty damning picture. Didn't it happen in alphabetical order too, or was that some yarn spinning?
He mentioned that in one of his videos but I don't know if it was just something he "eye-balled" or if it has been looked at rigorously
He also had something about precinct names or identifiers being similar down to just several characters so less likely to notice when switching which ones are seized
I'm a bit worried that all this guy's work is just really fancy numerology aka finding what intuitively feels like impossible coincidences in data, without going to the lengths to actually test their improbability.
It's very easy in data analysis to find patterns or things that look artificial. Very often they turn out to be coincidences that you are inadvertently amplifying, or they are downstream manifestations of something artificial but not nefarious
I think they just try to get it close and an image of the ballot is either scanned or created=cheat.
That was the true up needed by stuffing ballots late night in my opinion
Keep in mind that this not only proves fraud in this election, but he ran it through previous elections and found traces of this algorithm started being used in 2008. Starting with Obama. It proves fraud by virtually every Democrat candidate across the country. Democrats greatest trick was making people believe this country was split nearly down the middle when it comes to politics, when in reality the vast majority of the American population is conservative.
I dont think youre referring to the same guy. I think youre right, but this guy never mentioned running this on other stated. You sound like youre talking about the guy from Michigan who testified.
This video was in another post that wasnt getting much traction. It needs exposure. The author days he would be polishing up the presentation in different versions. It's complicated but proof of the algorithm is big. Makes it easier to do the next target fraud city as long as he can get the data.
Little known fact: this man also proved in 2022 that we are 100% living in a simulation. But he did it in a basement bunker during a Green Blackout from a dystopian Biden future and has now used that equation to return to the past to help us win the war now when it matters!
👏👏👏👏👏👏WTH....I need more math skills..I been feeling accomplished just teaching 3rd grade common core math...you know..the new math..😂😂😂😂....God Bless You and keep you safe 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Sometimes when a thread gets unstickied it will fall straight to the bottom of the internet where it hits satan right on the noggin, knocking his lights out as it flies back up and lands squarely on the 2nd or 3rd page a few minutes later
Does anyone know his social media or a way to contact him? I replied to the video on Bitchute but there doesn't seem to be a way to direct message him there
What judge will understand this shit though?
How does it get proved? Serious question.
No doubt they will need to tighten up the presentation.
The simulation he has in another video does a half-decent job. Thing is, this needs to be squared up with the late night ballot dumps and what happened on the ground to paint a cohesive picture. The team is almost there, and for them to have accomplished so much in 30 days' time is quite remarkable.
He needs to summarize in 5 minutes and reference his 2 hour video. This could be very powerful
If he could also link his virtual district system to one of the “glitches”, perhaps he could then predict a glitch in another precinct. If he has the algorithm matching the one used, and has a real world match, perhaps he can perfectly correlate the real world data and that can be used to prove his algorithm to an investigation.
The have experts examine the data then testify under oath about their interpretation
I'd rather have it explained to the layperson- this can be done, and done well.
i think he's saying based on number of votes, he can calculate the number of votes biden and trump get. and he finds that exact ratio in multiple locations. No way its chance.
see that right there was well explained, that's what I mean
So if that's true he could predict it and recreate it correct?? To show proof??? ... Like set up a program that as the votes come in it does the same thing to show that it is in fact a algorithm?? ... I'm not big on this kind of stuff at all!!!.... But I'm trying to grasp it.... Does what he have here REALLY show absolute proof or just another anomaly... And any idea what happened with the protection request or if this guy has got this too the right people??
It's remarkable proof. He did show it, though not quite in a way I understood. He substituted any number into the numerator and denominator and it spit back the same ratio. Organic data sets could never have the same formulas found in the actual vote tallies from election night.
Then test it out on an organic data set
He did: he tested it out on the actual data set from the election.
He did
That's a good idea, but you'd have to perfectly mimic the situation with the Dominion machines, or use them directly.
It’s important his presentation has the details it does. layperson= unnatural ratio groups of votes is what I got from it
We need a Thomas Sowell of stats
EdwardSolomon: +1 / -0 I made a layman's version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5FShKVjRdk
Here’s my take (if it helps) -
Basically the video showed that the software used by the voting machines can manipulate the vote outcome by using liner algorithm (ratio).
He proved this by statistical proving of voting irregularities and eventually reversed engineered the algorithm used. He proved out that his reverse engineered solution (theory) matches the fraudulent data (actual?) available today.
