4459
posted ago by 0io- (edited) +4459 / -0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIlI46HdqKg

OK, so I have finished watching the video and I will try to describe what is in it. The author has done a deep dive into the votes for Philadelphia on Nov 4 using the data on the NY Times website.

The author notices suspicious patterns. The votes are coming in at exact fixed ratios across multiple precincts. For example exactly 1 Trump vote per exactly 6 Biden votes. These "fixed ratio batches" are coming in for multiple precincts in discrete time segments. So, for say 2 hours, votes into a certain precinct are coming in at exactly at this 6:1 ratio. Then moments later the computer reporting votes in a different precinct at exactly this 6:1 ratio. It's not "averaging out at 6 to 1" like you might expect from an actual count, but it's coming in precisely fixed, exactly 6 Biden votes to 1 Trump vote. Again and again.

The author has identified an number of other ratios that were used to stuff the ballot boxes until the desired total was reached. At the 36 minute mark the author describes the scheme he's observed.

So it's a partial deconstruction of the Dominion vote stuffing or vote switching algorithm. Towards the end of the video, if you want to fast-forward, the author draws a helpful diagram that indicates how the scheme appears to work.

EDIT: The author of the video made this helpful summary graph https://ibb.co/h1x3Xds and he actually posts here https://thedonald.win/p/11QRkGgVT6/smoking-gun-i-discovered-dominio/

EDIT2: Let's get more eyes on this and see if we can find other cities where this type of fraud happened and see if we can make it into an easier-to-understand summary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIlI46HdqKg OK, so I have finished watching the video and I will try to describe what is in it. The author has done a deep dive into the votes for Philadelphia on Nov 4 using the data on the NY Times website. The author notices suspicious patterns. The votes are coming in at exact fixed ratios across multiple precincts. For example exactly 1 Trump vote per exactly 6 Biden votes. These "fixed ratio batches" are coming in for multiple precincts in discrete time segments. So, for say 2 hours, votes into a certain precinct are coming in at exactly at this 6:1 ratio. Then moments later the computer reporting votes in a different precinct at exactly this 6:1 ratio. It's not "averaging out at 6 to 1" like you might expect from an actual count, but it's coming in precisely fixed, exactly 6 Biden votes to 1 Trump vote. Again and again. The author has identified an number of other ratios that were used to stuff the ballot boxes until the desired total was reached. At the 36 minute mark the author describes the scheme he's observed. So it's a partial deconstruction of the Dominion vote stuffing or vote switching algorithm. Towards the end of the video, if you want to fast-forward, the author draws a helpful diagram that indicates how the scheme appears to work. EDIT: The author of the video made this helpful summary graph https://ibb.co/h1x3Xds and he actually posts here https://thedonald.win/p/11QRkGgVT6/smoking-gun-i-discovered-dominio/ EDIT2: Let's get more eyes on this and see if we can find other cities where this type of fraud happened and see if we can make it into an easier-to-understand summary.
Comments (178)
sorted by:
96
deleted 96 points ago +98 / -2
57
deleted 57 points ago +58 / -1
17
John789 17 points ago +17 / -0

Is Dominion a CIA front organization, for stealing elections around the world? Just like Crowd Strike is a CIA front law firm?

15
MakeAmericaLegendary 15 points ago +15 / -0

CrowdStrike isn't law. It's a sketchy cyber security corp.

6
RedditAsylumSeeker 6 points ago +6 / -0

That is run by ex mueller guy and one reported Ukraine artillery was hacked by russia to fire on their own men and was rebuked internationally prior to russia gate.

3
Odin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Pennsylvania is our MF country too...we will get what's ours

-6
deleted -6 points ago +1 / -7
2
Shit_tyrone 2 points ago +2 / -0

holy spam, batman... can someone deport this guy?

3
MAGAA2020isback 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep. The same Russian hackers used by the DNC to cover up their DCCC leaks (likely done by Eric Braverman) are the same ones running FBI's go-to contractor, Crowdstrike.

It's like using your crime scene detective to double as your hit man.

Edit to add: that same team (Guccifer 2 and Warren Flood placing strategic "Russian fingerprints" using CIA programs disclosed in Wikileaks Vault 7) are coming to the forefront in the 2020 election. George Webb is theorizing Warren Flood is responsible for delivering the late night ballot dumps in MI.

9
cincydan 9 points ago +9 / -0

Their coding is all similar if not the same. They worked together for quite a few years. They also run shell companies to hide the true source of their business. It's all one giant linked fraud. Kind of like, say MS-DOS and PC-DOS. Or Linux and Ubuntu.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
2
booblitchutz 2 points ago +2 / -0

PREASE CRICK!!

