DATA: MI Analysis Suggests Absentee Votes ‘Manipulated By Computer’, Flags Hundreds Of Thousands

DATA: Michigan Analysis Suggests Absentee Votes ‘Manipulated By Computer’, Flags Hundreds Of Thousands Of Ballots

https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/michigan-election-fraud-analysis/

Here is the 24 page report:
https://www.scribd.com/document/486098384/Michigan-Vote-Analysis#from_embed

Here is one of the names from the report:
Dr. S. Stanley Young graduated from North Carolina State University, BS, MES and a Ph.D. in Statistics and Genetics.

Dr. Young is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is an adjunct professor of statistics at North Carolina State University, the University of Waterloo and the University of British Columbia where he co-directs thesis work.
(https://www.niss.org/people/s-stanley-young)


Another name is John Droz, physicist and environmental advocate:
http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/JohnDroz_Energy_CV.pdf

Other contributors chose to remain anonymous. I'm sure you can guess as to why.

There is quite bit of data analysis here, and these are legitimate sources. They recommend an audit of the most statistically anomalous counties.

Here is one example of statistical analysis showing serious concerning patterns.

Trump election day on left and absentee on right:


Now Biden election day on left and mail in on right:

The authors refer to the above as a 'serious statistical aberration'.

I have been cautious about claiming outright fraud up until now, but it is becoming more and more difficult.

Take a look at the report. This is evidence of election fraud. I am still not claiming it to be settled, but it is perfectly reasonable to call for a full audit with signature verification of each mailed in ballot.

 

Joy another conspiracy thread

If the graphs are showing that Biden got a much higher proportion of the mail in ballots when the Dems pushed for mail in and the Republicans pushed for in person - well duh

 

PHDs and statistics experts/ professionals vs anonymous poster.

duh, its a conspiracy theory. /sarcasm

 

It amounts to NOTHING.

Because if it did amount to something, there would be Actual PROOF.

That is just a bunch of gobbledygook.

And, this is just another RE-Hash of stuff that has been debunked (and discredited) 1000x over.

 

gobbledygook? Did you learn that in your PHD research?

 

Masters in Finance
30 years of analyzing #s in the private sector

#s can easily be manipulated to support a flawed theory

 

Then you would agree that an audit of the most suspicious county would disprove their analysis. Also, it's awfully bold of you to discredit this study so quickly. You must be a speed reader too.

 

Exactly, Indy.

You beat me to it.

Obviously, it would be 1000% EXPECTED for Biden to have more Absentee/Mail-In Votes.

That is as obvious as 1+1=2.

 

When the same conspiracy arguments have been debunked over and over again - it is the boy who cried wolf

 

I think Biden's swearing in on his inauguration day is going to hurt the OP of this thread more than the other Trump loyalists.

But to stay on topic of this thread, to the OP, do you understand anything that those graphs are trying to prove with those black dots? Or did you just find another fraud link that backs up your thoughts and feelings regarding the election and desperately want to believe this?

Just curious.

 

Wrong - The Trump conspiracy believers would say that for Biden votes 1+ 1 = 20,000

 

Who debunked it?

 

Reality did.

 

What I know is not really pertinent. The evidence is being presented by multiple PHDs.

 

I am referring to all of the other ones that have been raised, such as there were 700K more mail in ballots received in PA then what was sent out. 3.1mil were sent out, not 1.8 mil. Or that there was mass fraud in Phila when Trump actually did a littler better there than in 2016 and so on and so on. After all the ones that have had no basis in reality, any new one falls under "The Boy who cried Wolf"

 

This is not evidence though. This is these PHD's feeeeeeeelings.

Call Rudy and tell him you found the smoking gun that is sure to switch the election result to Trump.

 

It does appear to be a strongly suggestive indicator that something could have been wrong though, and seems to warrant some more specific investigation.

 

There are apparently a lot of science deniers on Biden's team.

 

Let's remember that Michigan is a traditionally strongly Democrat state, yet, due to it being in the Rust Belt and so many people in Michigan being concerned about manufacturing jobs being outsourced to other countries, the majority of votes in the state went to Trump in the 2016 election, and likely Democrats were afraid it was going to happen again.

Also places like Michigan have much more intense partisan politics than somewhere else in the Midwest like Iowa where political rivalries are more tranquil.

 

NO. It ISN'T "Election Fraud".

Those tables prove NOTHING.

And, it ISN'T "perfectly reasonable to call for a full audit with signature verification of each mailed in ballot."

That is Completely INFEASIBLE (and Michigan has already certified the Election).

But, outside of that--You have an "Airtight Case".
Sure thing.

 

Investigate what exactly? What crime was committed?

Do you also agree that Trump refusing to release his taxes appears to be a strong indicator that something could be wrong and seems to warrant a specific investigation?

 

No, refusing to give up personal privacy and refusing to give up information (non-government) should not be taken as an indicator that that person has likely done something wrong.
You don't understand civil liberties if you say that.

 

Here is the reality - if Trump did not have history of crying that every election he is in or has a rooting interest in is rigged if he loses (or like when he did lose in the 2016 Iowa primary) maybe a concern about one state would have some credibility

If he did not repeatedly declare that he could only lose if it was rigged, maybe a concern about one state would have some credibility

When you are saying that 6 states were rigged with ten different ways of rigging - you have no credibility

This is not 2000 where there was a legitimate issue in Florida in a state ultimately decided by less than 600 votes. I actually was on Bush's side on that issue and ranted about the Dems the entire time.

Trump is trying to steal an election that he lost and he is depending on Supreme Court justices that he picked and/or republican state legislatures that he is pressuring to do it for him. The non stop lies being tweeted out is all part of the con to accomplish that goal

 

Who debunked it? If your source is something along the lines of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or Snopes, who all lean heavily Democrat, then I question the validity of the debunking, especially after only 3 weeks of barely glancing at the data before dismissing it as a “conspiracy theory.” Remember how Russian Collusion ended up being the most blatantly obvious conspiracy theory of this century so far; when the FBI itself got busted for it?

 

ok, but none of that has anything to do with the private citizens, some of whom are highly credible data scientists, who have found statistically impossible data.

They are calling for the votes to be scrutinized in at least one county. Who can disagree?