Interesting and Topical Documentary

The latest "evidence" is the fact that more early ballots were cast than there were mailed out to people.

They pretend like this is some very weird circumstances, but people can vote early, in person. This literally can happen in every election where there is both mail in ballots being mailed to people and early in person ballots being cast by the very nature of the circumstances.

It's "questions" like these, while ignoring the reasonable explanations, that put the whole "audit" in question. They are basically saying "That looks weird to me and I don't know why it happened, I just want to keep saying it looks weird to make it look like there's something wrong, but I am not actually interested in finding out why."

This is why they focus on "exposing discrepancies" rather than providing answers/evidence/explanations. Just keep sowing seeds of doubt without actually arriving at any real conclusions. Now, after having no luck finding they want to "canvass" individual voters at their homes and ask them about their ballots, further extending the whole charade.

Meanwhile, the guy they hired (Cyber Ninja CEO Logan) and OAN (who also funded the audit) continues to make money off this whole thing, pushing election fraud narratives for profit, despite there continuing to be no hard evidence for any real wrongdoing.

In the recently released "documentary" about the "rigged" election, actually stars "Logan" as the voice of "Anon" in the original trailer. The film accuses the CIA and other federal agencies at covering up the fraud and spreading misinformation about the election. Oh? Remember that journalist who exposed that the audit had a person working on it who lost in the 2020 election that got kicked out because his photo had long-range unreadable ballots in it? This film has footage from the audit... showing ballots... zoomed in. In other words, while journalists were very limited in access, they gave open access to the audit floor to this film crew so they can make this film and charge $45 a pop for viewing.

One of the lead senators in AZ for this whole thing was asked about this profit motive for the auditors after claiming this isn't about 2020 but about "election integrity." She refused to answer the question.

Honestly, if people questioned this audit like they did with the election, they'd find it very suspect, but because the audit fulfills their preconceived notions about the elections, it's all fine.

 

"Sworn affidavits" is anecdotal evidence. You should well know that such statements are not particularly convincing as hard evidence, especially given that it's scientifically proven that eye witness testimony is sketchy, especially in a situation like this where many of such statements are made by individuals who have a particular notion about the election already.

As for the election practices, here is what the Constitution actually says:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."

The result is that while there are some requirements, the way each state does elections differs. Congress doesn't dictate all aspects of local election practices the way you imply. There were some Supreme Court decisions regarding these changes, and they went both ways, so it's hardly conclusive.

At the same time, the fact that election practices changed is hardly evidence of widespread voter fraud, especially given that the changes happened:

1. were mostly temporary, largely due to a pandemic
2. were transparent
3. weren't anything new or different, and in most cases one or more states already did things that way
4. were mostly of things that have changed over the years anyway (there were just more of them this time around

(I also notice you aren't/haven't raised concerns about all the ways Republicans have changed election practices in the last 20 years or so...)

Again, you don't present actual hard evidence. These are just thoughts and things that might LEAD to you places to look for evidence. So, for example, if you believe that expanded ballot drop hours/locations could lead to fraud because someone might have stuffed the ballot box with illegitimate ballots? Ok, fine, that's something to look into. But the concern itself is not evidence. It's just not - in the same way that your wife going out on a rare "girls night" COULD be her cheating, but the going out itself isn't proof. It MIGHT be cause for concern, and it MIGHT cause you to look into it deeper for ACTUAL evidence, but it isn't evidence.

~

Also, allow me to quote myself on a post I already made in this thread on this subject:

~

I have actually gone thru one of the things presented by Mike Lindell previously and described in detail how it doesn't actually add up to what they claim it does.

If there's any statistics or data presented in a way that can be actually analyzed during this "symposium" I will gladly do so, but in general, these people present bits and pieces and uses scare tactics rather than a vigorous scientific approach. They have an agenda and it's not clear that it's not finding the truth.

 

I tried to go to that site, but it appears to be a data harvesting scheme, so I am not about to enter my information to see what it really shows there - but what it showed, very briefly, appeared to be a bunch of clickbait headlines.

