I wish there were some journalist who would put together the credible case on Dominion (combining analysis of known election numbers to extrapolate against like data comparisons on the Dominion data that IS out there), and basically separating the ‘wheat from the chaff’ into an article or study fit for sharing.
As it stands, so much around Dominion are claims that have disappeared into the censored server farms of Twitter, broad claims about what could have happened, ‘proofs’ that hang out there without reply to what seems like weak ‘debunking’ by the MSM (but seem stronger when unanswered), and “absolute proof” that turns out to be recordings of non-experts claiming second-hand what “their people” assure them is the case, often with tables of ‘switched votes’ or ‘hack traces’ that are unverifiable. For instance, I keep hearing that Sydney Powell was given ‘bad data’ that ‘discredited her case’, but nobody can ever even describe what the data in question is, or what about it is being contested! And why did Lindell have time to produce a 2-hour TV special but hasn’t had time to release a .pdf showing his underlying data?
It seems clear that there is an un-yet written story to be told about how and why overseas ‘algorithms’ needed to be ‘hacked’ into the machines. There are scattered data scientists who showed what seemed to be patterns of fraud that proved manipulation, at least in some stage of reporting the votes, and I have no doubt that something like ‘Scorecard’ or ‘Hammer’ software would be deployed by Deep Staters...
...but why Byrne, Lindell, Powell, and others will go 95% of the way to investigate the situation, and not close the distance by putting together some readable report that is more than initial-preliminary limited data, “just trust me” claims or incomplete screenshots of numbers that have inexactly described meanings?
What are they waiting for, or what’s stopping them?
I agree with Tucker Carlson on that point: show us what proof you have!
I wish there were some journalist who would put together the credible case on Dominion (combining analysis of known election numbers to extrapolate against like data comparisons on the Dominion data that IS out there), and basically separating the ‘wheat from the chaff’ into an article or study fit for sharing.
As it stands, so much around Dominion are claims that have disappeared into the censored server farms of Twitter, broad claims about what could have happened, ‘proofs’ that hang out there without reply to what seems like weak ‘debunking’ by the MSM (but seem stronger when unanswered), and “absolute proof” that turns out to be recordings of non-experts claiming second-hand what “their people” assure them is the case, often with tables of ‘switched votes’ or ‘hack traces’ that are unverifiable. For instance, I keep hearing that Sydney Powell was given ‘bad data’ that ‘discredited her case’, but nobody can ever even describe what the data in question is, or what about it is being contested! And why did Lindell have time to produce a 2-hour TV special but hasn’t had time to release a .pdf showing his underlying data?
It seems clear that there is an un-yet spoken story to be told about how and why overseas ‘algorithms’ needed to be ‘hacked’ into the machines. There are scattered data scientists who showed what seemed to be patterns of fraud that proved manipulation, at least in some stage of reporting the votes, and I have no doubt that something like ‘Scorecard’ or ‘Hammer’ software would be deployed by Deep Staters...
...but why Byrne, Lindell, Powell, and others will go 95% of the way to investigate the situation, and not close the distance by putting together some readable report that is more than initial-preliminary limited data, “just trust me” claims or incomplete screenshots of numbers that have inexactly described meanings?
What are they waiting for, or what’s stopping them?
I agree with Tucker Carlson on that point: show us what proof you have!
I wish there were some journalist who would put together the credible case on Dominion (combining analysis of known election numbers to extrapolate against like data comparisons on the Dominion data that IS out there), and basically separating the ‘wheat from the chaff’ into an article or study fit for sharing.
As it stands, so much around Dominion are claims that have disappeared into the censored server farms of Twitter, broad claims about what could have happened, ‘proofs’ that hang out there without reply to what seems like weak ‘debunking’ by the MSM (but seem stronger when unanswered), and “absolute proof” that turns out to be recordings of non-experts claiming second-hand what “their people” assure them is the case, often with tables of ‘switched votes’ or ‘hack traces’ that are unverifiable. For instance, I keep hearing that Sydney Powell was given ‘bad data’ that ‘discredited her case’, but nobody can ever even describe what the data in question is, or what about it is being contested! And why did Lindell have time to produce a 2-hour TV special but hasn’t had time to release a .pdf showing his underlying data?
It seems clear that there is an un-yet story to be told about how and why overseas ‘algorithms’ needed to be ‘hacked’ into the machines. There are scattered data scientists who showed what seemed to be patterns of fraud that proved manipulation, at least in some stage of reporting the votes, and I have no doubt that something like ‘Scorecard’ or ‘Hammer’ software would be deployed by Deep Staters...
...but why Byrne, Lindell, Powell, and others will go 95% of the way to investigate the situation, and not close the distance by putting together some readable report that is more than initial-preliminary limited data, “just trust me” claims or incomplete screenshots of numbers that have inexactly described meanings?
What are they waiting for, or what’s stopping them?
I agree with Tucker Carlson on that point: show us what proof you have!
I wish there were some journalist who would put together the credible case on Dominion (combining analysis of known election numbers to extrapolate against like data comparisons on the Dominion data that IS out there), and basically spreading the ‘wheat from the chaff’ into an article or study fit for sharing.
As it stands, so much around Dominion are claims that have disappeared into the censored server farms of Twitter, broad claims about what could have happened, ‘proofs’ that hang out there without reply to what seems like weak ‘debunking’ by the MSM (but seem stronger when unanswered), and “absolute proof” that turns out to be recordings of non-experts claiming second-hand what “their people” assure them is the case, often with tables of ‘switched votes’ or ‘hack traces’ that are unverifiable. For instance, I keep hearing that Sydney Powell was given ‘bad data’ that ‘discredited her case’, but nobody can ever even describes what the data in question is, or what about it is being contested!
It seems clear that there is an un-yet story to be told about how and why overseas ‘algorithms’ needed to be ‘hacked’ into the machines. There are scattered data scientists who showed what seemed to be patterns of fraud that proved manipulation, at least in some stage of reporting the votes, and I have no doubt that something like ‘Scorecard’ or ‘Hammer’ software would be deployed by Deep Staters...
...but why Byrne, Lindell, Powell, and others will go 95% of the way to investigate the situation, and not close the distance by putting together some readable report that is more than initial-preliminary limited data, “just trust me” claims or incomplete screenshots of numbers that have inexactly described meanings?
What are they waiting for, or what’s stopping them?
I agree with Tucker Carlson on that point: show us what proof you have!