A key focus of Matt Braynard's lookaheadamerica.org has been obtaining voter rolls and doing the difficult work of finding and verifying illegal entries. The left's largely false and woke screams of voter suppression need to be fully exposed as we continue to work towards truly fair, free, and honest elections.

We need to take every reasonable step possible towards eliminating voter fraud, especially in big cities. I'd like to see even stronger laws that are enforced and ensure true chain-of-custody and verification, e.g. https://greatawakening.win/p/12hRQHTDzE/paper-voting-reform-proposal-/

@Brioux Thanks a bunch for being available for questions. I have a few:

1. The red lines in the graphs represent the number of ballots for each distinct age in years. How are these data obtained? Is it perhaps from the exact same table as the number of registrations (the black lines), but subsetted to the rows marked as having voted on Nov 3, 2020?

2. In how many states was this analysis done?

3. In the states that were analyzed, is the claim that votes were manipulated in every county according to the key for that state? Even honest small rural red counties where voting was conducted securely? if so, it should be possible to go back and total up the precincts in such counties and find discrepancies.

4. Are any of the spreadsheets shown available publicly so that we can check them ourselves?

Is that bear trans?

Now let's talk about our health.

Many sermons on the web about this verse. This one at least appears good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4qLfGrefgY

Shredded from lifting sinners from the Slough of Despond.

Babylon Bee begins research on Amish buggies.

https://qagg.news/?q=%23%234739

Any speculation on why they don't release incontrovertible video evidence of the child rescues? It does not have to be horrific; could show entrances and shots of tunnels after rescues as well many of the less-abused children. Maybe a little of the worst stuff. This would seem to be the reddest pill of all. I guess one reason could be they do not want to definitively tip off places they have not cleared yet, but surely this network is connected enough to know what is already happening. If/when a video like this drops, what will be the chain of subsequent events?

Especially when talking about our health.

Just got to watch the whole interview. Sawyer's statements and body language all appear genuine to me, plus he is actually doing things, not just trying to tear someone else down on the internet. I'm for him now!

thanks, edited my comment!

These are reasonable points. Holmseth claims Sawyer was Hillary's bodyguard at one point--that should be readily checkable. If that is true, Sawyer likely has major dirt on HRC, and it would be great for him to reveal it or at least say something along the lines of "horrible things I've personally seen in my past are motivating me to do V4CR now." I pray Sawyer is not the worst kind of black hat pretending to be white hat, and even willing to make a show of it like contraland.

Sawyer has had severe run-ins with Timothy Charles Holmseth who claims he is a complete fraud and a pedophile himself:

https://gab.com/Timothy_Charles_Holmseth includes interview with Isaac Kappy

https://timothycharlesholmseth.com/?s=sawyer

Has anyone done a deep dive on this to help settle who to trust here?

lol, you def have your hands full. We'll continue to pray and it may take some time. The outpouring on this thread shows you are not alone and you have an army of big-hearted patriots struggling along with you. With the Good Lord's help, together we'll get there.

Unless they have gone completely reprobate and worship Satan, there is likely still hope. One golden principle that has always worked for me in difficult and crucial conversations is to find, begin, and build off of common ground. Just one topic on which you can agree provides a foothold. e.g. Maybe issues directly impacting children like the Dr. Suess ban, Rachel Levine, or trans invasion of women's sports.

Sauce?

In the screenshots of IP addresses Mary shows near the end of the video, some of the voting numbers appear to be cumulative. Has the raw data file of these IP addresses ever been released publicly by Mary or Mike? Would like to take a deeper look at it.

I appreciate your effort to clear your way through the unbelievably obtuse and lengthy presentation Solomon provides in attempt to distill it down to a salient understanding. Please be aware I have done the same and largely agree with your description above regarding what he did. I have been analyzing the original data in depth since the election and again, I was the one who actually provided the data to Solomon for Philly.

With that said, you have not yet addressed my main criticism involving the fundamental tacit assumption that underlies Solomon’s primary claim of proving fraud. We may now finally be to the point where you can appreciate the full force of this, so let me give it one more try.

My references to a uniform probability distribution are to what you call a natural dataset. Solomon makes a uniform probabilistic assumption on this set when he refers to hitting thin lines on a dartboard, similar to the wheel. This assumption is flawed in the sense that it does not adequately reflect how precinct-level ballot ratios are stochastically generated in time, even in non-fraudulent cases.

Here’s an example: Consider bus riders from a weekday in a busy city in pre-covid days, and suppose we have complete rider and bus records for a full day. To relate this to Solomon’s setup, riders are precincts and bus seats are specific ballot ratios. We can ask, what are the chances that rider A gets off at a specific stop at a certain time and rider B gets on and takes the exact same seat rider A was just in? This represents, by analogy, a ratio transfer. Under Solomon’s assumption, all such probabilities would be extremely small given the number of riders and available bus seats for that day. But hold on, many riders have a regular work schedule and are also creatures of habit, so in many cases the transfer probabilities end up being much larger. The observed distribution of seat occupation is surely far from being equal across the seats. To accurately compute ratio transfer probabilities, one would need to thoroughly assess the riding patterns over numerous days to determine a reasonable reference distribution for what is natural in that city. In this case, as in the voting scenario, this is would differ substantially from a uniform distribution.

