My understanding is that they lied about not connecting the voting machines to the Internet. The machines -- at least the ones I've heard about in various documentaries and such -- are basically just Windows computers running software to handle the elections. Mike is definitely claiming that all of the voting machines were connected to the Internet. If it is true that they are all just Windows PC's, then they certainly are capable of being connected to the Internet and likely come with built in ethernet and wifi connection capabilities. If they were not connected to the Internet, then I do not see how a scenario like Mike describes could have taken place. Personally, I am convinced that they were connected to the Internet and that Mike is telling the truth.
It is true that we are not given the packets to analyze ourselves here, but that is rather like if I claim to have a Corvette in my garage. If I do, then you could come see for yourself if I wanted to have you over. Mike might be willing to share with you the raw packet data if you want. I think he correctly assumes that most people wouldn't know what to do with it. However, the relevant technology is such that, if Mike is telling the truth that he has the packets and that legal chain of custody was maintained, then his evidence is EVERYTHING. It is rock solid, objective, and 100% irrefutable, just like he says that it is. I encourage you to read my longer comment in this thread where I attempt to explain the technical aspects in lay terms.
Because you and your family do not understand how an airplane works does not indicate that flight is impossible. Your problem here is a lack of understanding the technology. Please see my long comment here where I attempt to explain the technology in lay terms. What Mike claims to have is as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
It only seems that way to you because you do not understand the technology being discussed. Please see my long comment in this thread for a small attempt at explaining the technology to laypeople.
After reading a couple of somewhat negative comments that betrayed a lack of fundamental understanding, I wanted to offer some small clarification on Mike's video. Specifically, I want to address the concern that this just boils down to some anonymous guy's opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Mike claims to have is 100% objective proof that is independent of any particular opinion or analysis. I will briefly try to explain.
There are a couple relevant technologies here that I would like to break down a little bit. I want to try to break this down for laypeople in a bit less technical wording. The first is networking communications between computers.
When data is transmitted across a network, like on the Internet, that data is broken up into what are called 'packets'. For now, let's just think of these as post cards like you would fill out and place in the mail. So if you want to send the Holy Bible to a friend, one (inefficient) way of doing so would be to copy the bible down onto post cards. Fit as much as you can on a post card, then mail that post card to the recipient. This would be very time-consuming, and the post cards might arrive out of order. Some might also be lost in the mail, so you might include a number on each card to identify the order. Then, if by the end there are missing numbers, you might re-write those cards and send the new copies to your recipient. Again, these post cards are analogous to network 'packets' as described in Mike's video.
But what if someone intercepts your mail and alters your post cards? Then your friend might have a copy of the Bible that has been altered, even to the point of conveying a different or opposite message at any or all points. This is a real problem, and it is also a problem for network packets. However, there is a long-established solution. Without that solution, secure online transactions from purchases to banking would all be impossible. So we all already know that technology exists to address this problem, but most of us do not understand it very well.
Sadly, it is quite a bit harder to explain in lay terms how the technology works to guarantee our 'post cards'/packets aren't altered as they are transmitted through the network, but I am going to try. The basic technology involves advanced mathematical encryption of the same sort your online bank would use. This mathematical solution involves a private key and a public key. In our analogy, both you, the sender, and your recipient would have both private and public keys. The private key would be kept secret, but the public key can be shared. These keys can be used to encrypt data such that only the intended recipient can read it. Even more importantly here, these keys can also be used to create a digital signature. This signature incorporates every detail of the network packets or your post cards in a cryptographic algorithm such that it can be proven with mathematical certainty whether or not the contents of the packet or post card has been altered in any way. This is still quite complicated, so let me give a simple example:
Let's say one of your post cards says, "#1346: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (NIV)". Using a cryptographic signature, your recipient could verify that the message contents has not been altered with such precision that, if even the received message left out, altered, or added A SINGLE CHARACTER, the digital signature WOULD NOT MATCH and would thus prove with MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY that the message had not been accurately transmitted. In the case of a computer network, that packet would be discarded and a new attempt would be made to send the correct packet with the correct contents.
