San Diego Slides
-
0/2000
-
Why no sound??
1 like -
You certainly make a good case that the algorithmic relationship between population, registered voters and actual voters ain’t natural but how does this analysis favor democratic candidates over republicans?
1 like-
Dr. Frank's work is very interesting and provocative, but it is not peer reviewed. If nobody can reproduce his work then it isn't science. We need to see the source of the database used, the actual data, and the formulas and resulting data used to generate the graphs so that the results can be verified. This is not an unreasonable request and is one I've made several times, without response. This is the same game the climate "scientists" play and it is not acceptable no matter who does it.
2 likes-
Agree with Bushka. I believe Dr Frank is a sincere man who has generated a huge number of impressive studies. But what is needed is a venue where he shows his work from data sources through conclusions and where he addresses questions. This will only add to the rigor of his analysis. Perhaps video is the wrong medium for this process. A written treatise with materials and methods, replete with footnotes would be welcome. A few randomly chosen counties would be enough.
3 likes-
I just noticed that at the lower left corner of his videos it says "proprietary and confidential analysis." It doesn't sound like any supporting data will be forthcoming. Sorry, folks, this isn't science.
2 likes -
I've seen his videos on correlation and interpolation, etc. It's basic statistics but has no relevance to showing his actual analysis. Did he go through how he actually got his results in Ohio so that others can see what he did?
2 likes -
Did you go thru the "primer" series he has on this site yet?
1 like
-
-
I think until legal challenges are resolved and all states done Dr Franks specifics analysis/programs used etc, has to be confidential. Consider that once public no matter what he says people will dismember what he says. The court of public opinion, which is many times the most ignorant of data science, can pollute the challenges in courts. No one wants that. You can go through his primer series though and do the science yourself to see how its all done using Ohio data.
1 like-
I'm not sure that reasoning holds water. If it is supposed to be confidential then why is he presenting all this data all over the internet? You can't simply present results and then say, "Hey, you can trust me. You don't need to see my analysis." If what you said were true then he should have addressed that up front and explained why he is presenting results without being able to back it up.
2 likes -
I tried to reply to your other comment on this but this Rumble format doesn't seem to allow unlimited nested comments so I'm not sure you'll see my other remark. I've seen the three or four videos on basic statistics but don't recall him going through exactly what he did in Ohio. Does such a video exist?
1 like
-
-
About him doing Ohio analysis online in a video, its been a yr or so since I did and saw it and I dont think I see it here on his DrFrank rumble page so have to think hard about where to find it but he did do it. The registration data from the Ohio Sec of State website is probably way different now than almost 2 yrs ago. You would go and get the registration info from there as well as get 2010 census and then follow along.
1 like-
@Uec, if Dr. Frank is using a secret algorithm to manipulate the data in some way that is a huge problem. This is how the global warming fiasco got started. Michael Mann published a paper containing "novel statistical techniques" that resulted in the hockey stick graph. After years of trying, people finally figured out what he did, which ended up being an improper use of statistics, invalidating his results. Look up Edward Solomon on rumble. He was banned from youtube where he had several videos 11 HOURS long in which he plays with the data in real time. The MSM says he's been "debunked" because he doesn't have a math degree. Of course, they never challenge his claims. Here's one link. I haven't seen this one but you can tell quickly that this guy knows what he is doing. https://rumble.com/vbb807-edward-solomon-reverse-engineered-the-dominion-voting-algorithm-brilliant-5.html
2 likes -
Well if we can't agree on that can we at least agree that if Dr. Frank is not able to disclose his data and methods like every legitimate research paper don't you think he should prominently indicate why that is the case? I guess he posts these videos and never bothers to read the comments, right?
2 likes -
@uec, I watched that video and it was 90% Mike Lindell shouting at us. I like the guy, but this is not proof of anything. It's just the same stuff we see from the other videos. One of the sticking points for me is how the polynomial is created. The analysis hinges on the idea that voting % by age is not predictable in a good election. I'm not sure that is true. If, for example, you take 5 counties out of 80 in a state and calculate the average %'s for each age group, that statistical sampling might actually model all 80 very well, which would make the polynomial meaningless. It would be like averaging all 80 counties to get the polynomial instead of just 5. Obviously, if you use the actual data to predict the actual data you will get a match. Dr. Frank needs to prove this is not the case in a fair election. That should have been done first thing.
2 likes -
Let's look at Edward Solomon in contrast. I don't know if you watched that video yet but it is heavy on the math. He makes several convincing arguments but the one I like best is related to the Phi function ("limit to infinity of summation of Phi function over square" to be exact) invented by Euler. Let me try to explain it so you can see what a powerful statement it makes about the election: The theorem works like this: Pick a number like 100 and then take all the numbers below that from 1 to 99 and create fractions. So you'd have 1/1, 1/2, 2/2, 1/3, 2/3, 3/3, 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4 and so on up to 1/99, 2/99...99/99. That's a lot of fractions. You'll notice that some of them, like 2/4 can be reduced to 1/2, and fractions like 3/6 or 10/20 or 26/44 can all be reduced to a smaller fraction while others like 2/3 or 47/66 are more like prime numbers that cannot be reduced. Following so far? Euler found that in EVERY case the percentage of irreducible ("prime") fractions is exactly 60.79%. Wow! Of course with small numbers it won't be right on but it gets to that 60.79% very quickly. Now how do we apply that to the election? The function works for any randomly distributed group of fractions. Look at Trump votes by precinct in an entire state. In one precinct maybe he gets 34/82 votes, or 215/403 and so on. You might have a couple thousand of these fractions for a given state. According to Euler, 60.79% of those fractions should be irreducible. In Solomon's example only 13.3% of the Trump fractions are irreducible!!! That means, according to Solomon, there was tampering with the data. What about a baseline for comparison (what Frank doesn't show)? Solomon shows a clean election - democrat Iowa primary for comparison and the result is that all four contestants were right near 60%. That's verification. Simple and straightforward, easy to debunk if it is wrong, and I don't think that has happened.
