The turnout was so high in GA, they had to FLIP Trump votes to Biden. There were not enough votes outstanding to make up the difference with FAKE BALLOTS. So the computer took votes away from TRUMP and gave to Biden. Then they had to throw that many TRUMP ballots in the GARBAGE and replace them with actual FAKE ballots for Biden. That's why the RECOUNT was matched the computer numbers. Many people have said that since the RECOUNT numbers matched the computer numbers, it proves the DOMINION machines don't change votes.
They had to throw that many TRUMP ballots in the GARBAGE and replace them with actual FAKE ballots for Biden. That's why the RECOUNT matched the computer numbers. For example, by chucking 100,000 TRUMP ballots away into the garbage, and replacing them with 100,000 Biden ballots, they effectively gave Biden a +100,000 and only had to create 100,000 fake ballots to do so. Whereas, if they didn't throw away 100,000 TRUMP ballots, they would have to CREATE 200,000 Biden ballots to give Biden a +100,000 lead. But they couldn't even do that because turnout was too high and just adding huge number of ballots would maybe put the precincts at well over 100%. Throwing out Trump ballots allowed them to keep the turnout levels reasonable.
This is my question. At some point, the digital evidence would have to be backed up with physical evidence.
I'm channeling Scott Adams here, but the broad overwhelming evidence is too broad and too overwhelming. I would trade it all for an exhaustive audit of a single precinct believed to have manipulated results: a full hand-recount, signature-matching, forensic examination of the tabulators, and depositions of the poll-workers and counters.
Why do you think they needed fake paper ballots; and why no chain of custody forms were completed for bags of ballots that had been counted, that were then transported to a central holding facility where numerous people had access? These people are not dumb - they've been at this for a long time. It's only people like us, who don't steal & cheat, who have a hard time seeing how multi-faceted this attack was.
Printer steganography. If the ballots were printed elsewhere there is an invisible to the naked eye mark left by every printer that identifies when, and by what printer the paper was printed.
The secret service forced all printers to have it installed to stop counterfeiting. If they don’t have the microdots, that means it came from china.
Forensic audit called for “ink testing”, that would also show the microdots that are printed in yellow. Thats how they caught reality winner iirc.
If I give you a dollar with 33 cents worth of counterfeit coins and ask you simply to recount it including the counterfeit coins and counting them as valid coins, you're still going to come up with a dollar. This is basically how they recounted in GA.
But, if the MACHINES were swapping votes, and the hand recount was honest... the action of the machines should have been uncovered.
That is my question. A hand recount HAS to result in a Biden vote and a Trump vote being of equal weight. The MACHINES can change that. A hand recount cannot.
They also knew how many Trump ballots had to be destroyed to match the switch on the machine. All of these stories about the treasonous fraud in GA tie together.
The microdots printers leave show the date and time it was printed, gps coordinates if it has the capability, and the serial number of the printer
Theoretically all the legitimate ballots should be from the same printers, printers from the county that mailed them out. If there were trucked in ballots from out of state the serial number left by the microdots on the fake ballots would not match any of the counties printers.
(might be a new method since we learned about the microdots)
Uncovering it all would require a forensic audit on the ballots. That's what is needed to really expose the fraud. I don't even hear many people talking about that, though. A signature audit may not do it because the envelopes are real, from real ballots... but of course a certain percentage will get tossed in an audit, which could be enough. I hope a full forensic audit on everything happens.
In Georgia, Ware County Elections Director confirmedthat the recently completed hand count audit totals showed the total electronic vote countshorted Donald Trump 37 votes and added those 37 votes to totals for Joe Biden. The 74 affected votes represents.52% ofthe 14,192 county votes cast,
Secretary Raffensperger forcedGeorgia counties to enter their audit results into acentralizedARLO systemrather than their own data sources. That broke the audit reporting chain and allowed the SOS officeto tell counties what their results arerather than counties reporting their results to the state usinggenerally accepted American election reporting principles. VoterGA polled all 159 counties and found roughly 150 of them had no electronic totals for their own hand count audit.