IMO - this should be the final straw for contracting a company to provide such a voting machine.. plus, also makes me upset that we cannot look into the dominion (misspelled?) system because “it’s their IP” argument..
He needs to lay out the details so that other mathematicians can look at it. Putting it all out there also promotes his personal safety.
Math IS reason.
The word "proof" is a math word.
Proof comes from liquor. Theu would mix it with gun powder and if it was above 50 percent it would ignite into a poof. That's the story i heard anyway
"Gunpowder was soaked in a spirit, if the gunpowder could still burn the spirit was rated above proof"
-Alcohol proof - Wikipedia
I learned the hard way about gunpowder when I was about 11 years old. You can't run a trail out and light it like gasoline. And when you do so to show off to your friends if a little bits good a lot is not better.
This is why they have been pushing common core so hard all these years. Just for this very moment.
Math is treason.
You get qualified as an expert. Ever seen "My Cousin Vinnie?" Same thing.
"Rebuilt some trannies, tunes ups, oil changes"
"My biological MAGA clock is going bang, bang, bang"... (Stomps foot the ground)
That’s our very own u/EdwardSolomon
Here is the original thread: https://thedonald.win/p/11QlFnBcjV/smoking-gun-part-2-ratio-transfe/
He knows he needs to tighten up the presentation and he will! He just wanted to get it out there ASAP for us
I was going to point that out. You beat me to it! But good job. There is plenty to pay attention to around here. I have that post bookmarked. It was excellent.
Russell Ramsland did a quick chalkboard explanation of Edward Solomon's work during his last interview on America Can We Talk. He didn't give Edward Solomon's name but I knew who he meant as I had watched all of Edward's videos as his work progressed.
Maybe this is where an expert witness could verify his work during court?
2 1/2 hours. Lordy! I hope he's right, but I don't know enough about math to make that worthwhile.
Yeah, it’s a little deep however the important thing is he basically found the primer which can be tested and should be admissible in court. I suspect that if you used the same process you would find it was used consistently across all the suspected states.
The mathematician called it a smoking gun. There's only one problem. It wasn't found on a computer.
Let's assume for the sake of argument he is correct.
Who used it?
Was it a rogue Democrat in Georgia? Was it somebody at Dominion? Or was it a programmer in Venezuela?
We just don't know. We are led to believe an algo can be run from a USB drive or remotely over the internet.
We would want to know if the same algo was used in other states. But even then we don't automatically know who used it.
If you can find the code of Dominion software and find it in there, then there's your smoking gun. Otherwise its value is limited in court.
Its real value most likely is in future policy changes. It could be used to show lawmakers how sophisticated and insidious voting schemes can be and why huge changes need to be made so nothing like this can ever happen again.
Judging by the CEO of Smartmatic being appointed to the chair of the Open Societies Foundation today....I'd say it was company wide on all the machines.
Source?
https://noqreport.com/2020/12/05/george-soros-names-smartmatics-lord-mark-malloch-brown-as-president-of-open-society/
Ty
I saw that story. Sidney Powell is on top of it, too. A lot of people are forgetting she named Malloch-Brown and Soros during her first press conference with Rudy and Jenna Ellis.
Ty
Uh, the news, here....Smartmatic's own website.
Don't be lazy and educate yourself instead of needed it shoved down your through.
Whatever you say, fag.
Well that's probably a huge event. Smartmatic rigged the election...their website says they weren't even in use in 3026 but now...wow, what a difference four years makes.
ANow he's on easy street. 2016 his company isn't heard of and 2020 he does such a good job he's promoted to the head of the Open Societies Foundation.
Tantalizing information, isn't it. Does it make you horny? Does it make you want to.....google it?
Not true, that's like saying you have to find the murderer to prove someone died of an unnatural death. In this case, the poison in the body has been identified. That's proof enough that the death is unnatural, independent of who did it.
Proving election fraud is equivalent. The formula (poison) has been identified. Who did it is irrelevant. Useful for a criminal case, yes, but not necessary to prove election fraud itself.
You wouldn't need to find anything on a computer, and you won't necessarily find anything, because as we know, Dominion was connected to the internet and managing it overseas. There are also multiple levels to this, where the machine might tabulate one thing, then Dominion connected to the internet basically double checks and decides how to allocate the manipulation to spread out across regions.
This is basically a footprint of the algorithm, and it analyzes the vote tabulation data, timestamped as it appeared live. So it's analyzing the output of the algorithm.