2 likes -
@Stobrod... exactly. I've been asking these questions for a year without a good explanation... but who am I? I guess you can ignore some if the majority are on the band wagon, but ultimately that strategy will be limiting. Differences from state to state could simply be due to how each state maintains their registration rolls. Since the key is generated from the registration that would be a plausible explanation.
2 likes -
@Uec, combining two adjoining states would be an interesting exercise. However, if each state maintained their registration lists differently, it might not work. For instance, maybe one state is more lax with their list than the other. I agree that having registrations near 100% of the latest census number is odd, but then again I have no experience in this area and I imagine there could be a reasonable explanation... but expecting such a study would be too much to ask, I suppose, when you can simply shout, "That's impossible"! and then everybody agrees.
2 likes -
@Bushka123 you are right on the money with everything you say. I've been following Dr Frank since before he got into his newest career as an elections "expert" and I've done a lot of analysis on his "algorithm". I've been blocked on multiple platforms for asking the very same questions and pointing out the very same objections you have in these comments. If he truly wants everyone to copy his work to verify what he's saying is true, then why does he make it so hard to do so?
2 likes -
@jazzman The fact is that democrats have a long history of cheating in elections. They control all the large population centers which is where the cheating happens. Given that history, anomalies as discussed in the video should be investigated. Isn't it interesting that the people maintaining the data and machines and the whole of the election apparatus will not cooperate with such investigations? That's the reason these issues have not been resolved one way or the other.
2 likes -
@Buska123 honestly that's part of the reason why these grand theories don't pass the smell test for me, even before you dig into the details. People like Frank, Lindell, unnamed lady want us to believe that there's this HUGE conspiracy and I just don't see how that could be possible with only the scant evidence left behind. But if you are talking just a few counties, then suddenly you are back in the realm of plausibility. Frank is thinking too big, trying to pull more and more counties into it. What he should be doing is looking at a pattern that's ONLY true in the few counties where flipping some votes would have made a difference, then compare to states/counties that would have been impossible to flip.
2 likes -
I appreciate your effort but a video that was available a year ago and now isn't that might have shown where the data came from but probably not the "proprietary" analysis doesn't cut it. I'm not an anti fraud guy. I think Ed Solomon has done some of what I'm asking here. I've tracked down the databases he was using from the state and the data matched what Ed was using in his real-time spreadsheet analysis. I have not reproduced his exact steps but you can at least see him do it himself and generate the 3D plots. Either he has a trick version of Excel and is tricking us somehow or what he is showing is real. Something funny happened but I don't know if anyone with a strong statistics background has reviewed his work. It comes to the same conclusion as Dr. Frank but isn't as accessible/understandable to the general public.
1 like -
Do you have link to go Ed Solomon? I never heard of him. I think where it gets more "proprietary" is when it gets to the tools Dr Frank developed himself to deal with large quantities of data. Ohio was an easy simplest example for him to do. Explaining online would require him to show his own helper programs and show how his own programs work which then means he is sharing his code for tools that he also uses for other projects he is working on. Maybe thats what you have to see to be convinced?
1 like -
I dont really think Dr Franks uses a secret algorithm for his analysis. I think he uses some proprietary tools he developed in order to deal with large data sets in general. Those might be secret because he wrote them and he owns them and they are a part of his professional skill set and are usefull in many of his other studies. You dont just hand those types of things for free out to the public. He shows you the algorithm he discovered used for each state and in the scientific proof video he talks about proportions relating to the "key" he discoverd etc and what he did in verbal form. I think if a smart person in statistics really listened to his explanation they could do what he did as well so I dont think he is keeping any secrets. I think it interesting Edward talks a lot about ratios in that video and Dr Frank in Scientfic Proof talke about proportion when talking about the "Key". They could be seeing the same thing/algorithm/key but just looking at it from different angles. Thats just my own hunch.
1 like -
@Uec. I don't understand this rumble format in which it won't allow you to reply to a comment like you just made about Frank and Solomon. Of course if they are both using the same data they should see some similarities when doing their analyses. I don't buy the idea that Dr. Frank doesn't really need to show what he did because someone could try to reproduce it without knowing what he did. That's not how it works. If you want to present your analysis and want it to be taken seriously then show your work. Until then, I'm sorry, but it's just BS to me. The only reason I give him some credit for possibly being correct is that Solomon also finds evidence of a controlled outcome and he does show his work. I'd love for some real peer review to be done on Solomon's work.
1 like -
I dont get the rumble format either. Anyway, Dr Frank in the Scientific Proof movie tells you how he is doing it plus the primers and you can understand it well enough. I think you are looking for lots of hand holding and I get the impression he is too busy for that level of helping the public. Iam going back over the scientific proof movie again and studying more of what he did again and seeing if I can organize it more clearly in my head. This R=1 in my Riverside county CA kind of pizzing me off.
1 like -
Do you have a link to that movie? We're on the same side, really, but when you say "hand holding" you don't seem to understand the threshold for publication. If you want to publish a paper in most any science journal you need two things that I'm aware of. 1) peer review and 2) source data archived at an ftp site or similar so that interested readers can follow what was done. Dr. Frank has neither and so his results are essentially meaningless without showing exactly how he arrived at his results. Remember the guys way back who discovered cold fusion? Nobody could reproduce their results so it didn't happen. Dr. Frank would have a much stronger case if he were to follow accepted standards of publication. Why won't he do it?