So, putting this all together, it is as if the voting machines communicated via post cards in the mail to each other. Each post card is time and date stamped, marked for its proper order in the transmission, and every detail is digitally signed so that it can be proven with MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY whether or not the data was altered between the sender and receiver. Mike claims to have EVERY SINGLE POST CARD FOR THE ENTIRE ELECTION, COMPLETE WITH DIGITAL SIGNATURE! Furthermore, Mike has claimed elsewhere that proper, legal chain of custody was maintained with this data from the time of collection to the present. If both of these claims are true, that can be easily proven, confirmed, and verified. And it means that ANYONE who has the proper training/understanding to check the data will have no choice but to come to the exact same conclusion that his anonymous expert came to. The information IS NOT DEPENDENT ON AN EXPERT TESTIMONY! If this is not true, then digital commerce and online banking would be an impossibility.
So, one last time, let's try to go over a complete analogy. Let's say computers did not exist but mathematical cryptography for encryption and signing is possible. Let's say that all machines in the election were replaced with humans who communicated all election information via post cards which used cryptographic signing to ensure that all data maintained its accuracy. This would include communications like, "Take the votes we tallied since our last post card and add them to the running total for our state. Then add that to the running total for the nation." Some of these post cards might be from foreign actors saying things like, "Biden is falling too far behind in Michigan! Take 32,213 votes from Trump and re-assign those to Biden." Every post card is numbered so you can piece together the original number. Every post card has a data and time stamp, as well. And every post card is cryptographically signed in a way that allows the recipient to confirm whether or not the original message made it without being altered. You can think of this as a mathematical formula each person has. Each also has two very long strings of data corresponding to a private and public key. So when Person A wants to send an update to Person B, he first writes the message, then runs the message through a mathematical function/algorithm along with his secret key and his recipient's public key. The function/algorithm spits out exactly what he then writes on the final post card and sends to the recipient. Furthermore, each new post card includes a cryptographic hash pointing to the previous post card sent. This way, each new post card can be verifiably linked to the previous post card. And Mike has ALL of these post cards!
One final remark about the cryptographic signatures: these are sort of like the "Royal Seal" a king might have used in times past. Royal edicts would have a hot wax seal that the king would press his signet ring into on the assumption that no one can break the seal and put it back without the king's own ring which remains in his possession. Cryptographic signing is MUCH more secure than this!
And, finally, here are a few Wikipedia references to relevant technology discussed above for those who want to dive more deeply into the technical aspects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
A lot of funny ideas have been posted, which I enjoyed very much! However, on a more serious note, if OP decides to respond, I think something like,
"The item described in your letter is not a 'sign' subject to the HOA agreement. It is political expression protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
You could go on to explain that you would prefer much more noticeable means of advocating for your political beliefs, but you already settled on the smaller window decoration out of respect for the neighbors: a respect you choose to show and are not actually required to show ;) And perhaps throw in a comment like, "I believe Trump is still the President. Don't you? Isn't the President the winner of a Presidential Election?! We live in interesting times, I'll grant! But I know who our President REALLY is ;)"
Title should be, "Practice Gas-Lighting People Dumb Enough To Trust You With Our New Interactive Chat Bot! (Now you, too, can participate in global genocide! ;D)"
I am confident she'd have a legal case against these doctors. However, if I were her, I'd want new doctors, anyway. The ones she has don't sound very competent. I would consult an attorney and another doctor. At the minimum she should file a formal complaint against the doctor and try to see if there is anywhere online to write him a bad review.
I don't think you're being very charitable to Greekish. People are allowed honest mistakes. You will find them all over "8kun etc.", as well, I assure you.
Hey! Thanks for the update! I'm glad it seems like it went well!
It is such a tricky thing trying to "red-pill" people. You never know what exactly it is going to take to get each person to open his/her mind and see what's right in front of us. It is also important to remember that none of us is infallible, and sometimes the people we want to wake up have important truths to share with us. I believe it is very important to keep in mind how I think God wants us to view each other, even our "enemies". Try to see them like a close friend or family member that has been led astray. Deal with them humbly and gently.
It may ultimately be up to God to bring an individual to the truth. If a person's heart is hardened against what you have to say, be careful not to overwhelm or belittle him/her. Always remember to be humble and to treat such people as you would want to be treated if you were similarly misled.
To be clear, I'm sure you handled your particular situation just fine. My comments are just general musings that I hope will be helpful, perhaps, to others who come across this thread.
Thanks again!
Could be a mere coincidence. Sadly, the way things are nowadays, we always have to wonder about such things, tho...