It is a smoking gun, because it shows statistics that would be impossible to obtain naturally. It proves manipulation. He even specifically points out updates where they came at the EXACT same timestamp in different areas and have the same ratio's of votes being reported. Not the same number, but the percentage difference between them, because it's not just balancing votes in one county, it's balancing them across all counties and precincts within those counties. So the algorithm is basically going "Ok, Trump is getting ahead, we need to flip X number of votes to Biden, and we'll do it here, and here, and there", all on the fly.
But it goes deeper than just percentage differences. The "wheel" system really is the key to understanding how the whole thing works. And wheel systems are artificial constructs, they don't just happen naturally, especially not with something as chaotic as counting shuffled votes. When people get in line to vote or put their ballots in a mail box or ballot box, it's no different than shuffling a deck of cards. That's exactly why it's impossible to have a machine suddenly report a stack of a hundred thousand votes for Biden.
You can think of the "wheel" as a load balancing mechanism. it's always trying to find equilibrium at a specific point, and rather than teeter totter with two big blocks, it's teetering thousands of tiny blocks of different sizes/weights on each end of the scale and moving them around to try to find the balance it's looking for. Those blocks represent every location where voting machines are being used.
When they update votes, they don't just spread it across just one machine either, they can spread it across every machine in a given region. So if they've got 20 machines in a given area, and they want to shift 20,000 votes for Biden, they will distribute that across all the machines in the area (not necessarily evenly either). But even when it's not spread evenly, there's a footprint, because timestamps show that load balancing is going on, and you wouldn't have such a thing arise from merely counting votes normally because it's an inherently chaotic/random venture. When you see an order to it, it's not by mistake, and indicates fraud.
Another part that makes it easier to see in action is the fact that they also needed to balance votes between a third party candidate, so you can see that the third party candidates vote updates fall in a specific range, in relation to the votes stolen from Trump, because of the "remainder" box they're using to balance the load, which means that basically, Biden and the third party candidate split some of Trump's votes to randomize things a bit, and because they need to do that to not end up with any errors in the balancing mechanism, otherwise errors could happen that actually throw votes back to Trump. It's like if you lean too far forward or backward, you're gonna fall over. And they need to account for the third party candidate, because they are part of the percentage of total votes. If the algorithm didn't factor them in, then you'd have a lot of issues where the fraud is even easier to see, and even issues where the algorithm reverses and gives votes to Trump instead of Biden.
Now you might think that "OK let's just count the actual ballots then, a recount should work". But the problem is, they also had a ground game that effectively threw away Trump ballots and replaced them with Biden ballots. So the algorithm is backed up by physical fraud too. The algorithm told them how many ballots they need to physically switch and replace, which they had plenty of time to do from election day until now, because it's highly likely that they were simply let in the door to do it, and they were also doing it on the fly on election day, which is exactly why people were sneaking ballots in the back door. It doesn't matter where or what order those ballots are in, only that they're present. So if you need 20K votes for Biden stuffed in an area, you just bring in 20K fraud ballots and mix them in with the pile, and then that aligns with the final fraud results that the machine reported.
Machines are getting "software updates" to hide the tracks
How do you prove it was used across all states? Like, how do you know how it compares to what the REAL total actually WAS? Does it require an audit to prove it was right?
That's what I was wondering if he could use it to predict another simulated election to prove it is in fact a algorithm they used???
Afaik the analogous timeseries are available for all states, so this should be done now, rather than trying to popularize and making simulations in StarCraft
if hes right, the votes don't matter at all. it's just assigning random vote results based on how many that come in.
sounds like they needed to give biden a 70% win rate to get high enough numbers to win and overcome other areas in the state. And when they were too short even with 70% win, they had to dump more ballots into the system (with a 70% win) to push him over the top.
Here is a summary of that. He did an example and simulation so you can see it play out. The example 2 and simulation in the video describe it well. First example is kind of detailed. https://youtu.be/i1N5bn4TJes
There needs to be a shorter vid that we can share with a summary. I can't send anyone a 2 1/2 hour vid and expect anybody to watch it.
Here is a summary of that. He did an example and simulation so you can see it play out. The example 2 and simulation in the video describe it well. First example is kind of detailed. https://youtu.be/i1N5bn4TJes
Hey cheers, thanks!