1 like -
You have to understand there are sorts of legal issues covering what he is doing. I dont pretend to know all involved. Source data though like registration data is paid for for some states and I am not sure that can be just handed out to the public. Plus not sure he needs to. The data used for his work, at least in Ohio, is free to the public on secretary of states website. I dont think its as simple as just writing a paper and releasing to the public this time like is done with most publications. Anyway..on your other points what he did can be reproduced. Thats the whole idea of his primer videos. To teach you to convince yourself so when your done you kind of dont need him anymore because the truth speaks for itself. I went over the Scientific Proof movie again and I think I have a really good idea on how to explain(with crayons) what happened graphically but with animation. Thats one thing that confused me about his static graphs is they dont include the time element.(How the graphs were created over time as votes tabulated. I have to put it together though. I dont have a link to the movie. I downloaded it a while ago. If you hunt though you can find it somewhere.
1 like -
You need to watch the scientific proof video. We might agree that it would be nice to have other well known scientists review his findings and make public statements but I think election fraud is such a hotbed subject in politics right now that I dont think they want to take the potential hit to their reputations. Imagine Neil Degrass Tyson coming out and saying there was election fraud and he agrees with Trump.
1 like -
Here is the scientific proof movie to watch. https://frankspeech.com/video/scientific-proof-internationally-renowned-physicist-absolutely-proves-2020-election-was
1 like -
Edward Solomon is back on youtube. He is the one with an avatar of Andrew Jackson. If you click on "live" videos you will see lots of good stuff. I haven't watched a lot of them yet. Check out this one. These are unedited videos so you have to be patient to get to the good stuff. Forward this video to 10:26 where the audio begins. He does a convincing job of showing statistical irregularity ONLY IN contested counties (although he doesn't show the statistically valid results in the presidential election, only in a democrat primary). For me, the discussion of Euler's theorem and irreducible fractions is quite convincing. I don't know if Solomon and Frank have combined forces, but they should. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eNr2qoHKdQ
1 like -
Addition to my last post re Solomon. If you click on Solomon's footnotes or comments below the video he presents a paper with supporting data (that I have not read yet). This is the kind of thing Dr. Frank should provide.
1 like -
The problem with Mike Lindell and Donald Trump is their communication delivery style is very aggressive and not smooth and is loud sometimes and incoherent. It grates on people. It clouds peoples ability to think. You cant let their style distract you from the information the Dr is sharing. In fact with my copy of scientific proof I edit out M Lindells passionate ramblings. Regarding your voting by age is not predictable comment. You are missing the key part that is most unnatural. 1. The fact that the "key" is UNIQUE for each state is super important. 2. Also that the key can generate a predicted result that almost mirrors the final vote count down to almost every age group in detail. Thats not natural. In your example you are being too broad. 3. Another point is he did ALL counties in state not just "5 out of 80". You combine that level of accuracy across ALL counties and you get an unnatural pattern. You are missing something and its hard to explain to people. I see this a lot. You are focusing on the method he used to discover the pattern, not the pattern itself that was discovered. The pattern or key was not a generation by Dr Frank it was a discovery and its uniqueness as it relates to each state is the unnaturalness you should focus on.
1 like -
Thanks for the reply. The info the Dr. is sharing is fine and of course I already knew all that. I'm looking for the data set he used and his methods, similar to what Solomon produces, although he has disclosed some of that info. You are misunderstanding what I am saying about 5 vs 80 counties, which has to be understood before thinking about why the curves are a little different from state to state. I'm not sure you understand what the polynomial really is. I'd like to expand on that but I'm wondering if you have any background in statistics before I do that.
1 like -
You say a little different from state to state. You might want to look at that idea closer. Compare California Key to Colorado Key. They are very different. Sorry I cant post an image here but they are in the Dr Frank videos here on rumble if you hunt. Unfortunately in the Scientific Proof video Dr Frank verbally describes the ones that vary slightly OH and PA so it may make people think that all keys are slight variations. Some are and some arent. About statistics I am not an expert. I will read what you say and respond as best as I can if you post.
1 like -
The problem I have with the Frank analysis is that he does not put his assertions into historical perspective. He never presents a clean election and shows how it differs from the ones he is showing us. Sure, such high voter registrations seem wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are reasons that might happen. We don't know because Frank didn't bother to ferret that out so that he can definitively say that the registrations are high specifically because of his fraud hypothesis. In addition, they say it is "impossible" for the returned ballot % by age to follow the registrations so closely. Is that really implausible? We all know that young people don't vote as much as older ones and that is reflected in the returned ballot trend (the red line). Show me that ballots returned don't match voter registration by age in a fair election for comparison. He doesn't do that. Regarding the polynomial... It is a little convoluted to hear his explanation of how the polynomial was used to fill in additional Biden ballots as needed throughout election night, but his explanation of how he "found" the curve is more straightforward. He is simply dividing the ballots returned by registration for each age group. That gives him a percentage for each age. Let's say he took all 88 counties in Ohio and generated a curve for each one and then averaged them all to create one polynomial curve (the key). This would be the closest possible fit to the data since you are using the actual data (all of it). Obviously, this would not be a "prediction" of the red line ballots returned. It is critical to understand that this would not be a prediction and why. Now, in reality, what he did was took 14 counties and found the key for each one. Then he averaged the 14 keys into one and was able to "predict" the ballots returned for all 88 counties. This is NOT remarkable. First of all, for those 14 counties the key works perfectly because the county data was used to construct that key.