-7
deleted -7 points ago +1 / -8
5
rosebluesky 5 points ago +5 / -0

The application of these algorithms was most likely not done on local precinct and machine level, it doesn’t matter what machines they used on local level.

This vote switching was probably done on cloud level in the Dominion Clarity cloud application where the feeds come in (probably on the Scytl servers in Frankfurt) and then get reported to NYT, CNN etc. as feeds.

3
FAQ-REDDIT 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ok of no dominion in PA, then corrolates to President Trump's 600,000+ lead on election night vs other flip state were the flip was benefiting Joe and his hoe. So they made up the difference with all the other treason fraud methods in their play book.

2
progpoker 2 points ago +2 / -0

Calculated or massaged??

23
MAGA1775 23 points ago +25 / -2

FYI - we need to really vet this before we start sending it off to officials.

4chan supposedly debunked it:

Precincts X, Y, and Z happen to have a perfect ratio of 1/5

They stay in that ratio for a long time, because no new votes are being reported

Global update happens and all vote counts are updated

X, Y, and Z are no longer perfect

A, B, and C now happen to have a perfect ratio of 1/5

There's no indication of "transfers" here or anything. He's just finding perfect ratios, ignoring the UUIDs and updates, and finding examples where different precincts have the same ratio after the next batch of votes comes in.

Sorry, folks, this is a nothingburger.

13
MakeAmericaLegendary 13 points ago +14 / -1

This is why I'm terrified of the thought of Sidney using our data. The signal to noise ratio is not nearly good enough to avoid poisoned numbers.

22
MAGA1775 22 points ago +23 / -1

Exactly, and if these numbers aren't bulletproof before presented to a court, it will destroy all credibility. We only have one shot.

We can't just throw everything around as fact before carefully vetting it.

5
KeyDoorQ 5 points ago +6 / -1

Amen

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
9
FormerGraveheart 9 points ago +10 / -1

They must have their own people double checking this. It would be gross negligence not to.

9
tbakke125 9 points ago +10 / -1

well one of the main affidavcits has the wrong state info Minnesota instead of Michigan so still making mistakes

2
MAGAA2020isback 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm cutting them some slack for trying to condense a lawsuit that would ordinarily take 2 years into two weeks.

Ramsland is still in point in his analysis, I'm assuming he can amend to reflect MI (which there will no doubt be similar shenanigans).

6
cryogen 6 points ago +6 / -0

The whole argument is based on the probability of whether these ratios could occur naturally within the specified timeframes. The channer isn't debunking, but is disagreeing.

6
0io- [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

I wouldn't say it's been debunked, I think we need more eyes on it and see if we can get it into a presentable format. It's much too "raw" right now.

-1
tryingtodomath -1 points ago +2 / -3

100% debunked. There were only 4 updates from Philadelphia on the 4th. The time stamps are updates from everywhere.

4
GrumpyAmerican 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lol!! Nice try new acct guy. Every one of your posts is trying to debunk this.

3
MiChecker 3 points ago +3 / -0

In another .win thread we have done the work to get as much as the precinct level. We will be posting a master thread shortly with how to use that to get better definition than the edison dataset.

We needed time on getting the best way to pull it down fr NYT. Due to great efforts we have a large set of data that everyone can start using like they used for the high level edison set. This data set is in counts, not in fractions and percents

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
TommyLasordasBallBag 5 points ago +5 / -0

A nb that can be explained by the rescanned ballots (so the algorithm can be obscured)... it would be too obvious if the internal weighted system was consistant everywhere... so that's why they "shut down"... it was too either a) recalibrate to answer the unexpected massive landslide b) hide the algorithm processes and restack previously counted votes with a biden slant that passes any sniff test, or the most likely c) Both.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)
2
GrumpyAmerican 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep... and soooo many of them are attempting to debunk. Also, watch out for some offering data files... sounds fishy to me. Get data from reliable sources.

35
VinceVonVroom 35 points ago +35 / -0

Thank you, I started watching it but didn’t know where it was going. He should have put an overview upfront. This is a great primer, thank you.

11
TheQuickening 11 points ago +11 / -0

So think of a matrix grid. (Or chess board)

In each square (aka precinct) a ratio value in it.

Where even X amount of time passes, the ratios jump to another square (aka precinct).

And I'm sure it's going to loop (aka repeat).

It is designed to make noise and "try" to hide.

That's if I have this right. u/EdwardSolomon would like see if this can be confirmed.

30
FreeWashington 30 points ago +30 / -0 (edited)

This is how they did it. At least partly.

Someone needs to write a script to isolate and identify these patterns.

Edit: i dont know much code or spreadsheeting but I know internet so I’ll ask around and see if I can get someones help, I’ll pay if I have to

12
Granny 12 points ago +12 / -0 (edited)

And then graph it, Sidney and her team like graphs.

