Hi TDW!
I'm Dave Lobue, and you might have watched our testimony from DIG (Data Integrity Group) at the Georgia Senate hearing yesterday: https://rumble.com/vcay7j-data-scientists-shocking-election-testimony.html
Here's where you can find a list of our videos:
https://rumble.com/user/ElectionNightFacts
I've got 12 years experience in data science and analytics. I have a BA in Philosophy, Masters in Business/Marketing from Grenoble Ecole de Management in France, and currently I'm pursuing a Masters in Data Science from Northwestern University specializing in Artificial Intelligence.
I'd love to talk to you about our findings, answer your questions as to our data and methodologies, and maybe even talk a little bit about the voting systems. Mostly other members of the team handle the systems side, so my primary focus is on the data and the story that the data tells.
I'll echo something that another team member (Justin Mealey) posted in his AMA: please forget what you've heard about the poll pads. It's sending people down the wrong paths of analysis, and what Jovan said about the poll pads and hacking into them is not correct.
Many thanks for the great work. Can your team demonstrate that negative votes are NOT ordinary?
The objection goes like this:
I do not require expertise to make this objection. I can simply ASSERT that somewhere in the pipeline, computers report on a shared basis with staggered updates. Therefore negative votes are ordinary and do not demonstrate fraud.
Unless your team goes on-site and physically verifies otherwise, I’m afraid the objection would be sustained (even if the point is ultimately wrong).
It is essential to demonstrate a change in the ground situation. How does 2020 data compare with 2016? 2018? With data from a region regarded as non-fraudulent? Does the frequency of “negative” votes change?
Without a point of comparison, I’m afraid your efforts can be justifiably waved off as “business as usual.” Just one reference or portion of a slide would help tremendously.
Best of luck to your team!
Your first premise is incorrect. There are no shared spreadsheets. There's a json data file, which is a database format. It stands for javascript object notation. The file is sequential and time stamped.
Respectfully, you misunderstand the point.
My first premise is correct. I only say that shared spreadsheets “exist,” NOT that they factor into voting.
I only need to establish that there EXISTS a known type of computer program whose ORDINARY behavior would appear to produce negative updates.
After that, I can simply assert that such an ordinary phenomenon is occurring.
Whether that is true or false is irrelevant.
By simply describing an ordinary course of events, I place the burden of proof on our data team, who would now appear to claim something extraordinary happened.
Where is it demonstrated that “negative” votes aren’t an ordinary phenomenon? Has the team traced every data cable across the United States? Have they accounted for every input that ends up in the json data file? Are we to believe that 50 states and thousands of counties, all operating under different legal frameworks, transmit perfect, clean, sequential data? How do we know this doesn’t happen everywhere in every election? Where’s the fraud?
I hope you see my point now. My objection is unfair and may well be false. But this is exactly what the opposition will say.
Unless the data team demonstrates a change in the ground situation or provides another point of comparison, they are not making their strongest case.