LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s incomplete data from those precincts. 30 years ago you would not even have gotten that much data.
- Status
S
Stephen_says
Guest
Now I’m no expert, but the statistics that you site don’t say “Precinct”, they say “City of Detroit AVCB”, whatever that is, and starting on page 1 of the document, the “City of Detroit Precincts” are clearly numbered, so I imagine the precincts and the AVBC overlap somehow, because on page 1, the precincts AV Counting Boards all say “0 Cards Cast”…so does it say “0” on page 1 and count those “Cards Cast” on page 93, while page 93 counts the “Cards Cast” and leaves the “Registered Voters” “0” because those are are counted on page 1, so then the sum on the last page would seem doubled? I dunno, it definitely leads me to question how they are counting the votes, out of curiosity mostly, but I don’t think that document proves fraud, just that Microsoft excel is difficult to work with 
“
“
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Thanks for trying to assess things here.
The problem appears to be with the organization of the sourcing of the ballots rather than with the spreadsheet.
AVCB is Advanced Voting Counting Board.
I assumed these were tied to Detroit City precincts but don’t appear to be specifically so by number. Which may or may not be problematic.
The first five Detroit precincts break down this way:
#1 Reg Voters 752 Counted 114
#2 Reg Voters 1140 Counted 161
#3 Reg Voters 1212 Counted 180
#4 Reg Voters 801 Counted 122
#5 Reg Voters 875 Counted 108
Now if the AVCB District counted votes are matched to the above, the numbers make the voting percentage far beyond registered numbers.
#1. 1506
#2. 2011
#3. 1894
#4. 1866
#5. 1883
So where did these AVCB numbers come from? Perhaps they are registered voters from all other precincts that were counted at the 134 AVCB locations, but there is no way of ascertaining that these voters were registered somewhere specifically. The tie ins are not available, at least not on this sheet.
There are ways of comparing totals from the spreadsheet, but I am on my device at the moment and that is a cumbersome task.
The problem appears to be with the organization of the sourcing of the ballots rather than with the spreadsheet.
AVCB is Advanced Voting Counting Board.
I assumed these were tied to Detroit City precincts but don’t appear to be specifically so by number. Which may or may not be problematic.
The first five Detroit precincts break down this way:
#1 Reg Voters 752 Counted 114
#2 Reg Voters 1140 Counted 161
#3 Reg Voters 1212 Counted 180
#4 Reg Voters 801 Counted 122
#5 Reg Voters 875 Counted 108
Now if the AVCB District counted votes are matched to the above, the numbers make the voting percentage far beyond registered numbers.
#1. 1506
#2. 2011
#3. 1894
#4. 1866
#5. 1883
So where did these AVCB numbers come from? Perhaps they are registered voters from all other precincts that were counted at the 134 AVCB locations, but there is no way of ascertaining that these voters were registered somewhere specifically. The tie ins are not available, at least not on this sheet.
There are ways of comparing totals from the spreadsheet, but I am on my device at the moment and that is a cumbersome task.
Last edited:
T
Thrstypirate
Guest
Three I think
Trump Taj Mahal (now Hard Rock Atlantic City), Trump Marina (now Golden Nugget Atlantic City), and Trump Plaza (now an empty looking ghost hotel Atlantic City).
P
pnewton
Guest
You know I am not one for clicking on fringe websites, but I have seen a lot of Mike, so I had to check that one out. I loved it. Biden will provide plenty of fodder for the upcoming years, I am sure.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Had a chance to look at the video you provided.
To summarize both arguments…
Valentine’s argument:
The data shows that the larger the number of down ballot votes that were straight R, the larger the number of votes on those ballots that went to Biden.
On the surface this seems counter intuitive because we would expect straight Rep voting to remain consistent with voting for the Rep candidate for president. So the line correlating the two should remain flat across the plot graph.
The fact that it is sloped downward is an indicator of fraud according to Dr. Shiva and Mr Valentine.
The video you provided argues that the same phenomenon shows up when Biden and Dem votes are compared so if fraud were the case why would this kind of fraud be used to also take away from Biden’s totals?