2
BillDStrong 2 points ago +2 / -0

This needs an animation to showcase.

4
20KAG20 4 points ago +4 / -0

It’s a pretty easy calculation. Just divide total votes by Trump votes and see if it comes out a clean number.

5
CameraWheels 5 points ago +5 / -0

yes but then they pass the Algo to another county to hide it. They spread and move the Algo around the map through the night. So one county doesn't look suspicious for too long. Where you catch it is that "clean number" is moved within the same time frame (5-10 minutes) to another county that clean number pops up somewhere else giving the same ratio of votes.

4
20KAG20 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yea, you just sort by the clean number and see where it lines up. That way all the precinct with the same ratio line up.

1
MAGAA2020isback 1 point ago +1 / -0

Didn't it come out that Serbian dude Alexandar Lazarevic specializes in data obfuscation? Jessi Princi and her twitter acct is all over this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jessiprincey/status/1329526377373200384

George Webb is also great at mentioning the link between Laz and the nefarious origins of Sandia National Laboratories (it's all deep state).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkj58xH9ems

4
FreeWashington 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hmm, isolate it down in steps. First find even ratios, then identify duplicate ratios, then color code those by each ratio

Sort by time, I guess you could just manually look for patterns. If we can get it all together a few hundred pedes won’t miss anything;)

Edit: you’d have to break this down because like he ran into excel could only handle 1/3 of Philly never mind the entire state. Would he quite the undertaking but why not?

5
20KAG20 5 points ago +5 / -0

I have a database program that can handle millions of rows of data. I just need the data. I am seeing weird things coming out of Clayton County, GA that I would love to investigate deeper, but I dont know where to get their raw election data.

3
FreeWashington 3 points ago +3 / -0

I know that the new york times published it one point point it’s probably removed now

They received real time dump information from edison research i think

5
20KAG20 5 points ago +5 / -0

A lot of data can be found here too: https://wiki.audittheelection.com/index.php/Main_Page

3
20KAG20 3 points ago +3 / -0

I have time data from AZ and GA between 11/4 and 11/7 and am not seeing anything like what OP had for PA. I'll keep looking though.

Edit - scratch that, I have that data from a county level but we really need it from the precinct level in each county.

21
deleted 21 points ago +21 / -0
12
sesquipedalian 12 points ago +12 / -0

"The genesis of America’s corrupted computerized election system."

21- In 1992, Republican Chuck Hagel became chairman of AIS (ES&S)

22- “[A]ccording to a letter provided by Hagel’s Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS Board” on March 15, 1996 and announced his candidacy for US Senate “[a] few days later.”

25- Hagel “surprised national pundits and defied early polls” by winning the Senate race “a little less than eight months after announcing his candidacy.”

26- Business Week called Hagel’s victory a “landslide upset.”

28- Hagel was the first Republican to win a Nebraska senate race since 1972.

30- Unbeknownst to the public until years later, Hagel “retained millions of dollars in stock” in AIS’s parent company, whose founder “was Hagel’s campaign treasurer.”

31- Hagel “miraculously won virtually every demographic group in the state, including large African American communities that had never previously voted Republican.”

32- “Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS [Hagel’s company] probably tallied 85 percent votes cast in the 1996 vote.”

33- In 1997, AIS of Nebraska merged with Business Records Corporation (“BRC”) of Texas to form ES&S of Nebraska.

5
veon784 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yep, this is more Software Fraud, and Foreign Server type of fraud.

But I think Dominion was directly involved somehow.

16
Hemirocket 16 points ago +16 / -0

This is why we really need the source code. These types of patterned results could be valid artifacts of serialization of the data during processing and not necessarily a prefabricated ratio. We could determine that upon reviewing the code for the tabulation processing

12
Lovepede 12 points ago +12 / -0

It seems the only vaguely good reason to use a machine for counting is the real time data creating a more exciting experience for television viewers. So completely possible they've put in a function to advance the vote counts gradually to make it appear live instead of infrequent batch updates.

But doing this would also create noise in the data that makes it more difficult to analyze it later by independents recording the live streams, and also provide cover for adjustments made by algorithms elsewhere because no one gets the true updates.

So whether this is just an artifact of the interactive entertainment or a smoking gun, it's a stupid thing to find in the data of closed source "trusted" numbers. It's proof of an algorithm, and that's dumb, but it's not necessarily proof of vote flipping?

7
Hemirocket 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'd agree with that. It's also suspicious that there's be a set ratio of one candidate to another, even if it were for entertainment effect it suggests data manipulation

6
p3rsonman 6 points ago +6 / -0

Except in that case I'd expect the vote totals to fixed intervals rather than the vote ratios. I haven't reviewed this data though.