1 like -
continued... For the remaining 74 counties the key works well. Why wouldn't it? He had a relatively large sample size (14 out of 88) to construct the key from. Assuming that the populations were nothing unusual in the 14 counties, he used a 16% sample size to construct the key. That is enormous. In comparison, pollsters might use a sample of 1000 people in a statewide election to predict the winner plus or minus maybe 4 percent. It is a tiny fraction of a percent and he is using 16%. Bottom line is it appears to me that the % ballots returned by age does not vary much from county to county, and why would it? Why would 50 year olds in one county return, say, 60% of the ballots while those in the neighboring county return only 30%? I'd guess that the 60% holds true across the state. We don't know what it looks like in a fair election because Frank didn't bother to find out, I guess. What I'm getting at is that it is nothing special that you can construct a key based on a large chunk of the data and then find that it works on the rest of the data. It doesn't point to some secret polynomial. As far as why the keys are different from state to state, maybe it is simply caused by differences in how state election offices operate. Maybe some do a better job than others. Frank never made his case to show why the voter rolls were high for the reasons he implies rather than for some other, completely innocuous reason. I hope some of this makes sense. His work is interesting, for sure, but it isn't fleshed out enough to be convincing to me. Lack of transparency is a big problem. Post your data somewhere online, please.
1 like -
Assuming the analysis is accurate, Dr Frank makes it clear that the different voting districts in a state are examined independently and then compared to other districts in the same state and show striking concordance. He then notes striking discordance between counties right next to each other in adjoining states with similar demographics. This is very hard to explain. But he has to show data and methodology. The argument that he has valuable proprietary analytic tools which he wants to profit from in the future makes no sense. He has now devoted 2 years of his life to this crusade. It appears that he only wants his message to disseminate and be understood and has made it clear that he answers to a higher authority. However, the question remains why is he not responding to this thread and not answering all these reasonable questions? It is absurd and disappointing that we are left to discern his motivations and logic. It certainly subtracts from the significance of his conclusions.
1 like -
I agree. A comparison with a normal election to see how his method and results differ from past elections would be super helpfull. He says the fraud goes back to the 90s. The current Ohio registration database only shows peoples participation in elections going back to 2000. He must have other registration databases going way back that the rest of us dont have that he his looking at to come to that conclusion.I think the guy is just swamped with work. He still has other states to work on yet. I think his study can only show that election was manipulated but cant show specific votes going to specific candidates. Thats another area. The Absolute Proof movie talks about data packets coming from outside the country entering machines. I dont know if those data packets contain votes for specific candidates or not. Thats another reseach project for me. The data packets are time stamped but people stuffing ballots into machines... I dont know if those votes are time stamped and saved. I am out of my depth at that point. How the algorithm actually is working in realtime is still a mystery. Regarding the polynomial. Using your way of thinking what happens when you take 2 states and all their counties and come up with a polynomial?
1 like -
Stobrod, He explained the concepts of what he did in his primer movies so you can create your own programs or use excel to do what he did. I dont think he shouldnt have to explain the code he uses in his propietary software. Thats seems like that is the expectation. Ya it would be nice if he responded here on rumble but online arguments can be a bottomless pit of endless debate that take time. I bet he would rather give speeches and work on other states first. Got to have priorities if you are just one man and everyone in the US wants your attention.
1 like -
jazzman831 . First have you downloaded age demographics/population numbers for a county from the Census website and made a graph in excel to try and duplicate what you see in the Dr Frank movies?
1 like -
You should watch the video on this link. They also discuss examples how registration database is manipulated. The woman speaking after the bearded man talks about manipulation. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/bombshell-evidence-shows-michigan-supreme-court-race-2020-flipped-election-audit-professionals-also-identify-numerous-red-flags-new-mexico-arizona/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=PostSideSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons&fbclid=IwAR0zkm1lPevNpgYEDXSsbSy9sjZkzFKErEQl_66DlsRsTZW26t5nEIZF_r0
1 like -
The census data is a bit of a red herring, but yes, I've downloaded not just for a county but the whole state (Ohio). The graphs are easy to reproduce, it's the conclusions that are troublesome.
1 like -
@Uec, I agree. The problem is, he shows a pattern he found, declares it unnatural, then draws conclusions from it. In all his talks I've never once seen an explanation of what a "natural" election should look like (and why it should look that way), so we are essentially left with taking his word -- as an expert in chemistry and analytical tool-making -- that the pattern MUST be unnatural and that the unnatural nature MUST be indicative of election tampering. I agree there's a pattern, the difference is I (and real experts) can come up with other explanations to explain the pattern that are much simpler. If there's a simple answer from an expert vs a complicated (to put it lightly) answer from an amateur, the amateur needs to do a LOT more than declare "that ain't natural, buddy!"
1 like -
Have you check this video out yet? @1:48:27 Manipulated Voter Rolls discussed but the whole video is very good. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/bombshell-evidence-shows-michigan-supreme-court-race-2020-flipped-election-audit-professionals-also-identify-numerous-red-flags-new-mexico-arizona/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=PostSideSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons&fbclid=IwAR0zkm1lPevNpgYEDXSsbSy9sjZkzFKErEQl_66DlsRsTZW26t5nEIZF_r0 Just the video https://sp.rmbl.ws/s8/2/H/3/s/k/H3skf.gaa.rec.mp4
1 like -
Yeah I started watching it yesterday, but I couldn't get through it. I watched the rest today, though it didn't get much better (except for the heckler, LOL!). Essentially her argument, to me, seems to be "you left your door unlocked, therefore a burglar broke in". She's not presenting any evidence of the break-in itself, just the vulnerability to one. Maybe she has more rigorous arguments elsewhere (don't know her name to look her up), but the presentation in the video has waaaaay too much argument by assertion for my taste. It leaves more questions in my minds than answers -- for people with a bias one way or another, having questions leads them to conclusions that go along with their preconceived notion; but for me, having questions means I need more answers before I can decide either way. It sounds like maybe some of the counties in NM need to clean up some of their practices (assuming all the errors she found weren't also caught by the county -- she never states this either way), but like I said before, if there's a simple explanation and an extraordinary explanation, I need more than just "trust me" from an amateur to believe the extraordinary one.