Gosh damn, Starcraft is useful
just for fun, there is a faction in starcraft called the terran dominion
Here is a summary of that. He did an example and simulation so you can see it play out. The example 2 and simulation in the video describe it well. First example is kind of detailed.
https://youtu.be/i1N5bn4TJes
Thanks for spreading this along . Excellent video. Wow
If this is true how.come the recount did not show this?
Because obviously they brought in enough pre-printed ballots to match the vote switching.
The machines switch votes, that's all good, but it doesn't mean anything if they don't have the ballots ready for a recount. So obviously they plan ahead and print a whole bunch of Biden ballots so that they can add them into the system to match the votes stolen from Trump and given to Biden.
But if they have the (fake) Biden ballots then what is the need for the algorithm?
They just scan the extra ballots and the count is changed accordingly without any change needed on the back end.
Because they don't know how many ballots are needed, obviously. The system, however, does. The vote switching happens when vote percentages are at a certain threshold. The system ensures enough switching to push Biden ahead of Trump. Once they know how many votes were actually switched, they can inject the fake ballots into the system to cover for the switched votes.
Whereas... scanning all those fake ballots has a much higher chance of being caught, and it's nowhere near precise enough to rig the election.
Okay. That makes sense that one would need the algorithm to calculate the extra number of ballots needed. But wouldn't the extra printed ballots counted after the fact just add the amount needed (and already added digitally to the count) over again?
And why have the vote switching algo built into tabulators instead of just a computer somewhere, since the number of extra ballots needed is somehow just messaged to the co-conspirators anyway?
They're not running the extra ballots through the machines. They're just placing them in a pile with the "counted ballots" at the end, to match the computer's numbers. So they don't get counted again.
The other thing is that they need to avoid leaving any statistical hallmarks of fraud because they are doing this in every election and if they leave any math traces they'll get caught. This is why it has to be so advanced and complicated.
The many ratios and 'seizing' different precincts spreads the switches around precincts without leaving traces. The switches will pass Benford's Law test, any kind of demographics analysis, it'll match up to the exit polls - off by 3% (or whatever) but within the +/- margin of error.
The reason is because you can't have a Venezuelan election where you got 300% of registered voters turning up. The strategy is meant to mask fraud by smoothing it out over as many precincts as possible so that you can use all of that extra wiggle room in every precinct without it looking like you just had 2000% voter turnout in Detroit alone. You then use the next couple weeks before the certification to produce the physical ballots if you need to. I'm positive that part of the reason they paused the counts for multiple days in a lot of places was to physically move ballots around and get them where they needed to be for recounts.
When they say that the victory was a landslide and that's why they got caught, they aren't just saying it. It's true. In a normal, low enthusiasm second term election, this fraud would likely have gone unnoticed because it would not have raised as many red flags.
They didn't know how many were going to be needed. Probably they didn't prepare enough - thus the need to stop counting once they knew how many votes needed to be produced. Not only to bring in the fake ballot, but to generate more. That's why all the ballots that showed up at the 11th hour with no folds in the paper or down ballot votes. They were produced in a panicked rush.
This is what gets me. I went full stop at Biden magically pulling ahead in all the states he needed despite Trump getting almost all Bellwethers and OH, FL — especially the margins he got those states
Then they shredded the fake ballots and knew there would be no FULL recount.... So NOW if they did a full real recount they would find them I'll bet!!
Please keep walking me through this. What Solomon says happens is that at certain times in the day, the machine ishijacked and it switches to a "virtual" precinct. This virtual precinct has be assigned to distribute votes in a certain pre-determined ratio, up to a certain amount of votes (say, "hijack 300 votes and distribute Biden-Trump in a ratio of 5-3"). Once this has been achieved, the machine switches from the virtual precinct back to the normal vote tallying. It then goes on to a different precinct and does the same thing.
In the time that the machine has been hijacked to the virtual precinct, what is happening on the ground? Is it that those 300 votes are still being fed into the system, but the machine is flipping Trump ballots to Biden to meet the ratio? Is it reading ballot images of fake votes that nobody on the ground is scanning into the machine, but is being read by a USB stick? These are the things I don't quite get, and the simulation video didn't quite answer.