5
Vindicated2020 5 points ago +5 / -0

Even if it was a "valid artifact" that doesn't explain the switching of the ratios minutes after to another precinct. The chances of this happening naturally is nearly impossible - and to find many examples of it with time transitions is very unnatural.

Also, how could anyone make the argument that you would need to sterilize the data? You can just report real raw vote numbers. The computers do the math. There is no reason to use a fixed ratio in multiple precincts then suddenly change to multiple others. The whole data set does need to be reviewed but the chance of this happening by chance is basically zero.

1
Hemirocket 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agreed, even if you rationalize aspects of this, every path seems to lead to the conclusion that fraud happened.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Hemirocket 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes you are correct, I'm referring to unmolested source code, which I'm hoping was seized with the servers in Germany

1
rentfREEEE_since2016 1 point ago +1 / -0

So two things though.

the dominion voting machines are doing the counting, and the weighting feature is actually built in and advertised as part of the design. I don’t know what the smoking gun would be from a program perspective. Perhaps the ability to call/write-to an integer value mid count? It’s unclear to me what a forensic analysis would be able to uncover, without a post Mortem code/firmware revision history review. But knowing when the machines received updates and communication from the smartmatic servers would be key because then your could link every ratio switch up to a time stamp update.

Secondly, however, remember that the smartmatic server is what’s doing the actual data analysis and “count assignments” and ratio handling algorithm and assignment. so really that’s the software we have to do forensic analysis on.

The fact that the numbers were being handled and crunched by a server in Germany is proof enough for me. That should disqualify any results just by that fact alone. It’s a completely retarded, indefensible breach in the voters chain of custody and all those votes received after election night should be thrown out.

1
Hemirocket 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't dismiss any of your points, all very much valid. I'm merely stating that generally when I approach a "what happened" or root cause analysis issue, my first point of investigation is the logs. The fact that the software even allowed for weighted votes, 3 point precision floats, single vote overrides, ballot image overrides, or were anything other than airgapped at time of production use are all completely inexcusable and should be grounds for a high degree of skepticism.

16
kyle 16 points ago +16 / -0

I watched this to. I felt the one thing I wish he would have explained better is how rare that is.

I looked through his data, and there are 90,000 rows, and I just want to know how rare it is to see that pattern appear.

It would put me at ease.

I have already went through and analyzed the same thing. I actually have a list that might help people who are manually searching.

6
kyle 6 points ago +6 / -0 (edited)

End Time - Start Time - Trump Votes - Precinct - Ratio

2020-11-04T09:06:532020-11-04T07:08:18 65 01-12 0.2452830

2020-11-04T15:00:332020-11-04T09:39:44 52 45-13 0.2452830

5
kyle 5 points ago +5 / -0

2020-11-04T09:06:53 2020-11-04T07:08:18 44 15-16 0.2471910

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 66 23-09 0.2471910

5
kyle 5 points ago +5 / -0

2020-11-04T23:50:41 2020-11-04T20:47:22 38 07-23 0.2533333

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 95 18-18 0.2533333

2020-11-04T20:41:12 2020-11-04T15:11:18 57 39-40 0.2533333

4
kyle 4 points ago +4 / -0

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 72 53-17 0.2608696

2020-11-04T20:41:12 2020-11-04T15:11:18 24 58-40 0.2608696

3
kyle 3 points ago +3 / -0

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 37 07-23 0.2624113

2020-11-04T20:41:12 2020-11-04T15:11:18 74 53-17 0.2624113

3
kyle 3 points ago +3 / -0

2020-11-04T20:41:12 2020-11-04T15:11:18 84 02-28 0.2666667

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 72 42-06 0.2666667

3
kyle 3 points ago +3 / -0

2020-11-04T09:06:53 2020-11-04T07:08:18 69 53-17 0.2674419

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 46 54-19 0.2674419

3
kyle 3 points ago +3 / -0

2020-11-04T20:41:12 2020-11-04T15:11:18 49 33-16 0.2677596

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 49 35-27 0.2677596

3
kyle 3 points ago +3 / -0

2020-11-04T15:00:33 2020-11-04T09:39:44 48 33-16 0.2681564

2020-11-04T09:06:53 2020-11-04T07:08:18 48 52-03 0.2681564

1
clocker23 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)

If some had data from another election, another state, another time, etc.... where there is uber-high confidence that the vote count is legit, AND THEN do the exact, same analysis, I bet some of these patterns and "nice" ratios WON'T appear. Of course, one would need to do this for many chunks of data to verify this. I'm sure some high-power statistician could even calculate probabilities to these events, and determine how likely or unlikely they could occur "naturally". If highly improbable (ie., near-impossible), then such patterns would indicate* fraud.

