55
posted ago by Susurro ago by Susurro +55 / -0

Some of our other based mathematicians have found pieces of the fraud, (Dr.Shiva, Bobby Piton, Jim and Joe Hoft....etc.) but Dr. Frank seems to have found the core algorithm to the whole nation! And it dove tails perfectly with all of their earlier work.

Probably a lot of you pedes are burned out with “almost” discoveries, but (if he's correct) there seems to be no wiggle room on this one. Or, at least....I want to hear why you think there is.

Watch it and get that energy up to spread it! Especially to state reps again like we did with all the other fraud info (because pedes are the absolute top-shit fraud-hunting hotness!).

And if he's wrong, somebody else needs to disprove him pronto.

‘Scientific Proof’ https://lindelltv.com/

Comments (16)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
tellittothedead1 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree. But Edward Solomon found the algorithm first. And he discovered a high degree polynomial for the election curve and data.

2
Susurro [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did he also use it on the 2010 Census data like Frank? This seems the missing link to me. But this is the culmination of so many great minds. It's a proud moment for Americans, really.

2
tellittothedead1 2 points ago +2 / -0

So Solomon didn’t use the census data. He didn’t necessarily need it. He had the precinct data from the swing states, and the times in which they reported the totals. He had the actual data. He knew the “bean counters” based their numbers on something, but didn’t know specifically. Meaning that there were internal numbers the democrats knew or predicted, but didn’t know what they used.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
tellittothedead1 1 point ago +2 / -1

That’s only one parameter of the 6th degree. Not 6 individual parameters though. The curve fits with 0.999 and 1.000 R value. That’s statistically significant. Highly. Also If you think they’re going to represent with a quadratic equation, you’re crazy. Furthermore, this has been, in some ways independently verified by Solomon.

1
Susurro [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's right, it's the lack of deviation that is the thing. Projection vs actual. And seemingly (claims) it is reproduced as tightly consistently.