Back to Top

Updated Voter fraud #1

Time is extremely tight if Trump is to salvage his election. So I just pass these along as I see them. The article referenced in voter fraud #1 got re-released November 11th, including the relevant data previously missing. My source is crediting the missing data with there being one too many versions of the same article floating around on the internet. Same story, with the data:

"Data deep dive on Dominion Voting Systems offers incontrovertible proof of election hack"

https://noqreport.com/2020/11/11/data-deep-dive-on-dominion-voting-systems-offers-incontrovertible-proof-of-election-hack/

The same story covered by someone else, referring to the same source:

"Examining the code, internet geeks conclude 'Trump's win was yuuuge'"

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/examining_the_code_internet_geeks_conclude_trumps_win_was_yuuuge.html

My quick pass at the second article only tells me of rounding errors and automatically generated JavaScript computer code, but I'm not the expert.

While I can think of an easy non-fraud explanation (which may or not be true) for my voter fraud #2 posting (maybe mail in voters who were Democrats sent their ballots back later than Republicans), not so for voter fraud #3. I've personally often dealt with massaging of mailing address data in data bases, to make the data usable. I can attest to the validity of Benford's Law. When a city starts creating street addresses for newly created streets, they start with the number 1, and increment it. Bottom line is that there are many more street addresses starting with the number 1 (#1, #10, #100), than starting with the number 9 (#9. #90. #900). If you have a set of randomly selected street addresses that don't follow Benford's Law, then you have fake data.


Paid for by Friends of Fred Wysocki
Powered by CampaignPartner.com - Political Campaign Websites
Close Menu