*** Notice I didn't say "proves" fraud; repeated highly-improbable events only indicate fraud. No matter how improbable an event, as long as it's possible (ie., 0<p<1), then the event can happen. Then again, if you were at a poker table and your opponent get 5 royal-flushes in 5 hands, it's probably time to draw your derringer!

11
lizardo221 11 points ago +12 / -1 (edited)

My dad (a CPA from PA) looked at this and found a huge mistake. Let's say the guy in the video would count 4 votes in Philly for Trump, then check again an hour later and find it still at 4. So Trump only netted 4 votes, but this guy counted like it was 4 more every hour. So instead of 4+0+0+0, he thought 4+4+4+4, so of course you'd think there was a pattern since you kept repeating the same numbers. It makes even more sense when you count the totals and it suddenly looks like 200 million people would have voted in PA to get these results.

Maybe someone else can explain this issue away, but I would not promote this without a lot more testing. I also have heard 4chan is debunking it too in their channel.

5
MAGA1775 5 points ago +6 / -1

4chan debunk:

Precincts X, Y, and Z happen to have a perfect ratio of 1/5 They stay in that ratio for a long time, because no new votes are being reported Global update happens and all vote counts are updated X, Y, and Z are no longer perfect A, B, and C now happen to have a perfect ratio of 1/5

There's no indication of "transfers" here or anything. He's just finding perfect ratios, ignoring the UUIDs and updates, and finding examples where different precincts have the same ratio after the next batch of votes comes in.

Sorry, folks, this is a nothingburger.

4
cincydan 4 points ago +4 / -0

He specifically mentions the first point in his video, and to the second point, he's not talking about the actual votes, just the transfer of the ratios. This is what is suspect, especially the prime number ratios. And he only did one day of counting.

4
AlwaysTrumper2020 4 points ago +5 / -1

That was my thought, unless the data is live and each data point new data, the repeating ratios are just repeated reporting of the same numbers.

1
cryogen 1 point ago +3 / -2

No, the video author isn't assuming that. Did he even watch the video? He's talking about at updates.

11
5
0io- [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thanks! I check this place pretty religiously and I missed it when it was posted.

3
ACanadianInCanada 3 points ago +3 / -0

I did the same thing!

9
Cup_O_Covfefe 9 points ago +10 / -1

Its an adaptive convergence function. Based on an unknown input total or ratio, it has to adapt to the predetermined final ratio of votes. There's probably parameters on how far they can go before it starts getting really obvious.

Of course the knuckleheads were notified it reached that point and decided to "fix" it in the dumbest, most obvious way possible with truckloads of ballots.

This is what happens when a high tech election stealing system gets overextended and manged/used by a whole bunch of absolute retard IQ level affirmative action henchmen.

9
localhost 9 points ago +9 / -0

So here's a question. What if the ballots cast by actual voters doesn't matter as far as input goes and the machine is programmed to increase at a certain rate for specific candidates regardless of what is actually put into it? Or maybe it's set to ignore the vote for president and increase at the programmed ratio and the only variation is the quantities of votes cast in different precincts.

4
TrumpsBestFriend 4 points ago +4 / -0

That would draw far too much suspicion.

4
localhost 4 points ago +4 / -0

They're not sending their best.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
8
Anubis1 8 points ago +8 / -0

What can I do living in a state already called for Trump and while also never advancing past Algerba 2?

edit: (I WAS THE BEST ESSAY WRITER IN MY ENGLISH HONORS CLASS, WE DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHAT SUBJECTS WE ARE RETARDED IN!)

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
6
rentfREEEE_since2016 6 points ago +6 / -0

Basically it passes the ratio between a number of precincts at a given update interval and continues until the gap is closed and the desired candidate takes the lead. This attempts to obscure the algorithm fraud. It also explains why the democrats need time to cook the numbers and “find the ballots” the ballots don’t actually matter as much necessarily. It could be a hold o it batch of 100 ballots here it there. So long as they keep the counting going, and the election open, that gives the algorithm time to apply the fixed ratio on any number of small precincts. Compounded over the course of hundreds of precincts this eliminates the Trump lead.

Ie: hold back the precinct counts , doesn’t matter where. Just keep enough votes uncounted , or find them, and you guarantee the win. The only thing the algorithm needs are available ballots to “count” (ie: “fix”) and give the algorithm enough time to spread the fraud across multiple precincts over time, and your candidate wins every.fucking.time.

Holy shit this is big shit. This is signal you guys.

2
327FM 2 points ago +2 / -0

You should reiterate this. The algorithm needs time and uncounted ballots. Maybe that's why Michigan's Secretary of State was 'Johnny on the spot' sending out mail-in ballot applications to every Michigander and then some, while Covid was still ramping up (Michigan is never so coordinated, and it wasn't her job anyway). Also why she said beforehand we should consider it to be an election week and not an election day...