Given your description of the data packets, I am not sure that it'd be useful anyway. Again, this type of presentation is... well, not particularly confidence building, right? Like, just make it available in an easy to process format, in a way that data analytics and people can also check it out. Why is it presented like this? Why can't I just download it? Granted, I am not versed in packet data either, so I couldn't do much with it, but others could, I am sure. So why isn't it being made available if he has it?

This was the same as the other video I found that I already dissected. In that case, I also had to squint to try and figure out what data/charts they were looking at, and then I had to go cobble together the raw data myself to see what the hell they were actually calculating. And what they did was present a circular argument with cherry picked data that proved nothing except that demographics of select counties in select states have similar shapes. Great.

The fact is, most people won't go to these lengths, and IMO, that's what they are counting on. They want it to look impressive, but they don't really want people to look too hard.

~

But no, I don't believe it'll blow up in his face at all. It's been almost a year now, and these grifters are still raking it money hand over fist and people all over the country still believe "something" happened.

As if this entire election fraud stuff isn't selective questioning of validity - and ONLY of the election, not of any efforts to claim fraud.

The fact that you say this when I personally went out of my way to look for data/evidence and dissected it to see what it was about really disturbs me. I am literally the only person in this entire thread that has done any work on factual information.

I have tried to avoid attacking you personally, but you are making it really hard when you are throwing this kind of stuff around.

 

Caught some of the "symposium" briefly.

Haven't heard any evidence yet. Lots of boasts and claims about having enough evidence to convict "everyone in the country" - whatever that even means, and calling Mark Zuckerburg a criminal and other such things.

It's just him ranting.

And this whole "prove we are wrong for 5 million" thing is just... well, it's typical tactic right?

You can't prove the thing you want to prove, so you say, "YOU PROVE I AM WRONG THEN."

But the burden of proof isn't on us. You are making the claim that there's fraud. If you have evidence, it should be easy. Asking us to prove you wrong and using that as evidence that you are right is just... well. it's like arguing with theists about God, isn't it? You can't prove God isn't real so he is real. But it doesn't work like that.

Also, it's hard to analyze anything if they aren't actually providing the data to people...


If it were me, I'd do this in a very simple fashion:

• Explain how I got the data
• Provide a summary of the findings
• Provide the full analysis of the data
• Release the full data so others can verify the analysis

But so far, it's just him ranting about the media, George Soros... and all the usual stuff.

Ugh.

Maybe I am wrong, if it's all like this, maybe it WILL blow up in his face?


~

https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2021/...sium-held-sioux-falls-some-question-evidence/

Looks like some attendees agree with me that presenting it on screen in video form isn't useful to anyone.

"Attendee Bill Alderson would like to see the evidence for himself. He wants to review Lindell’s data, which is in the form of packet captures. Alderson is the Chief Technical Officer of Hop Zero Corporation, which limits the transfer of packet captures. He wants to see if Lindell has the entirety of votes from the U.S. Presidential election and evidence of election fraud.

“I need to put them on my system. I don’t want to look upon the screen, that’s uninterpretable,” said Alderson. “There’s no one who can look at that and understand that. You can’t take that and put it into an analyzer.”

Jordan Drysdale of Black Hills security in Rapid City works with clients who have been hacked or to protect them from it.

“When we respond to incident cyber threats and risks, we ask for packets. And in maybe one out of 10 cases of our customers who we’re assisting with incident response are able to provide those packets,” said Drysdale."

~

"In previous interviews our I-team has had with Mike Lindell, he said cyber experts from around the world would be able to review the data. We’ve requested the data for our own cyber expert to review and have not received a sample of the packet captures.

As of Tuesday evening, cyber experts attending on their own dime are not getting answers about receiving the data to analyze either."


~




Alright, I am going to bed - I tried to find some way of looking at it or to see if anyone else has looked at it and the data is simply not available except in that video. If anyone is actually provided with this data or does an actual analysis on it, let me know because if there's actual packet data, that'd certainly be of interest to see what it shows.

