Sadly, I do not have time to dissect that entire article you posted. Though I would enjoy doing so at a later date and may, in fact. For now, I will point out a few things from the article and my brief comments:

(Notes: The below quotes are from the article's section, "A SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS/QUESTIONS".)

"He has refused to disclose the '6th order polynomial' that produces his predicted ballots cast."

Refused? The author doesn't mention how or when Dr. Frank allegedly came to "refuse" to share his equation. I strongly suspect the author means to say something like, "As Dr. Frank's presentation seems to be for a lay audience (and not professionals), he left out the fine mathematical details of his analysis." Instead, he chose to say "refused" which just reflects his own bias and sets the stage for a propaganda hit piece masquerading as a fair analysis. Granted, I am making some assumptions here. If the author actually can show that Dr. Frank in fact refused to share his formula, then I'd want to know why. I bet Dr. Frank would, however, share his formula with anyone who wanted to see it. In fact, he has a video on his YouTube page that walks through his method in detail. At some point I hope to follow along and try my hand at processing some novel data to see if I get the same results.

"He has refused to disclose the source of the underlying Census data he relies upon."

This is a straight up lie. I have heard Dr. Frank say on multiple occasions that he used the census data from the last complete census and even showed the government web site where he sourced it. I believe the last complete census was the 2010 census. But, honestly, if someone doesn't know where to find census data, I'm not sure that person is qualified to be analyzing the work of a data scientist with multiple PhD's related to the subject matter. Again, this makes me think the author had his mind made up before he considered Dr. Frank's claims and was writing a propaganda hit piece and not an actual analysis.

"He was forced to admit that all of the data he based his original analysis on was incorrect."

Really? Where? Perhaps I overlooked proof of this claim when I skimmed the article. But, even if true, Dr. Frank has run multiple analyses of dozens of counties and multiple states. He is continuing to analyze data if my understanding is accurate. So what if he made some mistakes with earlier versions of his analysis? That is how science works.

"He claims that his analysis produces the same result regardless of the data it’s based upon."

This is not true. I cannot be sure if the author misunderstands something Dr. Frank said or if he's being deliberately dishonest. The point he is trying to get at is a question of whether or not Dr. Frank's hypothesis can be falsified. Scientific claims should be clear such that conditions for them true and conditions for them being false are also clear. The author is trying to claim that Dr. Frank's analysis just always says the same thing no matter what. In fact, he is probably just misunderstanding Dr. Frank's claim that his analysis holds true for every election he's evaluated so far. What Dr. Frank means is that this proves the algorithm was used in every election he's studied. If it did not apply, his results would have been different and, therefore, at least partly falsified.

Moreover, while I have not seen it and didn't read the article closely enough (yet) to know for sure, it may be that at some point Dr. Frank's data was perhaps off by a constant or some such. However, the SHAPE held, which proves the data, even if different, was correlated with his algorithm. If even just a correlation exists across multiple elections, this is statistical evidence of fraud. Honestly, I doubt the author has the requisite knowledge to be attempting to dissect this stuff.

"Claims that a single '6th order polynomial' can recreate the ballots cast for every county in a state despite showing graphs of multiple different equations in his own presentation."

At this point it is REALLY starting to look like the author failed to grasp Dr. Frank's work. Dr. Frank discusses various approaches on his path toward his eureka moment that led to his discovery of the basic algorithm that was certainly employed to steal the election. Repeatedly, he talks about formulas he used based on population and based on registrations. These are two separate formulas. He compares and contrasts them repeatedly in an effort to explain how he discovered the algorithm and the '6th order polynomial'. Sadly, the sort of stuff Dr. Frank is dealing with is highly technical and extremely abstract. It is difficult to explain such work to laypeople. He is doing a great job, and he seems to be refining his approach as time goes on. Unfortunately, the author seems to not quite get it yet. It is shameful that he'd post a hit piece instead of taking the time to conduct an actual informed analysis.

"Improperly compares 2020 registration totals to Census data that’s (best case) 17 months to five years old."

Yeah, the author is just completely lost. And, again, he's using negative words to malign Dr. Frank without cause or substantive reasoning. "Improperly"? How so? I'll grant I perhaps overlooked a reasonable claim along these lines when I skimmed the article. But let me stick to the point...

The last completed census was 2010, if I recall correctly. Dr. Frank discovered that that census was used to pad registrations, and then an algorithm used both to manipulate the election in a way meant to be less than obvious. He repeatedly shows how the algorithm based on the census population data alone correlates strongly with the actual vote records. And he shows how the algorithm using registrations matches even better. But of particular interest are two "bumps" on almost every graph which he was able to trace back to the census graph. This is rather damning, as it is essentially impossible that this would happen in any natural dataset associated with a legitimate election. It is like a fingerprint of a machine disenfranchising the public at large.

"Arrived in Colorado knowing his data was bad and intending to present it regardless."

I do not know anything about this specific claim. But it already seems pretty well established that the author doesn't understand the underlying data, where it came from, how the analysis was performed, what it led to, what it means, etc. So I find his claim that the data was "bad" dubious. But I suppose it is possible that Dr. Frank accidentally brought the wrong slides or something. But then it is rather like teaching basketball with a soccer ball because you brought the wrong gym bag to introduce children to the sport. The soccer ball is the wrong ball, but you could still effectively teach children to play basketball with it in a pinch. Perhaps Dr. Frank attempted to do likewise for some reason in Colorado. After all, he's found such a strong correlation as to be tantamount to proof. If the shape matches, that is sufficiently damning. He doesn't necessarily have to match every single point to perfection. In fact, the R scores he gives are seldom representative of perfect correlation (which would be +/- 1.00). However, at their lowest, the R scores are like 0.99x, which is essentially the same as 1.00 in such a context. However, the mere fact they are not all perfect 1.00 proves that Dr. Frank's algorithm isn't EXACTLY what was used and nothing else. The 0.01 difference indicates some bit of noise here and there, likely from in-person voters and such. There may even be some machines that experienced hardware or software failures that prevented the algorithm from working on them. However, the STRONG correlations prove that the basic claim is rock solid if the data pans out. I have yet to personally corroborate it.

And, finally, what exactly are the author's credentials for assessing the quality of a multiple PhD'd data scientist with relevant credentials?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Ben attended the University of Colorado for both undergrad and grad school. He has 12 years of experience in Colorado politics. In addition to politics he also works providing economic forecasts for the world's largest banks.

I wonder what are the subjects of his degrees, both undergraduate and graduate? I'm guessing they're in Political Science and/or Economics. There could also be a Finance degree in there of some sort considering his affiliation with "the world's largest banks". Granted, what Ben is and his motivations don't have anything to do with his claims. But, if his article is a propaganda hit piece as I suspect, his short biography might offer some hints as to how likely that is and why it might be. He says at one point in the comments that "Democrats do have absolute control in Colorado". And he works in politics and banking, so... I guess we can conclude that he's highly sympathetic to Democrats, maybe? Perhaps not with certainty, but it seems to fit.

Hopefully I'll find time to dissect this more thoroughly in the future. However, even if I do not, I hope that some of the above aids you in discussions with your, uhh, "sjw woketard paralegal" ;p

Good luck and be kind!