5
Pres_Trump 5 points ago +6 / -1

The simple answer is turn out. Forget this algorithm bullshit, anyone who thinks Biden got more votes than Obama is crazy. That alone should raise huge red flags. Or they admit every one of those voters are racist.

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

Well, things like 300% turnout are obvious red flags. Remember at this stage we need all the ammo we can get to get the election fraud thrown out. So if we find 5 thousand dead people who voted, and we get 10 precincts with more than 100% turnout, and then we find another 20k votes through some other method, eventually we flip the state or a judge declares the whole thing to be fraudulent.

2
Thwok 2 points ago +2 / -0

The other red-flag is the massively un-balanced precincts in Detroit that prevented the election officials from certifying...basically, that's where the algorithm "stashed" many of the flipped votes in MI.

4
Hilldawg4Prison 4 points ago +4 / -0

We need some legit autists to examine this!

4
sushicomp3d 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

BIG IF TEXT

I watched his video too - what I dont understand, and I need you to clarify this for me.

Lets take for example, when he shows the ration of 4 to 63, starting at 16:54.

I ask for some common sense here for a moment.

There is a column - called "Unique ID" - as he scrolls down, each location doesnt change Unique ID. So, first question - what does "Unique ID" mean?

Next point - at that ratio - lets pick location PHILADELPHIA 13-05 with 291 Biden v. 20 Trump.

Now, those values remain the same each time they recur - so at each incremental timestamp, those numbers dont change.

My second question: does each timestamp on the left indicate an upload from that precinct? If so - how are the amount of votes identical each time? Why does 13-05 update with 315 votes each time - OR ARE WE READING THIS WRONG?

I guess what Im missing is this - what do the Date and Time column on the left represent vs the Total column in the middle? Does it mean that, each time location 13-05 updated/uploaded it added exactly 315 votes each time?

1
Thwok 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)

1st: my understanding, is that everytime the algorithm "shifted" certian votes around different precincts to "launder" them (think like the 3-shell game with the pea hiding under one), it did so in the same amount (for those specific votes), which is identifiable by the ratio for Biden-to-Trump votes ... hence why the ratio itself can be used as an identifier to track the votes through the laundering process. Many of these ratios are really odd, so that highly increases the chances of uniqueness. Basically, it's a flaw in the algorithm (probably done for easier processing / tracking server-side, or so it consumes less computing resources).

2nd: I don't think each timestamp indicates an upload ... it indicates a datapoint of when a count of that precinct was published (however I could be wrong). Often there was no change, and I think the author notates that with the ratio of the shuffled votes for easier tracking (so he doesn't "lose" the shuffle).

4
TheQuickening 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

From what I've seen we should be able to animate this over time.

So the precinct with the ratio bring used. Then when the time hits the 30mins mark (I think it was 30mins need to look at the data) the ratio moves to another precinct.

This data has the signs of being a program.

So think of a matrix grid. (Or chess board)

In each square (aka precinct) a ratio value.

Where even X amount of time passes, the ratios jump to another square.

It's to make noise and "try" to hide.

That's if I have this right. u/EdwardSolomon

3
10_for_the_big_man 3 points ago +3 / -0

https://thedonald.win/p/11PpTyMsdz/obfuscating-of-milwaukee-origina/c/

Yea I've been trying to get eyes on this for sometime in relation to Milwaukee

3
Sigma 3 points ago +3 / -0

Damn, son! This is big.

3
Kabubum 3 points ago +3 / -0

If you look at the data for Philadelphia and the 4th alone, then there are only 4 times when the system is actually updated with new data. Inbetween the data stays the same for every polling location. Therefore all these rows inbetween can actually be deleted.

But if you have only 4 updates, then it is logical that the ratios "transfer" during these updates.

Pls go and verify this yourself. Heres the amount of polling places reporting actual updates per each timestamp:

9:39:44 -> 1685

15:13:33 -> 1695

20:10:16 -> 189

20:47:22 ->1677

Again, for all other timestamps there was no actual change for no polling location.

3
tryingtodomath 3 points ago +3 / -0

His assumptions are completely wrong. This is not accurate. There were only 4 times that Philadelphia updated their data that is why the votes state the same from 9:39 unti 3:11 and then 'switch'. Nothing switches it is just all of Philadelphia updating data and one or more of the other 1700 precincts happen to now report the same percentage of votes. The time stamps are from updates from all cities in the data.

3
DwayneBenjamin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Finding this ratio thing elsewhere is the elections and the key

2
RedPillDispenser 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fairly straightforward. Can even be improved upon: the precints selected to "flip" votes can be sensitized to certain parameters such as historical voting patterns and results in down-ballot races, in order to avoid detection.

