Fact Check: Lindell's 'Truth vs. The Big Lie' Numbers Flat-Out Contradict Douglas G. Frank's Theories About Phantom Voters Being Used To Inject Votes

Lead Stories ^ | Aug 12, 2021 | Chandler Friedman

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Did "corrected" vote totals from the 2020 election presented by Mike Lindell at his election fraud Cyber Symposium as "Truth" support the theory that fake ballots were injected into every state's official election returns? No, that's not true: Lindell's "Truth" totals add up to the same number of votes he calls "The Big Lie," which are the final tallies that have appeared in multiple official and unofficial sources. Those tallies were compiled without the aid of the data Lindell used in declaring the election was hacked. It is nonsensical that Lindell's "Truth" tally would match "Big Lie" tallies in state after state, since he and a Ph.D. chemist ally named Douglas Frank claim to know that many fake votes were injected in order to change the result.

[TakeChargeBob]

We are not far away from each other on voter fraud and the deep state players with vested interest that are threatened by Trump cutting off their money supply are complicit. The D's have strongly used voting fraud for many years. The influx of illegal alien is an intentional play to get power by allowing them in and giving them citizenship and voting. For this election, they have prepared the field taking advantage of Covid. Soros funded Secretary of States, D governors changing the rules. R governors who are compromised. Trump was such a threat to the deep state that any means necessary was employed. My frustration has been our horrific attempts to get a cohesive strategy to bring things to light that are understandable.

Let me get to your comments.
Teaching K-12 (even advanced classes for gifted students) is a far cry from PhD level math. This background does not in any shape make him a qualified expert for this project. Dr. Frank's method is dubious and his conclusions are not sound. That was clearly demonstrated to me. Specifically, the statements that the high correlation factors don't happen are not correct when using his approach. His methodology makes a high correlation an expected result.

I am interested in what you are trying to compare the 2008 election numbers with the 2020 election numbers. You mentioned that I would see patterns that make my hair blow back. (if I had hair - at 69 I am happy to say that while I may have detected a little thinning, my hair is still flowing.) I look forward to seeing your Ohio analysis. My sense is that there will be some big aberrations as a number of events occurred. Dr. Franks conclusions suggest there is one explanation (based upon high predictability of every county - using 6 degree polynomials) This means that various aberrations such as multiple processing of ballots or infusion of fake ballots at the last minute would not be detected. I suspect these aberrations would be most prevalent in a few key counties. I believe the vote fraud issue is the most important issue that we have and we will lose our country if this is not solved. I felt George Bush missed the boat by not having this as his number one priority. I agree that voter fraud was very much in tune in 2020. Why don't we have a reasonable approach to demonstrating the voter fraud? The hysterical pushback to audits is a key red flag. Jan 6 is what I call the Reichstag event that has been used to stifle uncovering of the fraud.

[kiryandil]

I felt George Bush missed the boat by not having this as his number one priority.

You must not know about the Hero of the American Commie Revolution, Dickinson R. Debevoise. He held the Thin Red Line till he was 91 [August 2015].

Teaching K-12 (even advanced classes for gifted students) is a far cry from PhD level math. This background does not in any shape make him a qualified expert for this project. Dr. Frank's method is dubious and his conclusions are not sound. That was clearly demonstrated to me. Specifically, the statements that the high correlation factors don't happen are not correct when using his approach. His methodology makes a high correlation an expected result.

I'll be the judge of that. All my pals went on to be PhDs - but I beat their @zzes on the SATs/ACTs in HS. I have a more "well-rounded" education.

I'm a Morlock with a heavy science background. PhDs are "educated" - but they hire people like me to do actual real stuff in their lives. Only when they hire me, they think I'm just some trades schmoe.      

I suspect these aberrations would be most prevalent in a few key counties.

You can't see it right off in the 2008/2020 county comparison [it's an alpha list], but if you look at the geographical location of the suspect counties, it stands out like a sore thumb.

It's all adjacent counties, which means command and control on the ground in that particular area.

What's fascinating about Ohio is that two of the four Democrat metro areas [interconnected counties] appear to have totally thrown in the towel in the 2020 "election".

The other two went balls-to-the-wall in cheat mode.

It would be interesting to see a vote count timeline in those two metros [Cleveland and Dayton] compared to Cinci and Columbus to see if there was a stand-down order given.

Wholesale vote fraud costs money.

[rdcbn1]

Big cities pretty much always had voting machines—and cheated—back in 1984.

---

Voting machines have essentially automated vote fraud.

Saves on walking around money and ballot box stuffing. And Democrats have just about put cigarette companies out of business.