I remember the last article GW pundit had a few weeks ago about 20,000 votes in PA that turned out to be a nothing burger. The story actually said, “when this is confirmed....”. Like, wtf you published a story without confirmation? Guess what, it never was confirmed and never retracted.
Most of the GW pundit articles from the Hoft’s are clickbait trash.
The bigger issue is that this is just common logic being used here to explain the unrealistic and implausible switch in votes. If you showed up to court with this, it wouldn't even be accepted as evidence. It may sway a jury in a jury trial but it won't work in these cases.
fraud detection method is real, I wrote at TLDR post about it last night/this morning. TWhat I'm not sure on is the actual number of switched votes, we can only estimate.
When can all this shit go to the U.S. supreme court already?
And let's get President Trump to force declassification of every damn thing out there so the whole world can see the crooked greedy treasonous degenerate creeps.
What I don't understand about his theory is that he claims precincts were hijacked and their votes recalculated according to the algorithm, ok, fair enough, but he is then looking at the trump:total ratios at precincts after they were hijacked, he is not looking at the ratio of new votes during the hijacking.
I wrote in the post in the past explaining his detection method. I believe he is estimating the total votes based on the ratio's the votes and at after the hijacking. Regardless of the number of votes that were switched, based on the math it looks entirely programmatic. The odds of it not are insane, essentially impossible.
If you look only at the ratio of total votes after hijacking (and ignore the state before the hijack) you have not figured out the algorithm and can't claim how many votes were switched.
You demonstrated that there is a statisical anomaly, alright, but you did not reverse engineer the algorithm.
lol no. if you watched his 2.75 hour video and understand what is happenning then you would understand the algorithm. And most importantly if you understand the detection method applied....it does not require knowing what the real ratio (it applies the percent change to the real ratio, and obviously the machines knew the real ratio it was told to start with) was other then, a window could be applied for real ratio's that are already very biased for biden.
Sure you cant claim for certain how many votes were switched. You can guesstimate, but yes, it is reverse engineering the algorithm.
I too thought it was an anomaly when I had heard about the vid and watched the video assuming he was wrong. But nope, in this case, the "anomaly" is so incredibly ridiculous. I strongly suggest you watch the video or check my comment history for the explanation, its a wall of text with numbered steps. Please do this and then get back to me.
Bare in mind to I am an engineer and have a strong enough mathematical background and a lot of experience troubleshooting anomalies in complex hardware/software systems. You'll need to talk to me in specifics that indicate you understand the algorithm before we can discuss whether or not it is "reverse engineered."
Again, I'll recomend reading this from my prior post...
the basic premise is this and please note im just giving numbers for reference, they aren't real and I didn't didn't double check the math with those numbers.. again just for reference.
And i'm an engineer, not a mathaholic but actually watching his video got me pretty excited in the way he is using it to detect fraud. lot more interesting then using it to calculate stability of amplifier circuits..
internal DNC polling / past history should give DNC the "real" number of ballots they need to fake/change. This is Different from the polling they stated publically (theres no way they are that stupid particularly after 2016. Their fake polls were to weaken our spirits). Lets say 10K They have machines that can change the votes The determine the rate at which they need to change votes to make up the vote gap based on #1. They use an algorithm to generate the rate. To avoid suspicion they make an array of rates that average out to the rate they want. ie. say they want 10%. They make an array of rates 15,14,13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5. But by switching the right amount of votes at each rate (lets say 10k at each rate), the average rate is 10% and the switched votes is 10K. since they used an array of rates its harder to see at first glance. However if analyze the rates you can see the fundamental pattern....15, 14, 13... etc. Still many of these ratios will exist naturally. Of course they would, any time you have batches of a vote count there going to be other batches with the same ratio. Thats where his detection of how it was actually applied is interesting. It seems to have worked like this...gets a vote count from 1 voting precinct for 1k votes, lets say it changed the ratio to 15% but it needs 10k votes total at 15% (and 14, 13, 12... etc) so while its still manipulating results at 15% it gets the update from another precinct and it does its 15% change thing. So from a detection in the data it can be seen that normally it would be very rare for a precinct update to have the exact same vote ratio as the prior precinct update. Even if the voting population is the same mix, the odds that they would have the same exact ratio at essentially the same time is insanely improbable. So now that you can detect when a ratio is used from 1 precinct is used again by the next precinct to make a vote dump, you can identify all those instances and record the list of the vote ratio. With that list of vote ratio's... if it matches the increments 15, 14, 13, 12,.... etc you can confirm that the only 2 precincts share the same ratio between dumps, that ratio matches a specific pattern. And that pattern is not at all possible by chance. Thats generally what I think is the important part. I think Edwards a very smart guy but his interest is in mathematics and theories so when he says laymans description, he's not talking simply about how the fraud works, he's talking simply about the mathematical tools/algorithm used. The wheel is just a way to visualize how the array of ratio's are generated / used. I think for most people thats not the important part. I think that its the detection of the precincts sharing vote ratio's between dumps and that those ratios fit incredibly nicely into a pattern. To be sure though, there are a number of additional details that at a little bit of noise, and he addresses those quite well. Mostly its the fact that when a ratio is applied to a real world set of numbers, the value isnt a whole number. So, you have to round down to the nearest whole number / whole vote. As much as them Dems would like another 3/5 ths compromise.