Matter of fact, not sensitizing to easily correlatable parameters makes this a pretty dumb algorithm. No wonder it was so obvious on election night and they ultimately got caught.

2
cfazus 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope this was sent to the Trump Election Legal Team

1
localhost 1 point ago +1 / -0

This video was posted earlier today I believe and had its time on the front page.

2
RedPillDispenser 2 points ago +2 / -0

Interesting..🤔

2
B3fre 2 points ago +2 / -0

Does anyone have access to the raw data?

The author sorted the columns first by ratio, then by time, and then by precinct. With big data, it's possible to find trends that look weird but are actually benign, so be sure to verify for yourself.

The ratios themselves could occur randomly since there are so many rows in the spreadsheet. The appearance of the same ratio multiple times could be explained by a ballot shuffle; all mail-ins could've essentially been shuffled by the system. (That said, some of the numbers really don't seem very normal; especially the primes or multiples of primes.)

It is possible to explain the "ratio transfers" by having precincts take turns at the tabulator. If they take turns, a ratio will abruptly disappear for some precincts and appear for a new set of precincts.

This innocent explanation can be supported or rejected by looking at the raw data. If the data for a precinct is checked (sort by precinct, then by time), it'll be clear if the ratio transfer is an abrupt end to tabulation for that precinct (in which case it's an innocent explanation) or if the tabulation keeps going (a fraudulent explanation).

3
0io- [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Original data sets: https://gofile.io/d/qZcQl6

There's a link to a post the author made here (I didn't see his post before I posted my summary) down at the bottom of this post in the edit.

2
B3fre 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you!

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

It makes me feel good about the USA that we're not the only ones who are up late on Friday night / Saturday morning working to help the country. It's easy to turn on the Fake News and get demoralized.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
OldGrayMere 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wish someone would check Massachusetts. There is always fraud here, and this year it was probably multiplied many times. Buses openly take voters to New Hampshire to vote a second time, and television broadcasts the line of buses with little to no embarrassment at the open cheating. It's the Democrat way of life.

There are lots of conservatives here, but it is impossible to defeat the machine. Whenever a Republican is elected Governor or Mayor that person is RINO.

2
cincydan 2 points ago +2 / -0

The important part is the precinct switching, not necessarily the ratios. Although the prime number ratios are very suspect, as they are rarer in statistical analysis and the switching of these to different precincts is almost impossible---unless you are a computer trying to randomize it with presets programmed to make it look random.

1
slewrock 1 point ago +1 / -0

What is a better way to articulate "precinct switching"? What purpose does the precinct switch serve?

2
Lovepede 2 points ago +2 / -0

What exactly is the raw data representing? Is it simulating average buildup of votes while awaiting new actual batch updates? How many votes are added while the ratio is fixed, and is the rate of vote accumulation fixed/a function as well?

2
EdwardSolomon 2 points ago +2 / -0

I"m the OP of that video.

The only thing we can do is repeat the experiment on larger datasets over longer time periods and see if we get the same oddities.

The "debunkers" seem to think my video concerns the "repeated" values for a precinct. Nay, if a precinct doesn't update, then it holds the same number, that's not what my video is about.

It's about the ratio of that precinct being transferred to another precinct...within the hour.

2
Two_Scoops__ 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can someone download this in case YouTube nukes it?

3
localhost 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's already been copied to bitchute by a couple of people, but yes, saving a local copy is a good idea.

2
Chocowark 2 points ago +2 / -0

Need to vet this heavily. I think he may be finding constant ratios caused by long delays where precinct data doesn't change because no new votes were added. His comment near the end about prime numbers is interesting though.

3
MAGA1775 3 points ago +4 / -1

The ratio is static, because the totals aren't being updated at each tick.

At each time interval, SOME of the counts will change, but many will stay the same. That's why you see long stretches of unchanging totals in the precincts he's highlighting.

Then, when they do update, the ratio changes, obviously. And sometimes that same ratio will align with other batch counts.

It's just random.

1
cryogen 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's just random.

That's the whole question....

1
Thwok 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, it SHOULD appear random. It doesn't. There's extremely well-defined, traceable patterns.

Someone tried to hide something. And didn't do it perfectly. This can be found.

Do it for DJT.

2
tryingtodomath 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is exactly it. All philly precincts only updated 4 times on the 4th. So every precinct data stayed the same from 9:39 to 3:11. Then at 3:11 a couple of the 1700 precincts had the same percentage as a couple had at 9:39. That is why it is 'easy to find' If 5 precincts are at 3/48 at 9:39 they will be at 3/48 until 3:11 because nothing changed. Not ratio swapped or anything just the votes got updated.