The algorithm as he explained it is used to flip a predetermined number of votes. The votes must already exist. Is that because the machine physically cant create votes out of thin air? Probably not. The reason the votes must exist is to mask the fraud. The denominator, the total number of votes, that has to line up with reality as close as you can get it, because ostensibly the people who created those ballots must exist on voter rolls, the phsyical ballots could be checked during a recount/audit, etc. You then take the SMALLEST portion of ballots you can get away with and apply your flipping algorithm to only those. When you use the algorithm to spread your fraud over many precincts, an audit of a random sample at any particular precinct is less likely to turn up fraudulent votes.
Is it being put in on a usb stick? Is it being fed directly over the internet? It isn't clear, but what is clear is that this type of coordination across precincts would not be possible without communication of some kind. There was a central location informing and being informed, and whether this happened over the internet directly from the machines or on the secondary laptops that we saw the usb sticks being plugged into, we don't know for sure yet. This is a sophisticated method in that it is specifically designed to cover its tracks by using the incredibly powerful combination of a fancy balancing algorithm and live vote count information.
You still have to sneak the physical ballots in to cover your tracks for a recount, but with this method you will have to sneak in the least number possible. They might have gotten even lower dem turnout than expected, which is why they were scanning physical ballots the night of the election to pad the vote totals that much more.
At least I think it's possible to figure out. Solomon has isolated which precincts were hijacked and in what time frame. The ballot images in that timeframe would explain everything: are these phony ballot images loaded by a USB stick that were never physically entered? In that case, was there a repository of fake mail in ballots on the USB stick that the machine could draw upon to manufacture its ratio? Or, were physical ballots entered into a machine that are actually 60-40 Trump-Biden, but were flipped by the machine "in error" to the predetermined ratio?
Given that we saw so much vote switching in live time, the latter is possible. But for this to square up with a hand recount, someone would have to have the exact number of swapped ballots done by the machine, and then sub out those Trump ballots with Biden ones (possibly to make it look like it's from the same voter). The ballot images would catch this as well, though.
I hope we'll get an answer to this mystery.
So in switching these existing ballots on the machine, they need to both add and remove paper to match what the machines counted?
If you want to be thorough, yes. I assume that is why Sidney Powell says she has huge bags full of shredded ballots. They remove any random chunk of ballots and replace it with the one at their predetermined ratio. I also have a feeling that this is part of the reason they stopped the counting. They needed time to not just produce physical ballots, but to move them to the places they needed to be once they doctored the vote counts so heavily. Once you're done counting the recounting can begin, and you can't have shredded ballots laying next to your uncreased ballots.
Also, by the way, that means we should expect to find both trump AND biden votes among the shredded ballots. It will be the ratio of those ballots that is important.
If they used pre-printed ballots, why would they need to rig with the count?
The Dems used ballot stuffing at the precincts the algorithm video talks about.
Allegedly the ballot stuffing may have been a separateand independent job. That's why it was so blatant because the algorithms are tuned to look natural but since they were putting in ONLY Biden ballots...well, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
perhaps in the month theyve had they were able to make up fake ballots? or was anybody even able to watch the recount?
Also don't forget that some of the machines can actually fill out ballots. They are ballot markers. They could just print them off
Seth Rich probably asked the feds for protection.
This is the time when I wish we would have appointed an autistic justice to the SCOTUS.
PhD pede here.
Math is solid. Going through replication takes time, but so far so good.
When you say going through replication does that mean youre trying to replicate his results? If so, could you do it for other states as well? I know everyone is concerned about swingstates because of the actual election results, but my curiosity about California is killing me. I dont even know if they use Dominion but I just dont feel like the news coming out of California regarding lockdown protests is lining up with it being a blue state anymore.
Essentially yes, It’s common to recreate results and reparameterize to make sure everything is kosher.
Can you formulate a falsifiable test?
e.g.
write a proof that the observations are very improbable on a non-fraud mathematical model
Run the detection on other similar real-world data sets and see if it is selective
Run the detection on simulated non-fraud data. Repeat many runs. Same as (1) but easier to do, and could be extended to (1) using the generative model encoded by the program as the basis for the mathematical analysis
Dang. As for 1 I’m not sure I’d know exactly how to do that, even for me the math is quite difficult.probably Best to leave 2 to him.
3 was similar to what I was thinking. Could MC sim a number of normally distributed (or really any distribution) of ballot counts around a mean lead. Then show that no matter how you change it the number weights hold. An extension of what he did for the 0.25 & 0.17 stuff. Seeing the same number after changing the vote counts thousands of times would be a big normie red pill.
That’s where I’m at so far.