EDIT: changed the votes needed to 10k and 10k per ratio in array just to make the math more realistic.
EDIT EDIT: trying to make it more "realistic" isnt helping, im too tired. its a little more complicated to calculate votes switched because you need to know the real ratio of each precinct batch and take the difference from fraud change rate to calculate the true amount of changed votes. Again though I was trying to avoid those details to make the concept simpler. I guess we could say for this reference...Assume Biden's real count for each precinct was 0. So the algorithm would have switched trump votes to biden in the stated 10k amount.... going to sleep
When you try to recreate the algorithm you will find out that you can not change the ratio drastically in one update (and there are no such changes in the timeseries) so you would need to look for precincts with the correct number of votes and ratio close enough to your final ratio and then change the ratios and do this for every update.
Do we see this applied throughout the election until the last big updates ?
I think the discovered anomaly is a result of artifically capped ratios for the precincts but I need to look into this further, compare precincts in different states and whatnot.
When you try to recreate the algorithm you will find out that you can not change the ratio drastically in one update (and there are no such changes in the timeseries)
I take this back. There are big jumps in the ratios in the timeseries for the individual precincts in Fulton county.
That's why I would like Edward to publish a list of precincts he claims where hijacked and times when they were hijacked (and possibly a guess what the natural number and ratio of the votes would be at the time if he claims number of votes switched as well) to get more insight into his findings.
did you watch the video? explain then how trumps ratio locks in to 15% while the precinct is showing these "anomalies." then after theyre released its settles back up to 25%. watch the video i only gave a basic explanation.
Exactly what i said in the prior comment. it doesnt change from 15% to 25% between updates. This is the whole point.... the algorithm converges to 15%... when it is released it settles to a higher percent. That higher percent is a summation of the fraud + the natural, such that the natural can be calculated from. Sure it assumes a somewhat normal distribution which i think is a fair assumption for that specific subset of votes. Did you watch the part 2 video which is ~2.5 hours long, he explains this. Granted, i had to rewatch parts of it too as it was late for me and I nodded in and out in the second half of the vid :D
Higher Biden percentages in small districts, but third party remains unchanged when percentages are plotted as a function of precinct size. The most likely explanation for this is vote switching. It shows up more strongly in the smaller precincts.
The turnout was so high in GA, they had to FLIP Trump votes to Biden. There were not enough votes outstanding to make up the difference with FAKE BALLOTS. So the computer took votes away from TRUMP and gave to Biden. Then they had to throw that many TRUMP ballots in the GARBAGE and replace them with actual FAKE ballots for Biden. That's why the RECOUNT was matched the computer numbers. Many people have said that since the RECOUNT numbers matched the computer numbers, it proves the DOMINION machines don't change votes.
Deboonked, to do that criminals would need to be alone with the ballots unsupervised for 2 hours.
People were alone unsupervised with the ballots for at least 8 hours
Politifact rates this comment 5 pinnochios.
