Replies

Dr. Franklin, happy to see that you have tried to understand what Lindell and Dr. Frank were trying to explain. Please don’t take it as criticism if I try to clarify what they were saying.

Dr. Frank is teaching advanced calculus. Most of calculus, and most applied mathematics is based on applying linear transformations. If you can write a function that describes a particular curve, a linear transformation can be applied to the function to move its graph around a projection of the “page” up, down, rotate it or change the scale without modifying the derivative of the function. Remember, if y=ax + b, and b is a constant, the derivative of b is zero. “b” is the offset because every precinct will have different populations diestributions. The rate of change of a constant is zero. Frank recognized the curve of the population density with respect to age from the 2010 census, and realized that it was VERY close to the population density curve published by the precinct of one of the districts he was asked to evaluate. Bingo! Look at the two lumps in the population curve from the 2010 census. What caused those bumps doesn’t matter. What matters is that the same distribution in every precinct in Ohio showed the same distribution.

It is impossible that every precinct in the nation has the same voter distribution, in particular every precinct has the same two bumps around 50 years of age. The test is what both science and medicine try to impose, and which neither seems interested in applying. Dr. Frank took the 2010 census curve and entered the initial conditions for each precinct into the generating function, which is a 6th degree polynomial. Polynomial functions consist of a sum differentials which, when graphed provide the shape of the curve which is the function. When Frank plotted the 6th degree polynomial, using the real registration numbers for each precinct, his predicted graph exactly matched the reported votes. As mathematicians sometimes say, “QED”. (That is what was to have been demonstrated.) If your proposition produces exactly what appears to have happened in the real world, your proposition is true.

Dr. Frank’s analysis also explains all the phantom votes. Colorado had one precinct with 150% of registered voters, some of whom are the result of no administration of registration records. This allows voter thieves to submit ballots for all those “phantom” voters. Volunteers are now beginning to visit the residences of “Phantom voters”, finding that over 30% don’t exist.

What is being exposed is an enormous effort to steal the election. The ability to apply the linear transform based upon the real population curve drawn from the 2010 census makes it less likely that someone with election experience would see some too obvious manipulation. It also explains why the machines need communication to linear processing machines in real time. The processing center, whether in Frankfurt, or Barcelona, or Canada, or China needed to know, in real time, how much they need to transform the entire curve to keep Biden, or whoever they are supporting, enough, when added to the phantom or printed, or drop box votes with no signatures, or underage, or votes from dead registrations achieve the needed election result. The adjustment needed to made in real time since there are still likely to be some legitimate votes for which there are real citizens and their signatures. Frank assumes that Trump generated more real votes than the left assumed, requiring the large adjustments appearing in the early hours of the mornings after Nov 3 election.

Like Dr. Frank, when the data logs from the Dallas analysis were shown, the same group whose data Lindell used in his first Movie, I recognized that log. I paused the display and recognized the “AWS” (Amazon Web Services) label, noting that the specific connection was to a Frankfurt server farm. I am not connected to those groups, but don’t doubt that they were monitoring network traffic. These are mostly very capable people, on both sides. No one talks because the cost of being discovered can be very high.

I didn’t say I don’t like the way Lindell presents himself. I think he is a hero. His style sounds like a hard sell. His message has more truth than almost any message squeezing through the censorship. (Dr.)Patrick Byrne probably has much of the information that (Dr.) Frank has exposed, though I haven’t heard Byrne (I’m a fan) describe. Byrn has some real experience with “big data”, and, while I haven’t confirmed it. when Byrn did his PhD in philosophy, there a venture into mathematical logic, but Frank’s focus on chemical engineering, and years of teaching the brightest young scientists, makes him uniquely equipped to recognize the hints provided by the data as actually reported. I believe we will eventually learn that this community is sharing data, not competing for clicks.

Thanks for thinking about this. It may take a few listens, but the Frank interview is the path, and will be “absolute” if and when Frank and his team analyze the remaining states. Most people will find “6th degree polynomials” impenetrable. A few people who listen to Frank a few times will grasp most of it. Frank hit most of the key points. Your understanding can help if you will explain it to people you know. I know more people who are more concerned with Trump’s gold plumbing than with why hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to prevent him from leading us away from globalism.

Dr. Franklin, happy to see that you have tried to understand what Lindell and Dr. Frank were trying to explain. Please don’t take it as criticism if I try to clarify what they were saying.

Well I certainly don't take it as a criticism. I think everyone can benefit from your clarifications. It will particularly useful to forward to any Bernie Bros we may know, since I am sure this is how they screwed Bernie too.