Until then, I am filing this under "more hot air" since it has not been presented in a format that allows for objective analysis - which, of course, has been most of this entire election fraud thing, so I am not exactly surprised.

 

The problem is they all basically fall under the category, "I saw something I can't explain or think looks suspicious."

So yes, I am throwing them out as "hard evidence." Because it literally fails that definition.

But they ARE important as leads, as I have already explained. The things they mention SHOULD be looked into and investigated... and they have, and are, being investigated.

Will evidence come out of those investigations? Possibly, but leads, in of themselves, is not "hard evidence."

 

Except you are the one doing it. I am saying both parties have modified election rules, yet here, you seem to think that changing election rules is "evidence" of a rigged election... because the Democrats did it and won? That's not evidence. That's partisan nonsense.

Stop accusing me of the thing you are guilty of and look in the mirror.

 

I agree, but you can still explain the process by which it was procured, without revealing sources.

Show it to me then. I have read everything you have written and clicked every link, and I have not seen anything remotely resembling what you suggest it is.

When I watched the feed, it was just him ranting about random bullshit. I am not sitting through hours of that just to find whatever it is you seem to think is such powerful evidence.

It's funny you say this bullshit when it's literally the opposite. You are eating all this nonsense up, and everytime I ask for ANY proof whatsoever you just go on a personal attack and never actually ANYTHING concrete for me to look at.

 

I watched a bunch of it and noted most of it did not pertain to anything resembling evidence.

How is it possible that such important and damning evidence cannot be summarized in any way? How is it that you cannot point to say, one chart, or even one TIMESTAMP so that *I* don't have to sift thru 24+ hours of content to find the point you want me to find?

I don't even know what you think is so great about this new evidence. How am I supposed to know which part you think is important?

Look, when I make a point, and I have data, I cite my source, and I present it to you to make it easy for you to know what I mean. I don't make you guess. I don't send you to watch 24+ hours of content with some vague idea that there's "evidence" there but don't tell you what it is or why I think it's good.

Heck, I have even DONE legwork already, multiple times in this thread, looking at sources and finding data that you had not presented.

You seem to have no problem spending time attacking me personally but when I ask for evidence you talk about stuff that's not evidence and then point me to 24+ hours of content?

 

If you can point me to specific cases you mean, I can comment on those. Once again, your vague assertions doesn't help the discussion here.

If there's such damning evidence... give me a link or something where this evidence can be examined. "There is already evidence" without showing the evidence is not useful at all.

For example, when I discussed gas prices in the other thread, I didn't just say "you are wrong." I proved it and showed you the evidence.

Give me the same courtesy here. Instead of spending all your words on attacks and rhetoric show me something concrete that I can actually reply to.

 

It is now August 14th, 2021.

This is one day past the latest date that Trump was supposed to reinstated. Mr. Lindell had previously given the August 13th date.

~

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/11/mike-lindells-lead-cyber-expert-says-they-cant-pro/

But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.​

“So our team said, we’re not going to say that this is legitimate if we don’t have confidence in the information,” Mr. Merritt said on Wednesday, the second day of the symposium.​

He had offered $5 million to any in-person attendee who can disprove his claims. The offer is no longer on the table, Mr. Merritt said.​

Leading up to the seminar, Mr. Lindell had displayed a video of scrolling, incomprehensible text, which he claimed were the packet captures he had received — proof, he claimed, of hisChina hacking theory. The video was featured in his documentary “Absolute 9-0” and was played on loop on screens throughout the convention center during the symposium.

Mr. Merritt confirmed that Mr. Montgomery was the source of the data.

But the data Mr. Montgomery sent contains no packet captures and cannot be used to validate Mr. Lindell’s marquee theory, which he planned to unveil at the symposium, said the two experts.
​

~

So nothing different than what I was able to glean. Based on his replies to me, Ohmin seemed quite sure this information was quite convincing, so I wonder what Ohmin saw that the rest of us, including at least one member of Lindell's own team, didn't see?

Ultimately, the question remains: if the data is so damning, why aren't they just releasing it so other people can analyze it and find out for themsleves? Why all the drama? Why all the horse and pony show?