The obvious rebuttal here is that an algorithm that is meant to avoid cursory statistical analysis and, in fact, anticipate such analysis would - if the fraudsters were competent - actually take this into account
Here’s the response…
An algorithm that was meant not to give itself away could be tuned to actual preponderance of votes. Ergo it would only do the switching when Trump’s votes were outpacing Biden’s and switch BOTH Biden’s and Trump’s to the other candidate precisely because the net gain of the switch would favour Biden.
That is precisely what happened in Antrim County MI.
So the question of whether the data was manipulated by an algorithm favouring Biden meant to shift an increasingly higher number of votes to Biden as Trump’s numbers got proportionally higher is still an open one.
This is especially true since one would indeed expect straight ballot voting not to decline for the presidential candidate corresponding to the size of the precinct.
So Valentine’s point still stands that the data remains suspicious and only a forensic analysis of the software and logs could reveal this with certainty. That should be done before this election is certified.
In fact, that Matt Parker would use his analysis to “debunk” the statistical anomaly makes me wonder (somewhat seriously) what his connections are to the Democrat party and to Smartmatic. Perhaps he is merely an innocent mathematician who just stumbled into the fray, but the convenience of his having done so with just the right argument to satisfy Biden supporters makes me a tad skeptical.
The machines should be forensically analyzed to determine with certainty what occurred. Software geeks are not idiots so they know how to cover their operations. Valentine’s statistical suspicions still stand.
To summarize both arguments…
Valentine’s argument:
The data shows that the larger the number of down ballot votes that were straight R, the larger the number of votes on those ballots that went to Biden.
On the surface this seems counter intuitive because we would expect straight Rep voting to remain consistent with voting for the Rep candidate for president. So the line correlating the two should remain flat across the plot graph.
The fact that it is sloped downward is an indicator of fraud according to Dr. Shiva and Mr Valentine.
The video you provided argues that the same phenomenon shows up when Biden and Dem votes are compared so if fraud were the case why would this kind of fraud be used to also take away from Biden’s totals?
The obvious rebuttal here is that an algorithm that is meant to avoid cursory statistical analysis and, in fact, anticipate such analysis would - if the fraudsters were competent - actually take this into account
Here’s the response…
An algorithm that was meant not to give itself away could be tuned to actual preponderance of votes. Ergo it would only do the switching when Trump’s votes were outpacing Biden’s and switch BOTH Biden’s and Trump’s to the other candidate precisely because the net gain of the switch would favour Biden.
That is precisely what happened in Antrim County MI.
So the question of whether the data was manipulated by an algorithm favouring Biden meant to shift an increasingly higher number of votes to Biden as Trump’s numbers got proportionally higher is still an open one.
This is especially true since one would indeed expect straight ballot voting not to decline for the presidential candidate corresponding to the size of the precinct.
So Valentine’s point still stands that the data remains suspicious and only a forensic analysis of the software and logs could reveal this with certainty. That should be done before this election is certified.
In fact, that Matt Parker would use his analysis to “debunk” the statistical anomaly makes me wonder (somewhat seriously) what his connections are to the Democrat party and to Smartmatic. Perhaps he is merely an innocent mathematician who just stumbled into the fray, but the convenience of his having done so with just the right argument to satisfy Biden supporters makes me a tad skeptical.
The machines should be forensically analyzed to determine with certainty what occurred. Software geeks are not idiots so they know how to cover their operations. Valentine’s statistical suspicions still stand.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
But she effectively has. It’s an affidavit from someone who says he might have seen something sometime a few years ago in Venezuela.
She was asked specifically on Fox yesterday (not Carlson’s show) what was the most damaging piece of evidence she had. And she specifically said ‘an affidavit from someone who…etc etc’. That’s it. That’s the evidence. There is nothing more. Literally nothing. And you’ll realise this sooner or later. Most of us have already.
As I say, this may take a few days to sink in for some people. But when it does, all you’ll have left are Trumps tweets floating around in the ether like the smile on the Cheshire cat.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And that is, at Matt Parker showed at 12:10 in the video, exactly what happened. The percentage of people who voted GOP is very closely correlated with the percentage of people who voted for Trump. The bamboozle (and there really is no other way to describe it) is in subtracting the two percentages that are not really of the same things and plotting that.
And it is. But the thing they graphed was not the correlation scatter plot. If you want to show a lack of proper correlation, why not just graph the scatter plot of the two things themselves?
