I am trying to parse this information for my non-mathematical brain. Is this what he is saying:
An algorithm of ratios were applied, but it was not the same across the board. A certain ratio, for example, 9:1, would be applied in one precinct over a period of time. Then it would stop and be applied to another precinct after. The ratio didn’t always have to be 9:1, it had a few different variations. But whatever ratio was used, was used in “batches” in different precincts consecutively, not simultaneously. But mostly in Fulton county it appears.
So while Shiva showed the “overall” ratio algorithm, this guy kind of shows what it actually looked at on the ground. It makes sense because if they always used same ratio in one precinct, it would be too obvious. So they moved it around and switched up the ratio slightly.
Is that a correct understanding of what is being presented?
Has anyone averaged all these ratios to see if they equal Shiva’s overall ratio of 10:3 in AZ (Biden:Trump) I think it was.
This is how I understand it as well. The used ratios also have to "add up" to the goal ratio to reach the required number of (biden) votes in the stolen ballot group.
Assuming they used this method of "spreading" the stolen votes around, and then a recount is called, how is the "random spread" approach duplicated?
Was the algorithm coded to manage the random spread as well or was it directed?
Shorter question, how can a random spread algorithm create the same totals in a recount if it was randomized?
It seems the recount would have been all over the place assuming the algorithm was still being baked in the counting machines?
Just seems like, while this could deliver the results on election night of Biden winning, it would be exposed in a simple recount, or am I just in over my head here?
There are two methods of fraud and we dont have enough information. The first and easiest is injecting false absentee ballots. Recounts will match final number.
Dominion machines have the capability to print out the voters selection but it puts the fraudulent selection in the qr code. This makes recounts with machines match the final results. Pure hand counts will differ.
The machines need access to this algorithm to know when to swap. Is that done automatically? Does someone run the algorithm and then tell an operator to swap votes? I dont have a clear idea either.
I am trying to parse this information for my non-mathematical brain. Is this what he is saying:
An algorithm of ratios were applied, but it was not the same across the board. A certain ratio, for example, 9:1, would be applied in one precinct over a period of time. Then it would stop and be applied to another precinct after. The ratio didn’t always have to be 9:1, it had a few different variations. But whatever ratio was used, was used in “batches” in different precincts consecutively, not simultaneously. But mostly in Fulton county it appears.
So while Shiva showed the “overall” ratio algorithm, this guy kind of shows what it actually looked at on the ground. It makes sense because if they always used same ratio in one precinct, it would be too obvious. So they moved it around and switched up the ratio slightly.
Is that a correct understanding of what is being presented?
Has anyone averaged all these ratios to see if they equal Shiva’s overall ratio of 10:3 in AZ (Biden:Trump) I think it was.
This is how I understand it as well. The used ratios also have to "add up" to the goal ratio to reach the required number of (biden) votes in the stolen ballot group.
Devils advocate layman question...
Assuming they used this method of "spreading" the stolen votes around, and then a recount is called, how is the "random spread" approach duplicated?
Was the algorithm coded to manage the random spread as well or was it directed?
Shorter question, how can a random spread algorithm create the same totals in a recount if it was randomized?
It seems the recount would have been all over the place assuming the algorithm was still being baked in the counting machines?
Just seems like, while this could deliver the results on election night of Biden winning, it would be exposed in a simple recount, or am I just in over my head here?
There are two methods of fraud and we dont have enough information. The first and easiest is injecting false absentee ballots. Recounts will match final number.
Dominion machines have the capability to print out the voters selection but it puts the fraudulent selection in the qr code. This makes recounts with machines match the final results. Pure hand counts will differ.
The machines need access to this algorithm to know when to swap. Is that done automatically? Does someone run the algorithm and then tell an operator to swap votes? I dont have a clear idea either.