[9YearLurker]

Yes, though some of that still goes on, particularly with the homeless, in poor black communities, and with the harvesting of nursing home votes.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Liddell specifically said they only used numbers from the PCAPs of the machines. They did not try to account for the other 3-4 ways the fraud was carried out.

[TakeChargeBob]

On fraud and Dr. Frank’s conclusions - I believe we are in agreement. Specifically, you pointed out that the high correlation is not unexpected.

A few things that I want to clarify.
First is the qualifications issue. The perspective of viewing physicists as expert mathematicians is scoffed at by my expert PhD who is a serious student of theoretical mathematics. My point is that Dr. Frank’s background as stated in itself does not necessarily make him qualified as an expert in this project. This linkage is what I suspect has people believing him. It is why I make this point.

The reverse logic that you need a PhD in math to be qualified is not at all implied by my comment. Your personal example is a perfect case in point. Having a PhD by itself does not mean everything and in many cases might mean little. Additionally someone who is a serious learned person (such as yourself ) might be very qualified - far more than most PhDs.

Second is my statement “I suspect these aberrations would be most prevalent in a few key counties.” is counter to Dr. Franks conclusion is that the same pattern of predictability based on the 2010 census moved forward for mortality is prevalent in every county is countered by your example. In other words, the statement is meant to point out that some counties would stick out like a sore thumb rather than result in incredulous high correlation. Dr. Frank uses this high correlation which he says does not happen in real life for his conclusion. My expert noted (consistent with your comment) that his approach produces the high correlation. That is where Dr. Frank’s conclusion is misguided.

[semimojo]

Liddell specifically said they only used numbers from the PCAPs of the machines.

So let us see those PCAPs.

[kiryandil]

I'm going to review the Frank presentation and get back to you on your take & your friend's take.

Did your maths pal watch the Frank presentation?

I'm looking over the Colorado 2008 vs 2020 comparison numbers, and I can see why Soros puppet Jena Griswold doesn't want anyone nosing around her totally filthy dirty "election".

In your face, every Colorado metropolitan area is dirty as the day is long. I saw one county in those areas [out of 11 counties] where they didn't back up a dump truck full of ballots to pad joek's totals.

It's incredible.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well he did not show the PCAPs. That is true. According to Waldron they were infiltrated at the symposium and some type of failsafe data was inserted. They have turned the PCAPs over to some government group to analyze. I don’t get that part because we all know the govt was who caused the mischief.

Near the end of Lindell’s first video which I can’t remember the title at the moment Mike put up 1 page of this PCAP stuff. He said there were 11,000 pages. Even an untrained person like me could easily read the data and determine who, what, where and how many votes were flipped. Most of it originated in China. Sometimes the same entity intruded multiple times. It appeared to me to be pretty detailed evidence.

[Triple]

Post your full analysis. Do You expect us to take your propaganda on faith?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Post your full analysis. Do You expect us to take your propaganda on faith?

It is ironic that you should ask for data that Dr. Frank has never supplied either.
Here is the data I used...1984 election

And no, to your earlier question about breaking down by age decentiles. The available Ohio election data for 1984 does not provide that age breakdown. And I'm not going to purchase old voter lists from the State of Ohio even if they were available in order to further debunk Dr. Frank's ridiculous claims. Maybe I'll find another State that does provide voter age data. Then again you could email Dr. Frank and ask for his data.

Dr. Frank's observation that this strong correlation occurs in every county and every state in the union in every age group (no matter what voting mechanism is in place and over years of election data) would lead a reasonable person to conclude it is a perfectly normal correlation as opposed to the theory that some huge mega computer run by Chinese, CIA, Italians (or possibly reptilians) can connect to election devices everywhere including those with no network connections in order to manage the election in every county and every State. Not to mention the thousands of on the ground troops required to manufacture ballots in every county in the USA in order to conceal the fraud from auditors.

[Triple]

Since you did not run the analysis by age cohort. You did not even come close to performing a remotely similar analysis.

The age cohort component was the whole point!

——Geez——

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Well it's not really necessary, because the correlation of the parts is going to mirror the correlation of the sum. If I actually take the time to do it, I'm positive you'll find some other reason to discount it.

However in the meantime, there is a entertaining WP article by Philip Bump that pretty much captures the flavor of Dr. Frank's analysis.

[Triple]

Umm- that is not how correlation works with data that truly has a relationship, like voting and voter registration.

As the data is split into smaller groups , differences in behaviors emerge.

For example if the groups were divided by the weather at the polling place, the bad weather polls /,data would show lower turnout and a lower correlation between voter registration, if the weather was really badgered.

Overall for a huge sample the correlation could still be very high.

Think about the turnout differences by age. It is simply impossible for them to have the same voting behavior results in real life. Just as you would it see it with different weather.