Carrying this example further, suppose a group of thugs boards a few of the buses throughout the day and forces riders to sit in certain seats. Literally seizing and releasing them as Solomon describes. From the data alone, how would we determine which buses the thugs boarded and which people they accosted? Again, we would first need to know what the natural distribution of seat occupation looks like for a typical weekday in that city and then look for anomalies. This would be very difficult to determine precisely from data from only a single day due to confounding of various factors.

As mentioned previously, comparing to Iowa 2016 is weak at best. We would ideally need precinct-level time-series data for counties similar to Fulton and Philadelphia in 2020. For example, comparing to Fulton to Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett in Georgia is reasonable, but that is still only three counties and they were not counted collectively in State Farm Arena as was Fulton so the dynamics are different. It is much more straightforward and convincing to do graphical and statistical comparisons like those in Chapters 2 and 6 of https://www.scribd.com/document/495988109/MITRE-Election-Report-Critique .

To summarize, Solomon’s primary conclusions ride on a highly obfuscated probabilistic assumption that appears to be a poor approximation to realities of the 2020 election. I believe his techniques are capable of finding and suggesting some potentially fraudulent instances, but this is a very long way from 100% mathematical proof. I’d encourage you to think more deeply about this and carefully reread my replies in this thread. Researching more general topics like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_proof and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic may also help.

One final technical correction: The 3-decimal rounding errors are much larger than 1 or 2 votes. The Edison/NYT json files report a cumulative grand total of votes and then 3-decimal fractions for each candidate. As soon as the grand totals are greater than 1000 then rounding errors begin and grow increasingly worse as both precinct size increases and as time goes along. Such errors are substantial in the larger precincts in both Fulton and Philadelphia counties and also involve third-party candidates. The deltas that Solomon analyzes are far from exact, adding another questionable aspect to his entire analysis.

Updoot + a request to change "Sustainability" to something else since that is a fav word of the UN and Global Cabal, maybe "Pepe", "Freedom", "Basedness"

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html?

Jack Nicklaus, a humble and A-class hero, part of American greatness. With that smile, DJT agrees.

Thanks for taking the time to reply point-by-point. Agree the four steps you indicate are not that crazy. Note they no longer mention ratio transfers, seizing, releasing, totients, or wheels, nor do they require hours of mind-numbing video explanation.

What likely happened is probably not too far from this, and can be stated even more easily: 1. Calculate the number of fake Biden votes needed to steal the state 2. Add to Biden and/or subtract from Trump the desired numbers distributed proportionally to selected precincts 3. Send a one-time note to inside contacts to make sure paper ballots and their images match the adjusted numbers.

Simple addition, subtraction, and basic fractions are all that is needed, no coprime numbers, Euler's Totient function, or wheels. Apply Occam's razor to both the algo and logistics.

Please also remember the Edison time series data are approximate counts due to the 3-decimal rounding in the way candidate fractions were reported. This fact alone shows there is nothing mathematically exact here--the counts he uses are not even the true ones. I was actually the one who provided the raw time series data to Solomon for Philly and have had several exchanges with him.

You appear to be avoiding probabilities, as does Solomon, but in the end please realize there must be an appeal to them along with recognition of the stochastic nature of the counting process, unique to each location. Fulton and Philadelphia counties were both counted in large collective areas, facilitating fraud as in the three steps above. Comparing to Iowa 2016 is quite a stretch and carries little force given massive changes in procedures due to covid and mailin.

Any claim of rarity must probabilistically refer to some kind of reference distribution for what is considered to be normal. In Solomon's case this appears to be a uniform distribution over ratios with small numerators. However the true reference distribution is far from uniform given the way the counting is done and reported in time.

Great to hear of your coding effort and will look forward to seeing it. Happy to make a friendly wager that what Solomon described is not what we will find if we can ever get our hands on the Dominion source code. Godspeed to Matt Braynard's Look Ahead America to remove black box machines and make all code open source. Your code could potentially contribute to that initiative.

All ears if you can please point me to a clear, concise description of what is irrefutable. We at least appear to be agreeing on one place where he is completely wrong. Let me also mention the completely ludricrous 10th degree polynomial stuff he wrote for Michigan. I believe he is sincere and I am actually on his side, but his arguments fall short.

Not sure exactly to what you are referring, but will say that point late in one of his videos where he multiplies everything by a constant and shows the ratios do not change and says BOOM is complete BS. The formula for those ratios is invariant to the multiplication he performs and the fact that they do not change proves nothing except his faulty logic.