Replies

Some, as apparently does Steve Bannon, dismiss Lindell because he doesn’t sound like a Harvard grad. Lindell clearly grasped the issues and furthermore is one of very few putting his money out to prove his point. Bannon, I’m guessing, doesn’t know much about mathematics, or data, wants an important position for showing his leadership qualities, and, doesn’t believe he can ride Lindell, who is keeping Bannon’s Warroom program funded, and is not willing to put his reputation on a guy, no matter how well he has done creating a very profitable business, no matter that Lindell was a successful professional gambler and comfortable with big data.

Listen to Frank’s explanations, pausing whenever a graph is hard to read or when you don’t quite grasp the variables, the horizontal and vertical axis. Frank has proved his thesis. Data curves drawn from arbitrarily selected counties will never show exactly the same curve proportions. Frank has sampled all over the U.S. and the implication is that Lindell will support his continuing until all states are examined. There will be retired statisticians who will support, and many hired to try to find fault with Frank’s work. I graduated in mathematics, and even spent some time with polynomial functions. I find Frank’s mathematics very reasonable. The observation that every precinct in Ohio and those examined in Colorado all show the proportionality, including the curious double artifacts, is about as absolute as you get in data analysis. There had to be a reason, and that reason was that all the votes were created by an algorithm based upon the 2010 census. The November election was synthesized. No individual’s vote was decided by other than an algoritm. I bought some pillows, but may need some new slippers!

What are the bets that Lindell’s proposed media hub was named after Dr. Frank? If truth and science mean anything, the problem Lindell, and all of us need to solve is getting a hearing. When Lindell talks about getting this “Absolute Proof” to the supreme court, I cringe a little, because the Supreme Court is not Supreme any more. Navarro’s work is easier to understand, but departments of justice are compromised, both at the federal and state levels. The states have ignored him.

Lindell is certainly not slick; I would prefer that he control his desire to tell it all, forgetting that he is interviewing a scientist who has provided a key to proving his case, including the case with the election equipment crooks. The maligned Sidney Powell has made claims similar to what Frank proved, or will have proved about most the the states having been involved. If 2010 census data was the source of the curve applied in every state, there can be no doubt. Frank’s may have been connected to Powell.

Not seeing any data or mathematical analysis of Dr. Frank’s theorem, and not intending criticism, because people who haven’t done this sort of analysis may find this explanation a little daunting let me suggest that if you are interested, give it a try. Dr Frank is an excellent teacher who, as he explained, just happened to be teaching data analysis to very bright students using election data to illustrate curve fitting.

I think he was using the 2010 Census data to teach calculus, and he recognized the pattern, but close enough.

Lindell is certainly not slick; I would prefer that he control his desire to tell it all, forgetting that he is interviewing a scientist who has provided a key to proving his case, including the case with the election equipment crooks. The maligned Sidney Powell has made claims similar to what Frank proved, or will have proved about most the the states having been involved. If 2010 census data was the source of the curve applied in every state, there can be no doubt. Frank’s may have been connected to Powell.

I think Powell's information came from the raw data that was intercepted, but it's possible Dr. Frank was involved in analyzing the algorithm as well. This isn't about how Lindell presents himself. Those who make this about what they don't like about how he comes across are just shooting the messenger. This is all about his message. Expect the corporate media to attack Dr. Frank now.

I have taken some advanced math (enough to pass Physical Chemistry) and I can grasp the math well enough (I think) but I am having a hard time pinning down the scam. You sound like you understand the math and the scam-can you tell me if I understand this scam correctly? I am having a little trouble grasping it fully.

IS THIS TRUE: The KEY finding is that when the algorithm is applied to actual cast ballots in a county...it matches the shape of the REGISTERED VOTER BY AGE graph with a 1.000 correlation. Which is impossible without the algorithm application.

Using a algorithm (a 6th order polynomial for age groups from 18 to 110 years old developed from the 2010 census) which is then applied to the Registered voter database for each county (also broken down by age) it provides the maximum number of votes that should be possible for a given age range in a given county. I assume they had to do this so they

If one has network access to the Dominion Voting System Democracy Suite EMS Results Tally and Reporting component of the Democracy Suite (God, I hate even typing that) one can see who has cast votes at any given time, and who those votes were cast for.

(Do you agree they aren't as concerned about the ballot scanners for mail in ballot ingestion or even the ballot machines in the precincts being on a network, the information those devices feed to the Tally and Reporting component is what is important and what the Leftists need to figure out how many ballots to fallaciously generate. Most of the fraudulent ballots will be made up by fake mail in ballots. Do I have that correct in your opinion?)

Also: If I get this correctly too, the "incursions" of IP addresses accessing the systems (that were mentioned in his previous video) were not going in to actually manipulate the data or tallies directly in the database because that might be found out too easily. They were going into the system to GET data, to access the numbers to see how many people in a given county voted, who they were, and created ballots for those people who did NOT vote to be scanned in with no signature verification or other verification. And they did this so you wouldn't get a huge spike in any single voting age range. They could spread it out so it is better hidden.

They apply their 2010 Census Data (from the population by age spectrum information) derived algorithm to the data of registered voters by age spectrum (in a county) to see how many votes they can manufacture without overtly tipping anyone off.

For each county, they likely had a certain number of blank mail in ballots ready. They probably looked at their "Key Factor" derived from the census population for each age group, applied the algorithm to the number of registered voters for each age group, and began creating fake ballots late on election day, getting as close as they could to the poll close. They simply saw who hadn't voted in a precinct, spread it out over the age range, and using the names of voters who had not yet voted, cast votes in their name.

They had probably made a bunch of fake ballots based on projected turnout (or projected margin of victory?) ready to go, packaged up and brought to friendly co-criminals working officially in the system to be scanned in.

When the results began coming in, they likely saw that Trump was winning by a wider margin than they had anticipated, and they needed more fake ballots. So they had to stop counting (for whatever reason they provided) so that more ballots could be manufactured and brought in. Did they have to stop counting with a reserve of ballots in place so they could be mingled into the count with Trump votes, so that you wouldn't see a spike in Biden votes like this one?

Do I have that generally correct as you understand it?

By the way, I don't doubt they were ALSO trying to electronically manipulate vote tallies which would more easily be discovered in a FULL manual vote count, but would appear in sample counts (like they did in most places that forced it where they took a small sample of about a thousand votes and declared things fine) as small anomalies, but in a large or total sample, would show up far more easily.

In summary, is this the evidence?