I agree that (1) seems way too hard and overkill
Re: (2), gathering the data from other elections is a bit of a pain in itself, so also kind of labor intensive
(3) seems easiest, especially if you already understand his theory (I have only made a cursory overview).
You're talking about adding noise to the original data? This may be a good approach but I really would like a control ("non-fraud") synthetic or real dataset, to make sure that this algorithm doesn't appear to manifest in random data
I.e. looking at a random bit string of sufficient length you will eventually find a run of 100 zeros. It looks like it is clamped to zero, and by itself it is extremely improbable, but it will eventually happen by chance (almost surely or something like that)
Using non dominion state/precinct data would be a good way to create a real control. If there’s 30+ sets of it a synthetic control would not be difficult to derive.
Yeah actually what data is he using? Is it a mix of dominion and non-dominion counties? If so, it seems like he should have already recapitulated which precincts use dominion and which don't. Or is GA fully dominion? I know WI is a mix.
Any chance you could pedagogically try to summarize what the basic premise behind his vote-flipping theory is or share the code/sheet you used to replicate his results?
I too would like to understand his theory to be able to verify it myself and try it on different states — I’ve watched several of EdwardSolomon’s videos, but I find his explanation style very incongruent and difficult to take in. Even in the “laymans” explanation video he starts out straight away with a wheel of numbers and talks about hijacked precincts etc. with little to no introduction, so I’m lost after just a few seconds. It’s not that the math is complicated, I just completely miss the bigger picture behind what he is saying.
This doesn't look like common core math
I tutor underprivileged youth. I got in trouble because apparently working through 35 is different than 53
All makes sense especially considering they "stopped counting" aka we realized dominion wasn't going to cut it by itself so they had to inject enough votes to make up the massive loss biden was having on election night.
What I have seen him propose is that the reason counting had to stop is that their algorithm was set to have a specific target percentage, but as they got closer to the end they realized that Trump's turnout in a number of states was a bit higher than they'd originally estimated and they weren't going to win on their current trajectory, so they had to stop and recalculate and set the system to a new, higher percentage of stolen votes, which is why they were forced to insert a number of large boosts in these states. That made the whole scheme more obvious than originally intended, which is why they've had to go into overdrive compelling their media allies to convince people everything is normal.
This is my understanding as well. The algorithm is predicated on the expected Trump turnout, with the ratios deriving from that estimate. They essentially thought, "we expect an organic Trump-Biden split of 58-42. We will let that split comprise of 70% of the vote, and then based on that figure, run an algorithm for the remaining 30% to manufacture an overall election result of 49-51 in Biden's favor."
If Trump's turnout was higher than projected, and the organic ratio ended up being a split of, say, 62-38, the programmed algorithm can no longer compensate with the given data set. It would need more ballots to flip. My guess is that there weren't enough ballots left to flip, and they also couldn't let the algorithm distribute them in more innocuous ratios like before without having the total number of ballots exceed the population. So, they brought in 100,000 fake ballots which put voter turnout at peak capacity, and then had to distribute them 98-2 for Biden.
I think your spot on. When I look at how the algorithm would have functioned normally, and then think about how easy it would be to take ANY random box of 1k votes and switch it for a different 1k vote box with the correct ratio, the construction of it makes even more sense. You have 200k ballots in predetermined ratios and youre asking the computer where to put them to make it the least noticeable. It becomes a very simple swap of your boxes of ballots for the ones that are already there, and the algorithm has done all the heavy lifting to make sure that statistically its going to work out.
He also made a simulation video that is 20 minutes long. It's much easier to understand. But this information needs a normie translator and some powerpoint
OMG the feds will take care of you real good. I think they've still got a few Harrison Deal specials available.
How can elections evolve from "1 person, 1 vote" to Sephiroth summoning Supernova?
Ain't no gettin offa dis train we on, #^$&!
Good lord the autism is strong. Carry on pede, you are doing Gods work right now.
Correct, you don't have to peek at the source code, you can figure out how the data was massaged if you know the difference between the actual result and the fake result. And yes, that result can be proven by duplication.
BUT, knowing that and confirming that convincingly to a courtroom is difficult when one side insists that the post algorithm number is actual, and the delta is fictitious.
The smoking gun is the machine that executed the source code, and the actual lines of code that reduced Trump votes by 25 percent and increased Biden votes by 25 percent.
