8:32 minute video.
Article referenced in video:
AMERICAN THINKER: Mathematical impossibilities may be what trips up Democrat plans
By Andrea Widburg
P
Probably inadmissible in court
Zuckerburg thinks this is sexual. Someone on Facebook got locked out for talking about this. So it must have a use
Here is what the Chan’s have put together based on the election data from the NYT, explained in a way non-techies like me can understand:
The swing state data definitely shows anomalies with the absentee ballots: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325592112428163072.html
Although not proof, this type of analysis can nail down the the location and time the fraud occurred.
Let’s see if Democrats truly respect the science...
This is important information to drive home that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. It weakens him and Harris and they will do a little less damage to America as a result. As PR, it’s a good thing.
But it will not change the election result. Once the fraudulent ballots are commingled with the real ballots, it’s impossible to tell them apart. I’m certain that they were commingled almost immediately. The Supreme Court would have to declare the entire election invalid and order a do over because even though we strongly suspect there were massive fraudulent votes, we can’t know which ones to throw out. The Court will not do that.
Mathematical impossibilities may not be evidence in themselves, but they are a clue that, if investigated thoroughly, can lead to evidence.
Nothing but "MARKETING CLICK BAIT" in my eyes.
It’s beautiful English.
The math and stats are proven sciences....
Mathematical impossibility is a far far more strict and reliable proof of a person's guilt (or innocence) than that old standard "burden of proof" that's usually required in a court of law, because the former is based on the strict unquestionable laws of logic. There is no fudging it quibbling about what is and what is not a "reasonable explanation." Unfortunately, strict mathematical logic just isn't applicable very often in a court of law.
However... in this case with the ballots, it is applicable. So we should use it. IMO.
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Who could win against Sherlock Holmes?
Bookmark
Bookmarked.
Were all the ballots (1) printed on the same paper and (2) filled out on the same paper? Was there a watermark placed on the authorized ballot paper to indicate its legal identity? If there were ballots illegally manufactured, those answers could catch the illegal ballot activity.