1 like -
@jazzman, I watched only a portion of the video where the lady is talking about registration irregularities. It seems to me there is enough evidence to warrant investigation as to what really happened, but I have a feeling that getting cooperation without a court order might be impossible. I agree with you that her concerns need follow up to find out exactly why registrations did what they did.
1 like -
the bearded man that comes on before the registration lady is very good to especially where he exposes how the election process is super vulnerable like swiss cheese and talks about how sec of states in these swings states are consolidating their power to control elections. Machines having internet capabilities. Tabulators having printers built into them etc. and talks of other discoveries.
1 like -
@Bushka123, I'm not sure I saw any evidence in her presentation, but she surely shows a lot of questions *presented as if* they were evidence. I suspect having a real expert weigh in (she's a civil engineer) would clarify lots of her questions, and if any remain, those *might* warrant a deeper investigation. @Uec I'll skip the ~2hr talk and assume he's right in exposing numerous vulnerabilities, which should be fixed. But as I said before, proving that elections are vulnerable and proving that there was a massive and concerted effort to exploit those vulnerabilities with enough success to swing major elections (while remaining hidden). I've seen lots of claims of the former, but no evidence to the latter. @Mtn_Dog, again, it doesn't feel like you are reading what I'm writing very clearly. Do you at least finally agree that your initial statement that every single county in PA has an 82.9% turnout rate for 18-year-olds is false? I'm not sure how you can accuse me of cherry picking when I've stated multiple times that I've looked at *every single age in every single county in Ohio* and there is NO age where every % is the same across all counties. Lest you falsely accuse me of cherry picking again, pick any age you want and I'll see if I can figure out how to insert the chart. First, though, make a prediction: what would a graph of a fair election look like, and what would a graph of a fixed election look like, and why? Secondly, again, I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me that the correlation is high, when I've already said numerous times that I agree the correlation is high. Do you have any background in statistics? The lack of rigor with which you talk about statistical variables makes me think no. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it just means I have to explain the background first. I'm not sure that your car example has anything to do with it, because it's only one variable and by definition you need 2 to calculate their correlation.
1 like -
@Bushka123 circular argument aside, that would only explain the urban, Democrat-controlled precincts. Dr Frank is claiming that *every* precinct is tainted. Otero County (the one the woman is claiming has tons of fraud) went 61/36 Trump in 2020 and has a total population of 60k. *IF* elections are being manipulated, it's not exclusive to the Dems. To answer your question, no I don't find it interesting, because I don't think the questions being asked by Dr Frank et all are in good faith or even all that probative. Your original comment pointed out that Frank refuses to let his work be peer reviewed -- would you, as an election official, consider his conclusions investigation-worthy? Or another example: Dr Frank has gone on record saying that an EMF detector (which will beep for ANY electronic system -- he knows this) will prove that election machines are illegally communicating wirelessly -- heck no I'm not going to give him access to the otherwise highly-controlled areas where the election machines are kept. But he doesn't really want investigations, because every time there is one it doesn't find anything wrong. Take Cyber Ninjas: Sponsored by election denialists, performed by someone with an agenda, and the conclusion was... they found a few more votes for *Biden*. But if there's no investigation, he can claim "If there were nothing to hide then they'd let me look!" Or with the EMF detector he sets up a situation where there are two scenarios: either the officials let him investigate and he concludes there's fraud because the detector goes off, or they don't let him investigate and he concludes there's fraud because they won't let him look for it. As a scientist, he should know that an experiment that gets the same answer no matter the results is not a valid experiment. Much like how using Ohio as a control for Pennsylvania proved that Ohio was tainted. Either the counties don't match, which proves PA is bad, or they do match, which proves PA & OH are bad.
1 like -
@jazzman You seem to think the election was beyond reproach and that all challenges to the contrary are bunk. It's just a vibe you are giving me. My other post addresses that. I am not a supporter of Dr. Frank unless he comes clean on his methods and data.
1 like -
Dr Frank hasnt claimed it was only a democrat favored fraud. He has mentioned before republicans can also be involved. As far as investigations they have photographs of the chips that give internet access inside and on the machines. They showed photograph of those chips on the machines in Rhode Island. Thats not legal. I think if they have any technology dealing with internet access and vote tabulation machines they should just put scramblers or something to block internet around voting locations. I think they have that tech.
1 like -
You didnt watch the Maricopa audit results or listen to the report did you? To say it found just a few more votes for Biden and thats it is totally false. Anyway how can you say the audit was bais if they invited democrats into the process and many didnt even want to participate. If anything they should have wanted to participate to make sure it was on the up and up. Thats extremely odd.
1 like -
@Bushka123 All humans are biased, but I try my best to start with no opinion. Then I put everything on the table and reject anything that doesn't hold water. On one side you've got my personal experience as an election judge, testimony from officials, laws, audit records, counts and recounts, etc. On the other side you've got patterns, affidavits, lawsuits, surveillance tapes, different audit records, etc. From each bucket, some things can be thrown out, some are worth another look, and some are kept. These can also be subdivided into hard evidence and circumstantial evidence. From all the evidence I've seen, some things on the "election was fair" side are thrown out, but most have not been (yet). Most of what remains is hard evidence, with some circumstantial. On the "election was fraud" side: most things are thrown out, but some have not been (yet). Most of what remains is circumstantial, with some hard evidence. The preponderance of evidence that I've personally seen and/or researched suggests that, while there are some minor issues here and there, by and large the election outcome was correct, and none of the fraud/corruption that does exist was enough to steal what otherwise would have been a Trump win. So no, I don't think the election was beyond reproach, but yes, I do think many of the objections here are varying degrees of bunk. Frank I know is 100% bunk, because I've spent months analyzing his findings. I have no doubt in my mind. Solomon I suspect is bunk, because I've seen similar math reasoning fail for reasons his reasoning should be subject to. But for now he's more in the "doesn't prove his point sufficiently" camp. Unnamed lady has a lot of scenarios that have a simple answer and a complex answer, and assumes the complex one without any reasoning that I can see. She needs either a rebuttal or more detail, but I can't conclude anything she says could be correct simply because she's able to ask a question she doesn't know the answer to.
