As National Pulse exclusively reported on November 17, an updated statistical report has just been released, and it begins, “This scientific analysis of the results of Pennsylvania’s 2020 presidential election is a cross-party effort by citizen and volunteer experts working without pay. Our only goal is to play a small role in helping to ensure that all legitimate Pennsylvania votes are counted, and that only legitimate Pennsylvania votes are counted.”
The report concludes, “These statistical analyses do not prove fraud, but rather provide scientific evidence showing that it is highly unlikely that the results (of elections published by the media) accurately reflect the votes cast by Pennsylvania citizens.”
Mathematical Exceptions
Pages 14 and 15 of the report state.
“For some of the counties with anomalous data, we tried to estimate the percentage of Democratic registered voters who voted in those counties. We wanted a fair estimate, so we eliminated Allegheny and Philadelphia counties because they are fairly unique. A simple linear regression was run on these 10 (data anomalies) counties.”
“A simple line fits the data very well.”
Biden 2020 = -21215.45 + 1.1943149 * Democrats’
“This means that Biden’s vote in the ten counties with data anomalies was 101% ± of registered Democratic voters (compared to 70% ± in most other Pennsylvania counties, an unusual statistical discrepancy). This is legally illogical and cannot be reasonably explained. The most likely explanation is that the excess votes were added to Biden’s totals, and they did not come from voters.”
On page 18, an executive summary of “Using Predictive Models to Test the Fraudulent Testable Hypothesis in the 2020 Presidential Election in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania” states.
“These facts suggest that a mathematically extraordinary event occurred in multiple counties at the same time by a magnitude far greater than what was needed to change which candidate won Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.”
The predictive modeling in the report revealed tens of thousands of potentially fraudulent votes across Pennsylvania, leading the statisticians who co-authored the report to conclude that “one or more individuals with the ability to intercept and modify data from all precincts” may have been involved in “increasing the Biden vote in heavily Democratic districts. of a fraudulent scheme that would not have been detected by the constituency staff,”
Page 19 of the report reads.
The change in the Biden vote over Hillary Clinton in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania in 2016 shows a mathematically fraudulent result of an unnatural increase in votes at the tail end of the distribution. Large-scale changes in high turnout or voter preferences cannot statistically create this result with any reasonable probability. This presentation is mathematical evidence of a classic form of fraud called the “stuffing the curve”, and the 2008 subprime mortgage risk management crisis is an example of such fraud.
Stuffing the Curve
Another phenomenon explored in the report is the change in the Biden vote in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, over the Hillary Clinton vote in 2016.
These data appear to “show a mathematically fraudulent result of an unnatural increase in votes at the tail end of the distribution.”
In other words, the report alleges that additional votes were added in counties that were expected to support Biden, “assuming that the additional votes would not have been noticed because of the already high Democratic/Republican ratio.
For example, “the new votes in favor of Biden increased by a staggering 16 percentage points.”
“In many precincts, the number of new votes for Biden alone exceeded the entire number of newly registered voters in that precinct,” the report added.
Allegheny County.
On page 22, the data modeler states.
A predictive model assumes more than 30,500 fraudulent votes in Allegheny County alone, which can be extended to other counties over time. Only Biden’s votes were artificially increased. This hypothesis suggests that a single actor or actors, with the ability to intercept and modify all precinct data, applied a “stuffing the gaussian” (different from what happened in Montgomery County – suggesting that different actors may have been involved) ballot fraud scheme to Increase Biden’s votes in heavily Democratic districts that will not be found by precinct workers.
On page 23, they go on to write.
The initial analysis is a bit surprising, as this is not a “stuffing the tail” attack (as in Montgomery County), but rather a “stuffing everything” attack. ……? ” The behavior. All precincts had people working to increase the number of Biden votes, and the chart shows that this is not a straight multiplier (e.g., Milwaukee: see the Milwaukee Vote Fraud Forecast Report), it must be a plus.
The report concludes.
▪ There are some significant statistical anomalies in Pennsylvania’s voting records that are highly unlikely to occur in a normal (i.e., unmanipulated) environment.
▪ These anomalies occurred almost exclusively on Biden’s ballot, over and over again, using a variety of techniques; while Trump’s ballot looked statistically normal.
11 counties in Pennsylvania (out of 67 counties) had anomalies in their data compared to other counties. These counties showed clear signs of voting anomalies – again, all were Biden votes that performed abnormally.
The total number of suspect votes in these counties was 300,000 ± – which is significantly larger than the margin by which the media reported that Biden outperformed Trump. (We don’t know how much of this was artificially added Biden votes or votes transferred to Biden from the Trump vote.
These statistical analyses do not prove fraud, but rather provide scientific evidence that it is highly unlikely that the results (of the election as published by the media) accurately reflect the votes cast by Pennsylvania citizens.
Recent Comments