But thing they were graphing was not the correlation. Any conclusions drawn from the meaningless graph are likewise meaningless. The proper graph shows the proper correlation. What’s wrong with that?
If that is the case, forensic analysis would yield nothing, because the fraud was so perfect. Yet your guys say that it does.
If you think this through a little more you will see that it doesn’t make mathematical sense.
Where did you see a scatter plot of the size of precincts?
Classic ad hominem! Matt Parker’s analysis is not founded on his authority at all.And so do the suspicions that the moon landing was faked. People that want to push conspiracy theories will never be satisfied. They will always find one more “unexplainable” bit of data.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Your logic moves from “most significant” to “nothing more?” Frankly that is ridiculous, not the least because you have no idea how that significant piece ties into all the other pieces.HarryStotle:
But she effectively has. It’s an affidavit from someone who says he might have seen something sometime a few years ago in Venezuela.
She was asked specifically on Fox yesterday (not Carlson’s show) what was the most damaging piece of evidence she had. And she specifically said ‘an affidavit from someone who…etc etc’. That’s it. That’s the evidence. There is nothing more. Literally nothing.
Do you know what a lynch pin is or a keystone?
By your logic a keystone in a stone arch bridge implies there are no other stones in that bridge.
Remind me not to listen to you anymore on this topic because your “most significant” argument here must mean you have no other arguments. That’s it for you.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Apparently you don’t understand computer software and what is necessary to create certain outputs. If the data has a certain pattern created by an algorithm that algorithm would show up as the processes are monitored and logged. You bet it would show up.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Never claimed what you write here. His authority has no bearing on his honesty or complicity. In fact, higher levels of competency could create less detectable actions.
It would help if you would follow the argument instead of rendering it in a way to suit your rebuttal. That is called a straw man. Perhaps you have heard of it?
Keep this up and I will stop taking you seriously because either you didn’t comprehend my post or intentionally misrepresented what I wrote to make a fake rebuttal apply to it.
Reread my post and think through what I wrote there.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
If she had said that they have a computer expert who had examined the software or had talked to people who had operated it or even suggested that they had something more concrete than ‘we have someone who said something about it’ and that it involved communists, Cuba, big business, foreign governments and a centralised Democratic fraud centre (she actually said this on camera) then I would sit up and listen with some interest.Freddy:
Your logic moves from “most significant” to “nothing more?” Frankly that is ridiculous, not the least because you have no idea how that significant piece ties into all the other pieces.HarryStotle:
But she effectively has. It’s an affidavit from someone who says he might have seen something sometime a few years ago in Venezuela.
She was asked specifically on Fox yesterday (not Carlson’s show) what was the most damaging piece of evidence she had. And she specifically said ‘an affidavit from someone who…etc etc’. That’s it. That’s the evidence. There is nothing more. Literally nothing.
Do you know what a lynch pin is or a keystone?
By your logic a keystone in a stone arch bridge implies there are no other stones in that bridge.
Remind me not to listen to you anymore on this topic because your “most significant” argument here must mean you have no other arguments. That’s it for you.
They don’t have anything but that. They are making it up as they go along. I would suggest that claims as monstrously and transparently false such as this would fool no-one. But apparently it does.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
She doesn’t have to present it to the public, but has it been presented in court where it should be? If not, why not? If so, why has it not persuaded them to urgently remedy the situation, which given the looming deadlines is imperative and well within the power of the courts?Freddy:
There is no requirement for Sydney Powell to make her legal evidence available to Tucker Carlson or to you unless you believe the kangaroo court of public opinion is the reigning court and you its Supreme Justice with Tucker being the court reporter.HarryStotle:
She has presented ZERO evidence. Even Tucker Carlson on Fox has called her out on that (Tucker Carlson calls you out and you have really hit rock bottom). All she says she has, on her own admission, is an afidavit from someone who says they they thought Chavez had software especially written for him so he could rig his own elections. End of story. That’s it.Freddy:
Actually very far from it. She has evidence that Trump did, in fact, win all of the swing states. That evidence would indicate the voters were disenfranchised by the fraud and therefore the actual wishes of the people would be to have all the electors selected for Trump. That is hardly a coup. Maybe a coop, seeing as I am hearing a lot of clucking.
