That is obvious and useless. You are making up a term. That is not what correlation means.
and if you threw it off and it bounced and was undamaged every time, that would have a correlation factor of -1.000.
And now you made more stuff up. You don't know what correlation means.
In the top graphic, the blue line has two little "peaks" over there on the right, one is around the 72 year old age group, the other is around the 78 year old age group. No big deal, just means there was a few more people in those age groupings who registered to vote than the age groups surrounding them.
Ok, now you have finally stated a fact..
Here is the key point: for those 72 and 78 year old groups where the curve defines the volumes of people registered to vote, you need to ask yourself: under what circumstance would those two bumps in registration coincide in real life with an exact same bump in a graph of the number of ballots cast by age in that same county?
Answer: except for the increase with age, always. Because the percentage of people who vote doesn't vary with age, it only increases with age. Above a certain age the percentage is flat. 72 and 78 year olds won't vote in different percentages in the aggregate (i.e. with a large enough sample size)
But it is an absolute impossibility that those two entire curves ACROSS THE AGE SPECTRUM will have a correlation factor of 1.000 in a county like Denver County in Colorado, which has a population of about 700K. It is impossible to happen naturally.
Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. The larger the sample size, the more likely that the percentage voting in different age groups wiill be the same. That's because the larger sample gets rid of flukes, coincidences and outliers. The only difference, like I said, is the increase in percentage voting as you go up in age. That's up to a certain age, above which the percentage is high and flat.
They probably looked for everyone registered to vote who has never voted, and made up a bunch of those first.
I have no issue at all with that theory. Like the guy said on the video, they have access to the records of who votes and who doesn't and they will generate ballots for the ones who don't. There was a ton of fraud. We saw the ballots come out from under the table. We read the affafavits of ballots counted multiple times. We watched with our own eyes as they destroyed "unreadable" ballots after creating subsitute ballots without any monitoring the copying.
But saying that the video and curves are proof of fraud is simply a way to discredit the entire anti-fraud effort. It's no different from the birthers, the 9-11 truthers or any other whack jobs who are manufactured by the enemies of America to make conservatives look like loonies
Do not fall for it.
Whoa, I’m a birther. Obama’s BC is a forgery.
Sheriff Joe, like Mike Lindell, “has the proof”. But like someone posted above, proof is what the media says it is.
I don’t think you understand. That’s okay. You do your thing.
Wow - your bias is showing. Your many mistakes are not randomly distributed. They are all biased in the same direction.
This makes your analysis easy to disregard. Thx for playing.
-Propaganda-