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!
Can anyone provide me any good fact-based resources on this so it can't just be dismissed as "coming from obscure conspiracy sites"?
Well, this is pretty simple. Your father's claim that "You're just getting that from conspiracy websites" is a formal fallacy of reasoning. It is a form of what is called "argumentum ad hominem". That is Latin for something like "arguing to the man", as opposed of arguing to the point. In this case "the man" is web sites which do not meet your father's approval, but the underlying reality holds: he is addressing the source of an argument as a way to avoid the actual argument. Even better, I'll give an example:
This is a relatively "obscure conspiracy site", right? I'm going to make a claim. Here it is: 1 + 1 = 2. Is the veracity of the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 compromised by the fact that I am making the claim here on this "obscure conspiracy site" or does it hold because it is true and represents a fact of reality in and of itself?
It is easy to come up with other examples: "fire is hot", "ice is cold", "the force of gravity generally causes what goes up to come back down", etc. All of these are true independent of what site states them.
So how might you use this? You simply point out the objective fact that your father is not refuting anything. He is just criticizing the source without addressing the arguments at all. Therefore, his tactic changes NOTHING.
More to the root regarding to take the experimental jab or to not take the experimental jab, it is really a rather simple choice that is probably best assessed probabilistically. We now have over a year's worth of data as to the risk of dying from the China Virus. The long-term outcome of the experimental injections is essentially unknown. Plus, we have many effective therapeutics with established safety. Beyond that, it is up to the individual: very low, known risk with WuFlu (and therapeutics) or unknown risk with an experimental drug undergoing an unprecedented clinical trial? Seems I've heard of people catching the virus after the injection. Seems I've also heard that there will need to be endless boosters. My faith is in God, my immune system, and well-established prophylactics and therapeutics. Many years from now, if legit data is available, and if my risk profile changes, I might reconsider the injections. For now, the injections just don't seem to make any sense for anyone at all other than those who wish to volunteer for a dangerous clinical trial for whatever reason.
For anyone aware of the election fraud and surrounding reality, there may be further concerns worth considering given that it is mostly the same people we've already caught lying and being generally evil that are now pushing this clinical trial aggressively and trying to bully and frighten people into taking it.
One other fact that comes to mind is that the lobotomy procedure won a Nobel Prize and was highly regarded for many years. As I recall, the first procedures were conducted with the founding doctor's wife's icepick from the kitchen drawer. Point being, we know the so-called scientific establishment can make huge, life-ruining and life-ending mistakes. They have made many and will likely make many more. It is important that people take responsibility for themselves and remember that we are all human and we are all fallible. Choose whom you trust with the utmost care: especially now!
Another notable point is that, even under the exaggerated numbers for the China Virus, it seems to be competing with medical malpractice for a top five position for causing deaths in America. That could theoretically inform an assessment of the clinical trial's risk. I mean a clinical trial has to be more likely to result in your death than standard, well-established medical practice, right? (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us)
Good luck!
I love frankspeech.com! Seems like it's off to a great start. I suspect it is part of a serious longterm plan. But, even if that were not the case, the guests and interviews are top quality and extremely informative! I highly recommend everyone check in there at least once a day or so. I usually learn something new every time I go. Recently, they had a Persian expert on talking about the overthrow of Iran back in the late 70's early 80's. The parallels with today were shocking, right down to radicalized sheep rioting, burning cars, trying to defund police, etc. It is thanks to outlets like frankspeech that we will crush this commie trash once and for all!
You are thinking of stenography (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography).
It could certainly be used to pass messages on Facebook, but only to those who know the key to revealing the hidden, likely encrypted messages. By then I fear you're just preaching to the choir if you're talking about waking people up. Now for below the radar comms to use Facebook while protecting your privacy, sure.
I suspect op is a shill. Either shill or not too bright. The controllers want people to go on like normal and pretend they don't feel their chains!
Exactly! If no plan exists to fix it in some magical fashion, let it fall til we can fix it the good old fashioned way! They can just keep pushing til enough are ready to get off their asses and fix it themselves or die trying.