Now you may not believe that, but if she does have that evidence then your view on things is kind of irrelevant.
Apart from the fact that that might not be true, there is a monstrous ‘Huh?’ from everyone who hasn’t got sand in their ears. As in ‘Where is any evidence WHATSOEVER that the two things are connected in some way.’ It’s like saying that you used Windows Explorer for nefarious purposes and I’m guilty of the same thing because I use it as well.
It’s laughably inept. Or rather it would be worth a laugh if it wasn’t so desperately serious and damaging to the very bedrock of democracy.
Here’s my take on it and you heard it here first. This ship of fools is sinking fast before everyone eyes. And the rats are starting to abandon it. I’m giving it a few days - a week tops, and Trump will be left alone on board desperately rearranging the deckchairs and tweeting to the last - ‘But I won!’
I will take inordinate delight in watching him sink.
The only thing left will be a few bubbles, an orange slick on the ocean and an important question hanging in the air: Where does the Republican Party go to from here?
That is delusional if you don’t mind my pointing it out.
Besides that, your precognitive biases have fallen out all over the floor.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There are experts who have assessed the software (past versions) and do assert manipulation is very possible.
To prove that it actually happened on these specific machines requires access to them, which would require a court order. For that order they need to show probable cause.
Ergo, the fact that the software company (Smartmatic) itself did manipulate the election in Venezuela shows past behaviour that implicates their possible intent in this election. Probable cause or predicate focuses on the means, the motive and the opportunity. All of these are in play. The fact that Powell considers past action in Venezuela as significant might be a piece that ties together the remaining evidence in a way that you - not knowing what the rest of the evidence is - could only guess at. She may, for example, have names of specific people at Smartmatic involved in both elections. The last ones in Venezuela were 2013 and 2018, I believe, so current individuals at Smartmatic could be implicated in the current election. So your determination here is effectively meaningless.
I’ll wait for more from Powell. She is a very competent lawyer. You, I don’t know anything about but so far you haven’t argued your position very convincingly.
To prove that it actually happened on these specific machines requires access to them, which would require a court order. For that order they need to show probable cause.
Ergo, the fact that the software company (Smartmatic) itself did manipulate the election in Venezuela shows past behaviour that implicates their possible intent in this election. Probable cause or predicate focuses on the means, the motive and the opportunity. All of these are in play. The fact that Powell considers past action in Venezuela as significant might be a piece that ties together the remaining evidence in a way that you - not knowing what the rest of the evidence is - could only guess at. She may, for example, have names of specific people at Smartmatic involved in both elections. The last ones in Venezuela were 2013 and 2018, I believe, so current individuals at Smartmatic could be implicated in the current election. So your determination here is effectively meaningless.
I’ll wait for more from Powell. She is a very competent lawyer. You, I don’t know anything about but so far you haven’t argued your position very convincingly.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It is her case to make. Artificially imposing your deadlines on her doesn’t weaken her case. She has up to a certain time frame to build the strongest case possible. I would use all available time to do that instead of rushing because someone named LilyM is showing impatience on a CAF thread.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
For the sake of thoroughness, why don’t I make sense here?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s funny. I have been making my bread and butter by writing software for 42 years, and I don’t understand software!
No only that, his honesty does not even enter into it. The explanation makes sense to a mathematician. I don’t need to trust his honesty.
The argument is flawed, so there is nothing to follow.
J
johnz123
Guest
Wow this thread got huge.
L
LilyM
Guest
Not my deadlines at all. States have to certify, electors have to elect and a new President has to be sworn in. State and Federal laws set those time frames not me.LilyM:
It is her case to make. Artificially imposing your deadlines on her doesn’t weaken her case. She has up to a certain time frame to build the strongest case possible. I would use all available time to do that instead of rushing because someone named LilyM is showing impatience on a CAF thread.
By the way I am.not American, so it is no nevermind to me personally how. long y’all take, or whether it ever gets sorted really.
Just strikes me as odd, as a lawyer, myself, that these machines have been in play for all this time, these witnesses have kbown the problems for all this time, and no-one has come forward successfully yet. Smells like a desperate throw of.the dice from someone who has no firm ground to stand on.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Right. We’ll take it on your authority then.
- Status