Trump Election "expert witness" files affidavit about fraud in Edison County, Michigan. Difficulty: there is no Edison county in Michigan
Possible Election Fraud in Progress
- Thread starter BeautifulStranger
- Start date
The Democrats , with help from China, Venezuela and Cuba made Edison County disappear. It's a complot!
They did not just steal votes, they stole a whole county! All houses, streets and people are gone. Edison county is even removed from Google maps.
ROFLMAO
Last edited:
--and here's a second piece of evidence that reveals massive fraud in PA during the 2020 election. Either one of the 2 pieces of evidence on their own are 100 percent proof of election fraud.
Crowd Gasps After Giuliani Reveals A "Spike" Of 570,000 Votes For Biden And 3,200 For Trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...0000_votes_for_biden_and_3200_for_trump.html#!
The following link contains the annotated statement of an electronic voting expert:
https://thenewamerican.com/cybersec...lection-fraud-orchestrated-by-enemies-of-u-s/
https://thenewamerican.com/cybersec...lection-fraud-orchestrated-by-enemies-of-u-s/
Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, is not an electronic voting expert. He is a fraud. This has already been documented.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...fraud-in-progress.352166/page-92#post-5262597
His statement holds water.
Common sense doesn't need a whole lot of background, lol
His statement holds not water. Real INFOSEC security experts are laughing their asses off at his nonsense. Most of his affidavit makes no technical sense whatsoever and just spews continuous Qanon conspiracy crap.
https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020
A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night
Executive Summary
In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.
This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.
Conclusion
This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates. The findings presented by this report [28]suggest that four vote count updates — which collectively were decisive in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and thus decisive of a critical forty-two electoral votes — are especially anomalous and merit further investigation.
In particular, the finding that the broader data follows general patterns and our ability to measure just how much any individual vote update does — or doesn’t — follow this pattern allows us to make concrete claims about both how extreme any given vote update is and about what any particular vote update might have looked like, had it been less extreme one one axis or another.
We further find that if these updates were only more extreme than 99% of all updates nationally in terms of their deviation from this generally-observed pattern, that, holding all else equal, Joe Biden may very well have lost the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and that he would have 42 fewer Electoral votes — putting Biden below the number required to win the Presidency. Either way, it is indisputable that his margin of victory in these three states relies on four most anomalous vote updates identified by the metric developed in this report.
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020
A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night
Executive Summary
In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.
This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.
Conclusion
This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates. The findings presented by this report [28]suggest that four vote count updates — which collectively were decisive in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and thus decisive of a critical forty-two electoral votes — are especially anomalous and merit further investigation.
In particular, the finding that the broader data follows general patterns and our ability to measure just how much any individual vote update does — or doesn’t — follow this pattern allows us to make concrete claims about both how extreme any given vote update is and about what any particular vote update might have looked like, had it been less extreme one one axis or another.
We further find that if these updates were only more extreme than 99% of all updates nationally in terms of their deviation from this generally-observed pattern, that, holding all else equal, Joe Biden may very well have lost the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and that he would have 42 fewer Electoral votes — putting Biden below the number required to win the Presidency. Either way, it is indisputable that his margin of victory in these three states relies on four most anomalous vote updates identified by the metric developed in this report.