The Kent County regression graph with curves at the beginning and end reflect that the most common percent Trump decrease is from roughly 10 to 18 percent and there are fewer and fewer precincts as precincts deviate from this range of values.
I sampled a few of the precincts and the ones I looked at had only 2 or 3 updates that actually had vote totals that changed. Maybe that is not a surprise to you, but that was not known to me until I looked. For the ones I looked at, in all of these cases, the last update change was a percent decrease for Trump. Does this pattern hold true for all precincts?
If all precincts fit this pattern of Trump decreases in the last update change then that does seems strange to me, even if it technically fits the main stream narrative that late (mail in votes) were in Biden's favor.
Is it indicative of a master controlling algorithm? I don't know.
How do you explain a set of arbitrary constants, including the dynamic exponential scaling factors, being uniform to every county?
Can you explain what you are specifically referring to with this. I think you are saying that you used the same form of polynomial (C + x + x^1 + x^2 ... x^10) to model each counties max trump percentage difference. Do I understand correctly?
Assuming I am understanding correctly, why is this odd? Would you not be able to model other counties, or counties in other states with this same polynomial?
Are you saying this is a natural event?
I don't know, but if it can be explained by natural events and not a master controlling algorithm that is a more plausible explanation because it would be very difficult and risky to pull off such a fraud using a coordinated controlling algorithm. So the evidence for a controlling algorithm needs to be very good.
If you take Kent county for example. Why is it odd to find curves at each end of the graph? Could these not be explained by voting patterns (including possible uncoordinated fraud) in this county? It seems plausible to me that at the extremities you might have increasingly fewer variations in max trump percentage differences because of the political differences of the voters in these precincts.
You found a polynomial expression to fit a voting pattern in Kent County. That is not by itself indicative of a manipulative mathematical algorithm at play. I don't dispute that anyone could take the data and reproduce what you did to make this graph, but this does not demonstrate reproducibility of an algorithm, but only that you found a pattern.
In section V. you describe the golden algorithm. I have not tried to understand the logic behind it, I don't think you have made it easy, but the inputs to the algorithm seem arbitrary (you describe the input constants yourself that way). It feels a lot like you are just finding an equation and some constants that fit a pattern of data that you see.
Sort of blind, I think I typed in something like 98.8 when I searched the paper. Anyways thanks for the link. I will look it over.
I am trying to understand whether your claim makes sense or not. If that makes me a troll so be it.
What specific paper has the the polynomial 99.8 R^2 I have no idea what you mean by OP (original paper?) and have no idea where that is. I looked at the Michigan paper that you linked in the description and it has nothing like that in it.
Can you be more specific? Data for what state and precincts fit the polynomial 99.8 R^2 ? Or just give me the link to the paper that you have written on this that clearly shows this polynomial including what each variable is and where its data is sourced.
I have watched some of his videos and while he seems sincere and gifted in several ways, I am not convinced that he is on to anything real and there are some red herrings. For example, he says:
I've done all of this research under the watchful eyes of thousands of programmers, IT specialists, hackers, mathematicians and physicists around the world.
I have not heard or seen anyone with credentials vouch for his work. So that he uses the word "thousands" in conjunction with various professions to give credence to his work makes me very skeptical.
You need reproducibility. You need to be able to describe the algorithm in such a way that an independent expert can take the algorithm and data sets and reproduce the results you have found in your videos.
As far as I can tell you have not formally written the algorithm down. You seem to have notions of how it works, but you don't have a formal mathematical description that an independent expert can take and reproduce what you claim to have found.
Your claims of statistical anomalies such as many polling precincts having the same percentage votes at the same time are somewhat compelling, but you need to do a better job at showing this is more than just chance. I have seen some of your math proofs and they are not convincing enough because you seem to leave out the possibility that polling stations in similar demographics may have similar voting habits (i.e. voting percentages being the same for a particular candidate).
My initial reaction was this is BS, but after getting more context to this story I am more inclined to think it might be real. Read this CNN business article from August that explains why he stepped down. It gives a lot of details including that the justice department confirmed his account. (not that I trust CNN, but it is strange they would lie about this)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/business/overstock-ceo-patrick-byrne-resigns/index.html
What I had in mind in regards to exaggeration is when she was giving estimates for the amount of times she saw ballots being improperly rescanned. I don't doubt she saw this, but I think her accuracy in this regard is questionable. Does that invalidate her testimony of the things she heard and saw? I don't think it does.
Being correct and being honest are not the same thing. Being honest is thinking you are correct, but does not mean you are actually correct. So her testimony on details that she described are credible, but her testimony on what she think was happening (her accusations) may not be correct.
Maybe a little crazy, but she is unrehearsed, her accounts are genuine, she has not been refuted on details and I think from her point of view she is telling the truth. The only thing that is shaky is her accusations, but it is likely because she is upset and passionate about what she thinks happened.
She is emotionally driven, but she is the opposite of rehearsed and so I come to the opposite conclusion and find that her testimony from her viewpoint is genuine. She may have exaggerated or come to the wrong conclusions on some things, but she is honest and it would have been hard for her to trick us because she said so much in a non-rehearsed way.
It hurts our cause more if we try to push bullshit. It hurts our cause more if we call those who are acting respectively (at least in the context of the meeting) racist names. You want to help Trump and conservatives get elected, stop it!
I have no problem with people getting pissed. Our founding fathers were pissed enough to rebel and create this nation we love. Get pissed, but do it in a just and honorable way so that others are compelled to join the cause rather than be repelled from it.
She did a good job at uncovering the truth. Please don't sink to the same level as the Democrats and fake media (or maybe these comments are from plants). We have legitimate grievances, but it does not help our cause if we ignore the truth or shame those who expose it.
Here is the actual report written by Pennsylvania representative Frank Ryan that goes into more detail about this 400,000 ballot discrepancy:
Edward Solomon, can you convert this algorithm to actual code? (I would suggest python which is popular and easily accessible). Maybe it is obvious to some, but I am not convinced you are not just coming up with constants that model some set of real voting patterns. In real voting patterns you are likely to see vote fractions repeat and if you come up with enough buckets maybe you could model it to get the result you want for a specific set of precincts. That said, that you say that you only see these patterns in problematic polling precincts is a compelling argument. I think this would be easier to understand the algorithm if we can see and run the code that does the actual algorithm.
Good question, but there was a testimony before the Georgia state legislator that said Dominion was brought in to assist or replace the workers because of COVID 19 outbreak and this team had the capability to print ballots. This testimony was from a employee who was responsible for printing test ballots.
Here is the video of this testimony: https://youtu.be/e35f4pUIYOg?t=8147
Rand is for the auditing the election and thinks there is fraud, but he does not think the US congress should deny the electoral votes decided at the state level.