I want to know how a hand recount of paper ballots did not catch this.
They had to throw that many TRUMP ballots in the GARBAGE and replace them with actual FAKE ballots for Biden. That's why the RECOUNT matched the computer numbers. For example, by chucking 100,000 TRUMP ballots away into the garbage, and replacing them with 100,000 Biden ballots, they effectively gave Biden a +100,000 and only had to create 100,000 fake ballots to do so. Whereas, if they didn't throw away 100,000 TRUMP ballots, they would have to CREATE 200,000 Biden ballots to give Biden a +100,000 lead. But they couldn't even do that because turnout was too high and just adding huge number of ballots would maybe put the precincts at well over 100%. Throwing out Trump ballots allowed them to keep the turnout levels reasonable.
This is my question. At some point, the digital evidence would have to be backed up with physical evidence.
I'm channeling Scott Adams here, but the broad overwhelming evidence is too broad and too overwhelming. I would trade it all for an exhaustive audit of a single precinct believed to have manipulated results: a full hand-recount, signature-matching, forensic examination of the tabulators, and depositions of the poll-workers and counters.
Why do you think they needed fake paper ballots; and why no chain of custody forms were completed for bags of ballots that had been counted, that were then transported to a central holding facility where numerous people had access? These people are not dumb - they've been at this for a long time. It's only people like us, who don't steal & cheat, who have a hard time seeing how multi-faceted this attack was.
Printer steganography. If the ballots were printed elsewhere there is an invisible to the naked eye mark left by every printer that identifies when, and by what printer the paper was printed.
The secret service forced all printers to have it installed to stop counterfeiting. If they don’t have the microdots, that means it came from china.
Forensic audit called for “ink testing”, that would also show the microdots that are printed in yellow. Thats how they caught reality winner iirc.
If I give you a dollar with 33 cents worth of counterfeit coins and ask you simply to recount it including the counterfeit coins and counting them as valid coins, you're still going to come up with a dollar. This is basically how they recounted in GA.
But, if the MACHINES were swapping votes, and the hand recount was honest... the action of the machines should have been uncovered.
That is my question. A hand recount HAS to result in a Biden vote and a Trump vote being of equal weight. The MACHINES can change that. A hand recount cannot.
They also knew how many Trump ballots had to be destroyed to match the switch on the machine. All of these stories about the treasonous fraud in GA tie together.
Printer steganography can reveal if there are a batch of ballots that were not printed by the state.
The technology is in all printers, the SS forced all printer companies to do it to combat counterfeiting
They trucked in real Biden ballots to replace the tossed Trump votes with.
“Real”
They were trucked in from out of state
The microdots printers leave show the date and time it was printed, gps coordinates if it has the capability, and the serial number of the printer
Theoretically all the legitimate ballots should be from the same printers, printers from the county that mailed them out. If there were trucked in ballots from out of state the serial number left by the microdots on the fake ballots would not match any of the counties printers.
(might be a new method since we learned about the microdots)
Uncovering it all would require a forensic audit on the ballots. That's what is needed to really expose the fraud. I don't even hear many people talking about that, though. A signature audit may not do it because the envelopes are real, from real ballots... but of course a certain percentage will get tossed in an audit, which could be enough. I hope a full forensic audit on everything happens.
But th hand recount did not conclude with the same numbers and there are several reports of prestine ballots in the recount as well.
https://voterga.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/press-release-dominion-flips-trump-votes-to-biden-in-ga-county.pdf
They were ordered to report the same numbers. Also, fake ballots, shredded ballots, etc
I remember the last article GW pundit had a few weeks ago about 20,000 votes in PA that turned out to be a nothing burger. The story actually said, “when this is confirmed....”. Like, wtf you published a story without confirmation? Guess what, it never was confirmed and never retracted.
Most of the GW pundit articles from the Hoft’s are clickbait trash.
Waiting for a source other than GWP... This site is CNN of the right.
The bigger issue is that this is just common logic being used here to explain the unrealistic and implausible switch in votes. If you showed up to court with this, it wouldn't even be accepted as evidence. It may sway a jury in a jury trial but it won't work in these cases.