Dr. Frank is teaching advanced calculus. Most of calculus, and most applied mathematics is based on applying linear transformations. If you can write a function that describes a particular curve, a linear transformation can be applied to the function to move its graph around a projection of the “page” up, down, rotate it or change the scale without modifying the derivative of the function. Remember, if y=ax + b, and b is a constant, the derivative of b is zero. “b” is the offset because every precinct will have different populations diestributions. The rate of change of a constant is zero. Frank recognized the curve of the population density with respect to age from the 2010 census, and realized that it was VERY close to the population density curve published by the precinct of one of the districts he was asked to evaluate. Bingo! Look at the two lumps in the population curve from the 2010 census. What caused those bumps doesn’t matter. What matters is that the same distribution in every precinct in Ohio showed the same distribution.

I was always better at understanding mathematical concepts and applied math than theoretical math and doing math in my head. I am a visual learner and that visual presentation is compelling. Unless it can be demonstrated that the graph is somehow wrong, the point stands.

It is impossible that every precinct in the nation has the same voter distribution, in particular every precinct has the same two bumps around 50 years of age. The test is what both science and medicine try to impose, and which neither seems interested in applying. Dr. Frank took the 2010 census curve and entered the initial conditions for each precinct into the generating function, which is a 6th degree polynomial. Polynomial functions consist of a sum differentials which, when graphed provide the shape of the curve which is the function. When Frank plotted the 6th degree polynomial, using the real registration numbers for each precinct, his predicted graph exactly matched the reported votes. As mathematicians sometimes say, “QED”. (That is what was to have been demonstrated.) If your proposition produces exactly what appears to have happened in the real world, your proposition is true.

Roger that!

Dr. Frank’s analysis also explains all the phantom votes. Colorado had one precinct with 150% of registered voters, some of whom are the result of no administration of registration records. This allows voter thieves to submit ballots for all those “phantom” voters. Volunteers are now beginning to visit the residences of “Phantom voters”, finding that over 30% don’t exist.

If I lived in CO, I'd be really POed. At least in other states the people know they got screwed. People in CO seem to be clueless at how the machines cheated them.

What is being exposed is an enormous effort to steal the election. The ability to apply the linear transform based upon the real population curve drawn from the 2010 census makes it less likely that someone with election experience would see some too obvious manipulation. It also explains why the machines need communication to linear processing machines in real time. The processing center, whether in Frankfurt, or Barcelona, or Canada, or China needed to know, in real time, how much they need to transform the entire curve to keep Biden, or whoever they are supporting, enough, when added to the phantom or printed, or drop box votes with no signatures, or underage, or votes from dead registrations achieve the needed election result. The adjustment needed to made in real time since there are still likely to be some legitimate votes for which there are real citizens and their signatures. Frank assumes that Trump generated more real votes than the left assumed, requiring the large adjustments appearing in the early hours of the mornings after Nov 3 election.

Yes, it was an enormous effort. The need for real time data to adjust the results to the algorithm also explains why it took so long for the machines to count votes. AZ in particular stands out.

Like Dr. Frank, when the data logs from the Dallas analysis were shown, the same group whose data Lindell used in his first Movie, I recognized that log. I paused the display and recognized the “AWS” (Amazon Web Services) label, noting that the specific connection was to a Frankfurt server farm. I am not connected to those groups, but don’t doubt that they were monitoring network traffic. These are mostly very capable people, on both sides. No one talks because the cost of being discovered can be very high.

If this goes to court, someone needs to go on the record. Hopefully, Arturo D'Elia's confession and data are enough.

I didn’t say I don’t like the way Lindell presents himself. I think he is a hero. His style sounds like a hard sell. His message has more truth than almost any message squeezing through the censorship. (Dr.)Patrick Byrne probably has much of the information that (Dr.) Frank has exposed, though I haven’t heard Byrne (I’m a fan) describe. Byrn has some real experience with “big data”, and, while I haven’t confirmed it. when Byrn did his PhD in philosophy, there a venture into mathematical logic, but Frank’s focus on chemical engineering, and years of teaching the brightest young scientists, makes him uniquely equipped to recognize the hints provided by the data as actually reported. I believe we will eventually learn that this community is sharing data, not competing for clicks.

That wasn't necessarily directed at you. Others here don't like Lindell. They say he talks to much. I have a lot of respect for Byrne. He spoke some blunt truths to Trump trying to get him to have the feds count the ballots to prove the fraud. If only that had been done...

Thanks for thinking about this. It may take a few listens, but the Frank interview is the path, and will be “absolute” if and when Frank and his team analyze the remaining states. Most people will find “6th degree polynomials” impenetrable. A few people who listen to Frank a few times will grasp most of it. Frank hit most of the key points. Your understanding can help if you will explain it to people you know. I know more people who are more concerned with Trump’s gold plumbing than with why hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to prevent him from leading us away from globalism.

Again, unless someone can demonstrate his graphing in wrong, most people will understand that visual. People might watch the presentation again after reading your further explanation. Everyone should share this with a Bernie Bro. I would like to see a similar analysis of Biden's primary "wins". It would be the icing on the cake that everything about this election was fake.