Hi again!
I'm Justin Mealey, and I testified at the Georgia Senate hearing today. Our team provided hard evidence of voter fraud, using the same data the Georgia certified the state with.
Here's a copy of the testimony: https://rumble.com/vcay7j-data-scientists-shocking-election-testimony.html
I wanted to do an AMA so that people can ask more questions related to our data methodology, clarify items about the voting process which we painstakingly investigated across multiple states, and hear your ideas about we could better get the word out about the fact that we seem to be one of the only groups operating off of hard, irrefutable conclusions based off of data.
EDIT: Thanks so much for the questions (heading to bed) -- hope I was able to clarify a few things for you guys. We'll ask Dave (the head data scientist who also testified from my group) to come do any AMA tomorrow as well.
EDIT 2: I'm sort of back right now (9AM EST) so will be periodically checking for new questions as I refresh tdw looking for spicy memes to repost on facebook.
EDIT 3: (10:32AM EST) I'm going to post a reply to a MrCaveman (which, thank you for the question) that I really want everyone to read:
https://thedonald.win/p/11RO7PRc9Q/x/c/4Drwoe2gIJ7?d=50
When doing work that you deem is important, the most vital thing you can have is focus. A lot of the times that means putting to the side all of the noise that surrounds a certain path. The poll pads are the noise when it comes to the actual ability to commit fraud during this election.
If you were creating a system to enact a fraud, how many points of contact would you design for that system to interface with in the voting process? How many confederates would you need to enable in that system? One way we've discovered only requires one true confederate to enact in a county, and we've actually identified some of these actual confederates. Depending on how things go, we might have to just release that in a video in the future.
My point being, that while your intentions are good (as most everyone's on this site's are), they distract from the actual fraud. By distracting from the actual fraud, parts of which we've proved through hard data analysis, it actually detracts from the ability for us to bring that fraud to light and abolish it.
Please, for the love of God, stop talking about poll pads.
Just want to correct my error. Reviewed your testimony again, and it’s great. I was mistaken on anomalies... seems they first appear at county level, so I got that wrong.
My issue is with your fundamental reasoning. The exact flow chart is irrelevant.
In my model, there can be a “shared spreadsheet” type of interface anywhere in the chain.
Any office worker familiar with shared spreadsheets understands that updates from one user can override updates from another user. Data may appear “lost” in some situations; but eventually, everything can sync up.
It doesn’t matter whether my speculation is dead wrong. It doesn’t matter whether a human or machine performs the updates. Just the fact that shared spreadsheets exist is enough.
Your diagrams appear to assume a relatively clean and monolithic data path.
My objection is that I can go into your diagram and simply ASSERT that there is a patchwork of computer systems somewhere, instead of a single diagramed box. I’ll also assert that your team didn’t fully map out all the legacy systems in operation (even if you did). Any one of those systems could (hypothetically) produce a delayed update. Unless your team goes on-site and physically verifies otherwise, I’m afraid my objection is sustained.
Again, I think there was large-scale fraud and agree with your conclusion. That’s why I hope you can strengthen your analysis with an additional point of reference. What happened in 2016? 2018? (or perhaps compare with an area/state agreed to be non-fraudulent...) Why isn’t 2020 business as usual? Why aren’t so-called “negative votes” just the artifact of a patchwork of legacy systems that we always used for vote updates?
If some other point of comparison is not established, then unfortunately some variation of my line of reasoning above will defeat your analysis every time.
(Even if it’s wrong.)
Best of luck to your team!