I'm so sick of these false headlines.
I still haven't seen one report of Biden votes being changed to Trump or fraud for Trump.
Thank you based numbers expert Pede, u/EdwardSolomon!
https://youtu.be/i1N5bn4TJes
https://youtu.be/N5FShKVjRdk
Seriously, fuck the gateway pundit. Reading t_d then republishing preceded by BREAKING.
Not to mention, the website is trash.
So is this real ? I cant keep track? This would give us GA.
fraud detection method is real, I wrote at TLDR post about it last night/this morning. TWhat I'm not sure on is the actual number of switched votes, we can only estimate.
When can all this shit go to the U.S. supreme court already?
And let's get President Trump to force declassification of every damn thing out there so the whole world can see the crooked greedy treasonous degenerate creeps.
That's an article about Edward Solomon findings.
What I don't understand about his theory is that he claims precincts were hijacked and their votes recalculated according to the algorithm, ok, fair enough, but he is then looking at the trump:total ratios at precincts after they were hijacked, he is not looking at the ratio of new votes during the hijacking.
I wrote in the post in the past explaining his detection method. I believe he is estimating the total votes based on the ratio's the votes and at after the hijacking. Regardless of the number of votes that were switched, based on the math it looks entirely programmatic. The odds of it not are insane, essentially impossible.
If you look only at the ratio of total votes after hijacking (and ignore the state before the hijack) you have not figured out the algorithm and can't claim how many votes were switched.
You demonstrated that there is a statisical anomaly, alright, but you did not reverse engineer the algorithm.
lol no. if you watched his 2.75 hour video and understand what is happenning then you would understand the algorithm. And most importantly if you understand the detection method applied....it does not require knowing what the real ratio (it applies the percent change to the real ratio, and obviously the machines knew the real ratio it was told to start with) was other then, a window could be applied for real ratio's that are already very biased for biden.
Sure you cant claim for certain how many votes were switched. You can guesstimate, but yes, it is reverse engineering the algorithm.
I too thought it was an anomaly when I had heard about the vid and watched the video assuming he was wrong. But nope, in this case, the "anomaly" is so incredibly ridiculous. I strongly suggest you watch the video or check my comment history for the explanation, its a wall of text with numbered steps. Please do this and then get back to me.
Bare in mind to I am an engineer and have a strong enough mathematical background and a lot of experience troubleshooting anomalies in complex hardware/software systems. You'll need to talk to me in specifics that indicate you understand the algorithm before we can discuss whether or not it is "reverse engineered."
If you reverse engineered the algorithm you would know exactly.
Fair enough, show me the algorithm in (pseudo) code.
also heres the video.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gEGxdNYkQVz7/
Again, I'll recomend reading this from my prior post...
the basic premise is this and please note im just giving numbers for reference, they aren't real and I didn't didn't double check the math with those numbers.. again just for reference.
And i'm an engineer, not a mathaholic but actually watching his video got me pretty excited in the way he is using it to detect fraud. lot more interesting then using it to calculate stability of amplifier circuits..