His conclusions are 100% wrong

2
Right_of_Sinner 2 points ago +2 / -0

Watched it and never thought that a 45 minute spreadsheet presentation would provide such a mind blowing revelation. It REALLY needs to be condensed and structured for Normies so more people can see the blatant fraud. Great deep dive by the author

1
Thwok 1 point ago +1 / -0

It kind of looks to me like an algorithm that was originally designed to launder money through a multitude of bank accounts ... just swap "money" -> "votes" and "accounts" -> "precincts".

Given this, I wonder what forensic accounting theories could be applied...

1
hisnamewasjeff 1 point ago +2 / -1

Upload this to bitchute and other sites, save the video

1
IworkforGEOTUS 1 point ago +1 / -0

Watched the video too. The algorithm is going to be more complex than that. We need someone to deep dive the time stamps when the vote drop occurs to the remaining total vote. I would bet the algorithm vote swap ratio changes (increases) at the 4am reopening. That’s why they shut it down. Recalibrate the number of votes needed AND the total vote remaining (remember how the % of outstanding vote dropped from 95% to 84% in a couple places). I would bet finding the before and after ratios would allow a math pede to reverse engineer the entire formula. Like Sidney said, we broke the algorithm.

3
0io- [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

This might also be from running actual physical stacks multiple times through the machine. So someone may make a "bundle of ballots" with exactly 36 Trump votes and 6 Biden votes (6 to 1) and then physically run that bundle multiple times through the machines while they're pretending that they "found" another box of votes.

So it could be a non-algorithmic fraud, but more "old school" ballot stuffing.

Then later they said fuck it, let's run some 48 Bidens to 1 Trump through multiple times.

You could get these recurring "fixed integer ratio" updates from that type of fraud as well.

1
Mrsattorney 1 point ago +1 / -0

You need to make sure that the data represents votes being cast and not cumulative totals of votes that were cast. The NYT data set represents cumulative votes, not votes being cast. Precincts kept reporting the same totals, and the person who analyzed this may have incorrectly added those numbers together. The author's analysis incorrectly reflects a massive number of votes for Pennsylvania (287 million, which is impossible).

1
JustASwigOfBeer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can I get this data somehow?

1
jbaum517 1 point ago +1 / -0

What does that really say for biden votes then? He got maybe what? 25M total?

1
BitterSnuffleupagus 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is some peak level autism and an amazing job. MODS STICKY

1
iamkats 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yuuge. Big league.

1
RussianBot9000 1 point ago +1 / -0

We, the People are confident that the general election of 2020 has been subverted by electronic tampering of voting. This information has been repeatedly announced and published by members of the President's legal defense team. We believe that such information, if true, requires immediate public evidentiary confirmation or complete denial by the President himself. We, the People respectfully submit that any evidence of electronic voter fraud, having been obtained by classified methods, remains hidden from public scrutiny. We, the People upvoting this post hereby petition the President of the United States to exercise his lawful authority to immediately 1) declassify all such evidence by simple proclamation, 2) authorize by simple proclamation the immediate release of all such evidence, and 3) order by simple proclamation the release of all such evidence through a public Executive Order naming a dedicated Agency and naming a dedicated Action Officer of the U.S. Armed Forces who is ordered to accomplish this public release no later than 1700 hrs 21 November, 2020. We also petition that the President specifically authorize and formally order Federal and Military law enforcement under his Executive Branch authority to detain any civilian officials and military officers refusing to execute the declassification and release of the evidence described above.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
GucciMane1017 1 point ago +1 / -0

We need to fund a detailed analysis of this pattern. It has to be compiled in a way that will fit with the courts!

1
Lepreco-Inc 1 point ago +1 / -0

Autocorrelation function is your friend.

1
tobydumb 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is HUGE.

1
slewrock 1 point ago +1 / -0

OP isn't completely off here. I'm going through the data as well now. I think he needs to focus more on the idea that there were quotas put in place for Trump batches and show how this impacted the running tally of votes.

1
Spin2Win 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here's my concern with this... If you pay attention to the total votes column, it doesn't change between updates. So of course the ratio is the same. Then when it updates, the ratio changes for every precinct because the amount of votes changes. He highlights any matches where precincts' pre-update ratios aligned with other precincts' post-update ratios. It's weird, but there are ~90,000 entries so I wouldn't say it's impossible. The T/B vote ratio doesn't indicate 1T to 5B votes came in for 2 hours; just that there were 10T to 50B votes total and it wasn't updated for 2 hours.

An example that is entirely possible without data manipulation: 8AM-10AM Precinct 1 = 100T, 500B Precinct 2 = 42T, 230B

Updated at 10AM, then doesn't get updated until 12PM Precinct 1 = 179T, 524B Precinct 2 = 50T, 250B

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0