1 like -
@Uec, correct, Dr Frank seems to think there was a vast conspiracy among Democrats and Republicans (and presumably third parties, if those still exist, and independents) working across hundreds (thousands?) of independent boards of elections across dozens of states, all without being caught other than leaving a blindingly obvious clue in the election data that also happens to be easily explainable if you look at the data a slightly different way. I was referring to Bushka123's comment about Democrats/large cities being the nexus of corruption. As I've said before, a photograph of a chip is, at best, proof that malfeasance COULD have occurred (assuming the evidence is true and valid), not proof that malfeasance DID occur. The photograph is the first step, not the last.
1 like -
@Uec Um the Cyber Ninjas audit definitely found more votes for Biden (99) and fewer for Trump (261) than the official count. But if you don't like that example then strike it from my comment; it's not integral to my overall point.
1 like -
@jazzman. That sounds reasonable, but it seems you are not getting all the facts. I imagine you have never watched OAN or Newsmax. If you had you would not be asking to see Rudy's 700 affidavits. Did you see any of his "hearings" or meetings where witness after witness came to the podium and told their story? Affidavits are legal documents that come with charges akin to perjury if you are lying. What about all the democrats over the years who said that mail in balloting would be rife with corruption? Does everybody forget about that? Anyway, I really don't want to get into an extended back and forth. If you have any other comments about the phi function I'm interested.
1 like -
@jazzman I'm pretty sure you are only referring what the mainstream media reported. You certainly do not watch "conservative" news. The count you are talking about is simply a recount of the same batch of ballots that was run the first time and had nothing to do with the validity of the ballots. Whatever they ran through the machines the first time was run again and it came out about the same. No surprise there. There were other findings that were not reported on.
1 like -
@Bushka123, I wouldn't say never, but no, I don't watch any cable news. I don't have anything to say about Solomon that I haven't already said. Perhaps if I watched the entire video, but it's very long and no summary I've seen convinces me that watching the detail would sway my opinion.
1 like -
@Bushka, I'm not partial to any one news source, but you are correct, I tend to avoid any source that puts its bias on its sleeve. Whenever possible I try to skip media commentary and go to the primary source (e.g. for Cyber Ninja's I found their report and went to the ballot counting section instead of relying on anyone to tell me what's in the ballot counting section). Again, if you don't agree, you can strike the reference to the report from my comment and the rest still stands.
1 like -
@jazzman I think in one of your posts you linked to a rebuttal of Solomon's phi function. I still have to look at that.
1 like -
@Buska to be fair I don't think it was even a full rebuttal. For better or for worse I don't think his theories were taken seriously enough by a wide enough audience (of either side) to have generated much 3rd party opinion about him.
1 like -
@jazzman I wouldn't interpret it that way necessarily. Just look at this forum discussion. Is anybody running away from you because you have the data to prove them wrong? Does that mean your argument isn't worth acknowledging or is it because they are afraid you are right?
1 like -
@Bushka I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. All I was saying is that it doesn't appear Solomon has made enough of a splash to have a lot written about him that's not written by him. It was not intended as a judgment, simply an explanation for the lack of findings.
1 like -
@jazzman maybe I'm being defensive. You believe the election was perfectly fine yet you aren't really aware of all the problems shown by news outlets that you don't watch, or the fact that judges, including the SC just don't want to hear it. Solomon's work it yet to be completely vetted, but that is not an indictment of his work. It could be the opposite. That was my point.
1 like -
I take it at face value. If his work hasn't been vetted that's neither an indictment nor an endorsement. Otherwise any kook is automatically given more credit just because nobody's ever heard of them. (Again, not saying Solomon is a kook, just using an example). To be clear, I don't think the election was "perfectly fine", I just don't think there has been enough evidence to show that the election was "rigged" on a massive scale, and certainly not in scale enough to swing the election. Yes I'm not aware of every last theory put out by every single media outlet, but I have looked into many different theories. If there's any in particular you would like to send me to I'll be happy to read them, but it's not like I can go back in time and be glued to OANN/Fox/Brietbart/etc for the last 2 years. That the judges refused to hear the evidence (some even going so far as to say there was no evidence presented in the first place) is something we apparently interpret wildly differently. Again, I'm looking for physical evidence. "They won't disprove it so it must be real" is not an argument that moves me. Even in reverse -- I don't believe an argument that the elections were secure simply because nobody can come up with a reason against it.
1 like -
@jazzman it isn't necessary to rig the whole thing nationwide. I think it was four democrat counties that did the trick, if you go by that theory.
1 like -
Some people are cognitively wired to recognize and feel confident with pattern recognition and some have that as a mental blind spot. In fact the majority of population 75 percent arent good at seeing patterns so they can blow things off as conspiracy. I tend to think Dr Frank is a pattern recognizing personality type. Thats how he made his big discovery in 90s while at University. The majority of people prefer concrete details and prefer verifiable information. Just because something isnt 100 verifiable though doesnt mean its not true. I think it may be easier for him given his experience in his field as well to recognize unnatural activity when he sees it in data. His conclusion essentially is that what is going on is unnatural. Others see what he discovered as natural activity in the election. I think thats what people have a problem with is knowing what is natural and unnatural when looking at his results.