Sorry, you're completely wrong. If my vote in 2020 doesn't mean anything, my time is better spent training and planning on all future election days. If you're dumb enough to vote in a rigged election, you deserve the results you get. Voting in 2024 while 2020 is not corrected legitimizes the rigging. Put it this way: if 2020 isn't fixed, I will not vote, because I CANNOT vote! Voting is not putting on a show that looks like voting and means nothing. Voting is having a meaningful say about who represents you in government. Until 2020 is corrected, we do not have any voting available to us, and you should stay home for all future elections and clean your guns!
Apologies! This reply should have gone to the one below. I'm going to leave it up for the content even though I accidentally responded to the wrong post.
Not sure why my previous reply got downvoted, but I found this: https://www.janssen.com/ It looks like Janssen is a pharmaceutical company under Johnson & Johnson who developed their vaccine. No matter the name on the vaccine, I'd probably prefer being injected with COVID given the choice! ?
Good points! And I think this highlights the fact that these attacks we are under cause a breakdown in trust. We don't know what to believe and we cannot all be experts. Even those who are have limited access to what they'd need to draw strong conclusions. We're in a real mess! All the more reason to speak carefully and clearly.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
Good eye! I had not considered that perspective. It is a curious word choice, perhaps. As I stated, I am skeptical even if they say, "Here is EVERYTHING!" But, as you point out, they almost imply that they may be sharing a sub-category of the ingredients. It's like saying, "This product includes non-alcoholic beer" without mentioning that it also includes ethanol rendered from beer! ?
Hello, friend! I actually noticed that, but, if you'll consult the official documents, the Johnson and Johnson IS officially referred to as the Janssen vaccine ? I didn't bother to dig into the why as I am quite busy, but I would certainly appreciate it if you would like to take lead on getting to the bottom of whatever that is about. Thanks in advance should you decide to do so.
As to "spinning the data", if Mike has legal chain of custody from the networked machines to the packets he now has which were captured, then there really isn't much room to spin. It is possible, I suppose, that one could set up a network and fake election data packets, but such a fake would likely not match the real election in many important ways. And such a fake would not have a legal chain of custody. People can lie pretty creatively, however, but I consider this to be pretty decisive. Put it this way, they should not be able to spin this any better than a forensic analysis on digital financial transactions could be spun. And, to my knowledge, when something like the IRS or SEC makes a case based on such data, they win decisively, people go to jail, and/or serious penalties are levied.
I also trust Mike Lindell and believe him to be genuine. I do not have any special access to him, however, so I guess time will tell if he's suckered me in or if he is who he claims to be. As far as whether or not he has every 'post card', I would love to know exactly how he obtained them. I have seen videos of his or on his frankspeech site (can't recall which, exactly) where he said basically that a bunch of good guys repeatedly tried to warn about such an attack and obtained no results. So they decided to record everything themselves. Who were these people? I do not know. And where did they record it? Were they at every polling station? Every county level aggregator? State level? He hasn't really said. To my understanding, there is some sort of "Edison Board" where the vote tallies were supposed to pass through and people can pay to access that system. That's allegedly how MSM outlets show voting totals as they come in. Many early grassroots analyses were based on, for example, the New York Times reports from their access to the Edison Board.
Here's what I hope and think might very well be true: Trump said, "We got them! We got them all!" Trump also called out fraud going back to at least 2012, as I recall. He even stated very specifically over the years various aspects of the fraud. Based on this, I suspect that the military was involved in the data collection. And I suspect the military leaked copies to Mike as part of ongoing irregular warfare efforts. This seems consistent with the DoD warfighting manuals (you know, all that 11.3 stuff and whatnot) and everything else we know. It may be the military is backing Mike and Mike doesn't even fully realize that's who is helping support his efforts. If this is true, perhaps Trump is indeed still controlling much of the military and acting as President (which he is, having won re-election) with many important things going on in the world.
In any case, time will tell. The only thing we know with certainty is that it is God's plan which will prevail in the end. Let's pray God wants to see the US restored to glory with a new peace and prosperity for all of its citizens as they soon embark on a new Golden Age.
Edit: It is worth noting that Mike has said he would gladly share all his data with Rachel Maddow and/or Anderson Cooper, let them thoroughly investigate it, and then report on it with one condition: they have to agree to have him on to discuss their findings. He made this offer on an appearance on Bannon's War Room. To my knowledge, neither has accepted Mikes offer. Mike seems extremely confident, and, so far, no one on the other side seems to want to address his case at all.