The smoking gun for me is not the fact that you would see a set number of precincts all have the same ratio of votes, but the fact if one precinct stopped reporting at the very specific ratio, low in behold another would start reporting at that ratio. If 5 stopped reporting at the specific ratio then exactly 5 different precincts would start reporting at the same ratio.
Yeah, the timeline of ratio-flipping along counties paints a pretty damning picture. Didn't it happen in alphabetical order too, or was that some yarn spinning?
He mentioned that in one of his videos but I don't know if it was just something he "eye-balled" or if it has been looked at rigorously
He also had something about precinct names or identifiers being similar down to just several characters so less likely to notice when switching which ones are seized
I'm a bit worried that all this guy's work is just really fancy numerology aka finding what intuitively feels like impossible coincidences in data, without going to the lengths to actually test their improbability.
It's very easy in data analysis to find patterns or things that look artificial. Very often they turn out to be coincidences that you are inadvertently amplifying, or they are downstream manifestations of something artificial but not nefarious
Seems like data to support Sidney's Case. Hopefully he's let her know about this.
💣💣💣
Evidence doesn't matter to Obama judges. They don't look at it and just proclaim it has "little value".
So how do they produce the exact number of physical ballots to match the machine?
Big city ballot stuffing through bribed/coerced mailed ballots makes a lot more sense to me.
I think they just try to get it close and an image of the ballot is either scanned or created=cheat. That was the true up needed by stuffing ballots late night in my opinion
Keep in mind that this not only proves fraud in this election, but he ran it through previous elections and found traces of this algorithm started being used in 2008. Starting with Obama. It proves fraud by virtually every Democrat candidate across the country. Democrats greatest trick was making people believe this country was split nearly down the middle when it comes to politics, when in reality the vast majority of the American population is conservative.
I dont think youre referring to the same guy. I think youre right, but this guy never mentioned running this on other stated. You sound like youre talking about the guy from Michigan who testified.
OOF.
Well-intentioned but man does this need to be broken down into much simpler terms/presentation.
Presidential Metal of Freedom.
Listen to the Colonel briefly explain something similar (I believe) during the Michigan hearing here https://youtube.com/watch?t=3h32m50s&v=eUjTOSDZ0BE
This is amazing
I believe it I just don't understand it lol.
Saved
I'm gonna have to wait for the experts to explain, looking at this thumbnail I'm expecting 2 1/2 hours of shit I'm not going to understand, lol.
Wise choice.
Wouldn't this have been revealed in the recount?
This video was in another post that wasnt getting much traction. It needs exposure. The author days he would be polishing up the presentation in different versions. It's complicated but proof of the algorithm is big. Makes it easier to do the next target fraud city as long as he can get the data.
Little known fact: this man also proved in 2022 that we are 100% living in a simulation. But he did it in a basement bunker during a Green Blackout from a dystopian Biden future and has now used that equation to return to the past to help us win the war now when it matters!
This is some amazing research. You are an absolute beast.
He needs to be put on any forensic audit team pronto.
Hopefully they take care of the guy, rather than "take care" of him.
2 hours and 26 minutes?!
FUCK me I'm not getting sleep tonight.
This is the shit I like to see - technical nitty gritty. I've got Ovetime tomorrow but fuck it... BRING IT ON PEDES. LET'S SEE WHAT HE GOT.
I think I'd trust a militia more for protection.
👏👏👏👏👏👏WTH....I need more math skills..I been feeling accomplished just teaching 3rd grade common core math...you know..the new math..😂😂😂😂....God Bless You and keep you safe 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Have you seen The Incredibles 2 where he's trying to help with homework? So funny
That was excellent
I understand it, you just have to have the machines, which they are collecting
"This actually is big" is actually what she said.
The Feds will silence or kill him, not protect him.
Not all heroes wear capes.
probably should have asked for militia protection
This man deserves a commendation from the man himself is this ends up breaking the case in court
I thought this was stickied earlier. Now I can’t find it. Did it get removed?
It's back
Sometimes when a thread gets unstickied it will fall straight to the bottom of the internet where it hits satan right on the noggin, knocking his lights out as it flies back up and lands squarely on the 2nd or 3rd page a few minutes later
Does anyone know his social media or a way to contact him? I replied to the video on Bitchute but there doesn't seem to be a way to direct message him there
Remember in Idiocracy when Luke Wilson is trying to explain to the idiots why plants need water --- I feel like one of those guys.
I jumped forward, heard the guy says 2% is 0.2, which is false. It's 0.02. So...