0 likes
-
-
-
Since some republicans may also be aware of this machine bias algorithm I dont think the issue is a choice between dems and repubs and which is doing the cheating. The analysis is about manipulations of election results in general regardless of who wins. The manipulation is the problem not which party does it. Trying to assign blame just keeps you from being objective about the whole situation.
1 like -
His analysis shows manipulation but doesnt equate it with democrats necessarily. There is also talk that some republicans also know of the manipulation. The media love to turn this into a rep vs democrat deal when reality its about election integrity.The general trend though in the past has been that democrats do more cheating. They tend to be the ones involved in election fraud.
1 like
-
-
As someone who lives in Riverside County CA where the R=1.0 I am having real difficulty in accepting what I am observing with the data. In Riverside they did have a mysterious shutdown of election machines when counting. Not sure if related. Its interesting that my republican congressman Ken Calvert REP always gets reelected. I like he gets reelected but now wondering how legit his wins are.
1 like -
Ken Calvert congressman from Riverside where R=1 but who is also GOP has been in office since 92 always get elected. I am wondering if he is thru the machines algorithms always given a win just to make the results of elections look less partisan.
1 like -
This video should be called California Slides not just San Diego Slides. It contains counties other than San Diego. If I direct someone to this video they will think its only for San Diego and then leave before viewing it to discover the other counties results. People are that impatient.
1 like -
@jazzman: look at my post in this thread on Euler's Phi function discussed by Edward Solomon. It's a home run in my book. I'm not a mathemetician, but I have yet to see any plausible argument that Solomon is wrong on this. It's a very simple illustration that the voting tabulations are not real. I'd love to see some follow up but none of the politicians seem to want to get involved after the thrashing Powell and Rudy et al took for raising the question.
0 likes-
Sorry, just saw this comment. I didn't watch it, no, but I get the gist of what he's going for based off of your prior comments. I'm not a mathematician, but I've had a LOT of math education and I do math for a living, and I just don't find these kinds ofclaims to be compelling. Things like the phi function or Benford's law (another relationship used to "prove" the election was manipulated -- I've got an excellent video that disproves that one if you are interested) rely on relationships that are true as n goes to infinity, but aren't necessarily true for any given range of n. Well since voters are not infinite AND they tend to be in a relatively small range of values between precincts, first I would need him to prove that the Phi function applies in these ranges -- does he do so? Then from there, say he proves that Phi applies and that Phi doesn't line up -- that still doesn't prove there was election fraud. At best it gives you incentive to dig deeper. The fraud being alleged must have taken place in almost every precinct in every state -- surely there must have been some communication between the conspirators. Where are the emails, texts, call logs? Where are the lines of code set to change votes? Why do the paper tallies match the electronic records? If people are fake voting in person, who are they? Why was not one caught? What are the addresses of the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of phantom voters? The mathematical relationship is the first step in the train, not the last. If the math is the ONLY evidence, it really makes me suspicious that any manipulation was going on. A conspiracy that far and wide would surely have at least one bad link in the chain. As for any plausible argument he's wrong, there are several here, though I'm sure you don't like factcheck.org or anyone they would cite as a source: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/oan-report-features-baseless-assertion-of-election-fraud-by-algorithm/
1 like-
I'm not a mathematician, either. My background is in chemical engineering. Solomon addresses the Phi function and said that it converges to 60.79% rapidly, so it would apply here. I've tried to do a little digging on the subject but I haven't really had time to do it justice. As for the rest of what you are saying I think it's somewhat irrelevant speculation. I like approaching the issue from what the math indicates. If there really is an anomaly then voting officials should be clamoring to learn more... but they don't. I have found the fact checking sites to be wrong as often as they are right, but I'll take a look. It's not what they say as much as what Solomon says in response. Like I've said before, if Hitler invented cold fusion you can't dismiss it as Nazi propaganda if it actually works.
1 like-
Surely you aren't saying that physical evidence is irrelevant? Any mathematical evidence of improbability is just that -- something extremely unlikely to happen. By definition math can't prove fraud, only, at best, that fraud was likely. Flipping heads on a coin 1,000 times in a row or getting struck by lightning 3 times are extremely unlikely, but they still happen. You need physical evidence (weigh the coin to find out it's a trick, interview the victim to find out they like golfing on rainy days, find even a small % of the supposed millions of fake ballots) to prove the improbable was the impossible. As to the math, phi might converge quickly, but does he prove that it must apply to elections? By their nature I would not expect election results to have the same character as random numbers, so he's got to prove that whatever test he's using would apply to elections specifically. To use an analogy, sometimes seeing Jesus in a piece of toast is a miracle and sometimes it's just a random toast pattern that kind of looks like Him when you squint. The fact that Solomon has found a pattern isn't enough, to me, to prove anything one way or the other -- he's got to then prove that finding said pattern is meaningful. A great example I've heard recently (not about elections, but it still applies) is this: what are the chances when you go to Disneyland, you'll see your uncle there (assuming neither of you knew the other was going)? Basically 0, right? But the chance over a year that *someone* at Disney happens to run across *someone* that they know is relatively high. But those people will say "hey uncle, what are the chances I'd see you here?!" So Solomon not only has to prove that he has seen his uncle (which I'll take your word he has done), but he also has to prove that someone seeing someone they know is indicative of something, *then* show the only possible explanation is fraud.