internal DNC polling / past history should give DNC the "real" number of ballots they need to fake/change. This is Different from the polling they stated publically (theres no way they are that stupid particularly after 2016. Their fake polls were to weaken our spirits). Lets say 10K They have machines that can change the votes The determine the rate at which they need to change votes to make up the vote gap based on #1. They use an algorithm to generate the rate. To avoid suspicion they make an array of rates that average out to the rate they want. ie. say they want 10%. They make an array of rates 15,14,13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5. But by switching the right amount of votes at each rate (lets say 10k at each rate), the average rate is 10% and the switched votes is 10K. since they used an array of rates its harder to see at first glance. However if analyze the rates you can see the fundamental pattern....15, 14, 13... etc. Still many of these ratios will exist naturally. Of course they would, any time you have batches of a vote count there going to be other batches with the same ratio. Thats where his detection of how it was actually applied is interesting. It seems to have worked like this...gets a vote count from 1 voting precinct for 1k votes, lets say it changed the ratio to 15% but it needs 10k votes total at 15% (and 14, 13, 12... etc) so while its still manipulating results at 15% it gets the update from another precinct and it does its 15% change thing. So from a detection in the data it can be seen that normally it would be very rare for a precinct update to have the exact same vote ratio as the prior precinct update. Even if the voting population is the same mix, the odds that they would have the same exact ratio at essentially the same time is insanely improbable. So now that you can detect when a ratio is used from 1 precinct is used again by the next precinct to make a vote dump, you can identify all those instances and record the list of the vote ratio. With that list of vote ratio's... if it matches the increments 15, 14, 13, 12,.... etc you can confirm that the only 2 precincts share the same ratio between dumps, that ratio matches a specific pattern. And that pattern is not at all possible by chance. Thats generally what I think is the important part. I think Edwards a very smart guy but his interest is in mathematics and theories so when he says laymans description, he's not talking simply about how the fraud works, he's talking simply about the mathematical tools/algorithm used. The wheel is just a way to visualize how the array of ratio's are generated / used. I think for most people thats not the important part. I think that its the detection of the precincts sharing vote ratio's between dumps and that those ratios fit incredibly nicely into a pattern. To be sure though, there are a number of additional details that at a little bit of noise, and he addresses those quite well. Mostly its the fact that when a ratio is applied to a real world set of numbers, the value isnt a whole number. So, you have to round down to the nearest whole number / whole vote. As much as them Dems would like another 3/5 ths compromise.
EDIT: changed the votes needed to 10k and 10k per ratio in array just to make the math more realistic.
EDIT EDIT: trying to make it more "realistic" isnt helping, im too tired. its a little more complicated to calculate votes switched because you need to know the real ratio of each precinct batch and take the difference from fraud change rate to calculate the true amount of changed votes. Again though I was trying to avoid those details to make the concept simpler. I guess we could say for this reference...Assume Biden's real count for each precinct was 0. So the algorithm would have switched trump votes to biden in the stated 10k amount.... going to sleep
When you try to recreate the algorithm you will find out that you can not change the ratio drastically in one update (and there are no such changes in the timeseries) so you would need to look for precincts with the correct number of votes and ratio close enough to your final ratio and then change the ratios and do this for every update.
Do we see this applied throughout the election until the last big updates ?
I think the discovered anomaly is a result of artifically capped ratios for the precincts but I need to look into this further, compare precincts in different states and whatnot.
I take this back. There are big jumps in the ratios in the timeseries for the individual precincts in Fulton county.
That's why I would like Edward to publish a list of precincts he claims where hijacked and times when they were hijacked (and possibly a guess what the natural number and ratio of the votes would be at the time if he claims number of votes switched as well) to get more insight into his findings.
did you watch the video? explain then how trumps ratio locks in to 15% while the precinct is showing these "anomalies." then after theyre released its settles back up to 25%. watch the video i only gave a basic explanation.
I watched the videos, none of my questions are answered in the videos.
Which precinct did you observe that goes down to 15% temporarily and than to 25% in next update ? Maybe I missed it.
I have the data here so I can verify quickly, maybe I'm wrong, of course. I'd happy to learn I'm wrong.
Exactly what i said in the prior comment. it doesnt change from 15% to 25% between updates. This is the whole point.... the algorithm converges to 15%... when it is released it settles to a higher percent. That higher percent is a summation of the fraud + the natural, such that the natural can be calculated from. Sure it assumes a somewhat normal distribution which i think is a fair assumption for that specific subset of votes. Did you watch the part 2 video which is ~2.5 hours long, he explains this. Granted, i had to rewatch parts of it too as it was late for me and I nodded in and out in the second half of the vid :D
That's our guy. He came here first. We had the story before any newspaper/reporter
Statistical analysis of Fulton county actually shows vote flipping there.
https://twitter.com/home_obama/status/1332459067529314304/photo/1
Higher Biden percentages in small districts, but third party remains unchanged when percentages are plotted as a function of precinct size. The most likely explanation for this is vote switching. It shows up more strongly in the smaller precincts.
That's a great obesevation as well, indeed.