1 like -
I agree with everything you are saying about the math. For me, things like the phi function and the things the lady was discussing about the election in the video are definitely worthy of further investigation with the COOPERATION of the election officials. I'm sorry, but when 50% of the population thinks our elections are fraudulent, it is incumbent on the politicians WHO WORK FOR US to open the books and cooperate. I may be wrong but it seems you are working under an "innocent until proven guilty" mindset. I'm working under a the mindset that all the hundreds (700?) affidavits Rudy has along with countless other reported irregularities is enough to warrant an intervention into the voting process. Sorry, but the 2020 election was determined by about 40,000 votes in about 4 democrat counties. Democrats in the cities cheat. It's common knowledge in pollster circles. Open up the books. Having said that, I'm not interested in debating all of that. I'm just interested in the math irregularities and whether they can prove something unusual happened. Dr. Frank has a good thing going I guess but I can't support it simply on principle because of the lack of transparency (same goes for polling officials).
1 like -
I'm not sure that we do agree on the math if you think that it shows anything to investigate in the first place. To me it's (at BEST) a bunch of questions, posed as answers. To use an analogy from your world, say some environmental group comes to a chemical plant and says "I see caustic chemicals going into your building and smoke coming out the top! We need an investigation!" Well you don't need an investigation, because you already know that the chemicals react to form something harmless and the "smoke" is actually steam from the cooling towers and is isolated from any of the reactions -- show them the pipe diagram. Similarly, Solomon/Frank say "I found this pattern in the data! We need an investigation!" It's a question, not an answer. Nothing to investigate yet. (Unless by "investigation" you mean "we should ask these questions to officials/experts", in which case I would agree with you.) Solomon/Frank have proved there's something coming out of the stack, and are just assuming that something is caustic chemicals. "Innocent until proven guilty" certainly isn't flawed logic, but it's more that nothing presented here, to me, rises to the level of anything interesting if you are starting from a neutral POV. Granted, it's hard to overcome my internal biases since I actually worked as an election judge this year to see it all first hand. If Rudy's got affidavits then let's see those. If there are other irregularities then let's investigate those. Nothing this woman is saying seems investigation-worthy to me until she does enough due diligence to prove one is warranted. Kind of like how in the criminal system you go from arrest accusation > grand jury > criminal trial. She's still on the arrest step in my mind. As for Dr Frank, I've pointed out elsewhere (lost track if I've said it here), but he only looks like he's got a good thing going because that's the way he manipulates the data. If you look at it another way it's clear there's nothing there.
1 like
-
-
You didn't finish the analogy. Instead of explaining what the white smoke is, the people running the factory call everybody smoke deniers, have them investigated and called kooks. Then they prevent any access to the areas of interest and then delete all the information. Then we find out that the people asking about the smoke employ the factory workers. That's not a way to instill trust in the system.
1 like-
Yes, if that were to happen, then people wouldn't trust the system. But it also wouldn't mean that anything other than steam is coming out. So the extended analogy works perfectly.
1 like -
@jazzman. Where there's smoke there's fire, lol. Too many have acted too suspiciously during that election to get a free pass.
1 like
-
-
I just read the link from factcheck and I had to force myself to read each additional sentence. The article is just dripping with bias and unsupported claims. When you get past the character assassination to the actual math, there isn't much other than "he didn't prove anything." I'm not even going as far as saying there was machine manipulation. That's a whole 'nuther mess. These are the same people deriding us for believing the machines were hooked up to the internet. Of course, they were yet fact check doesn't correct themselves on that, I'm sure. Having said all that, there was a kernal or two of math relative to the phi function, which is all I'm interested in at the moment. Thanks for the link... the saga continues.
1 like -
Well I didn't suspect you would find much value in a source you compared to Hitler. But like I said even as "bad" at it was that was the best I could find.
1 like-
I didn't compare them to Hitler. The point I was trying to make is that no matter where the information comes from, if it's right it's right. Everybody is attacking Solomon's character but none of that matters. They are trying to convince people he is wrong because he is a bad guy and must be lying. They should be using mathematical arguments to prove him wrong instead.
1 like
-
-
-
-
@Uec. Wow, that's an amazing video. I didn't watch all of it yet, but it's good to see there are people looking into this in a detailed way. The problem will be fixing it when those in control are corrupt, or at the least in denial.
0 likes
-
1:56:27
Follow the Data with Dr Frank
3 months agoLincoln, Nebraska GOP Live Stream
8405 -
LIVE
Vigilant News Network
2 hours agoDiddy’s Epstein Moment: Is the Fix Already In? | The Daily Dose
1,115 watching -
DVR
In The Litter Box w/ Jewels & Catturd
19 hours agoEPSTEIN: PHASE ONE | In the Litter Box w/ Jewels & Catturd – Ep. 752 – 2/28/2025
12.4K22 -
1:49:10
The Quartering
3 hours agoTrump DESTROYS Zelensky To His Face, Trump Assassin Accomplice & Epstein File Debacle
74.6K49 -
1:14:18
Tucker Carlson
4 hours agoDr. Richard Bosshardt Reveals Deadly Truth: Most Surgeons Aren’t Fit to Practice. Here’s Why.
88K72 -
3:48:32
Right Side Broadcasting Network
6 hours agoLIVE REPLAY: Pres. Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy Meet and Hold a Press Briefing - 2/28/25
196K93 -
2:59:13
The Charlie Kirk Show
4 hours agoTrump vs. Zelensky Reaction + The Epstein Misfire + Charlie vs. Newsom | Schimel, Marlow, Baller | 2.28
140K50 -
55:05
The Dan Bongino Show
6 hours agoAmerica Is Back In The World Stage, And We Love To See It (Ep. 2433) - 02/28/2025
748K1.42K -
49:29
The Rubin Report
6 hours agoDetails About Joy Reid’s Weeping Farewell No One Noticed with Co-Host Megyn Kelly
77.7K68 -
15:36
Tactical Advisor
4 hours agoMUST HAVE AR15 Upgrades for Under $100
39.2K3
85 Comments