Replies

Your analysis agrees with my expert’s analysis.

I wanted to share some thoughts that should resonate with everyone. I am a retired actuary who was a math major. However there are a number of theoretical things that I am not well versed in. I listened to Dr. Frank’s presentation and was compelled by it and I wanted to share it with my expert PhD in math who I am close with. (He contends strongly that that there is no vote fraud and he has done a credible research into a number of reporting. He is strongly fact based and would be willing to be proved wrong if the facts bear it out.) His approach was impressive as he downloaded the Ohio and Colorado data which is readily available. He demonstrated to me that the approach described by Dr. Frank is likely to produce a high correlation. This is consistent with your conclusion.

Here are some takeaways.
First as far as a physicist being an excellent mathematician (From a PhD in theoretical math) is highly questionable. His approach and conclusions has flaws. If this were put to the $5 million reward test, it would be easy for him to earn it. (I suspect that it might be easy for you.) I will assume that Dr. Frank has a pure heart and is not a fraud. I just think that his math analysis is poor. Also I think there is a big case of confirmation bias that he believed there is so much fraud that this approach lead to a solution that seemed to solve how the fraud is done. In fact, his explanation for moms that all counties in Ohio had 10% blond haired people. And that each state had a different percentage in all counties. Obviously everyone can agree that this is a ridiculous conclusion. It is an easy explanation to show that there is something wrong. Here is the problem - his approach doesn’t not correctly translate into this analogy. It is flawed mathematically. As you pointed out, the high correlation is expected. Using a 6 degree polynomial smooths this further.

Second. I was taken in in that I accepted some things that seemed plausible and was willing to accept the mathematical ability. My confirmation bias was very high in that I wanted proof to something that I still feel strongly about is that the election was stolen. It is easy to see Mike Lindell embracing this analysis because of the same confirmation bias. I will accept the good faith of Dr. Frank but his approach is faulty.

Let me look at this a different way. Assume that Dr. Frank’s approach and conclusions were correct. What would that mean. I think 2 things. One is that there is a vast conspiracy that permeates in every state. That is so vast that goes undetected? Also why use it in every state? That increases the risk of being discovered significantly. You only need to manipulate a handful of states. The other thing is that this rules out other frauds that is more prevalent in some places and counties such as unreviewed absentee ballots, switched votes, mail dumps, multiple scans, etc. These would produce a spike that would influence the data. It would show up in the results. The fact that I did not immediately think about that confirms my confirmation bias of desperately wanting proof (with perhaps some overturning of the election).

Lastly, I am frustrated as hell. I still am convinced of large scale voter fraud. The 2020 results do not make sense. The approach to uncover this has been abysmal.
Starting with Trump’s approach with Rudy Guiliani that devolved into the Lin Wood and Sydney Powell (releasing the Kracken) fiasco. It made it easy for the press to ridicule the approach. The Jan 6 rally was manipulated into the the modern version of the Reichstag thereby poisoning the well. Trump publicly chastising Pence was horrible. He should have presented proof to Pence privately and then incorporated the Republican leaders to privately show them to get them on board would have been better. If they did not have complete proof at least develop the case for requirement of audits.

Then Mike Lindell (a patriot that I admire) has a great heart and means well but is not an effective messenger. HE was manhandled on Jimmy Kimmel and his bravado was not backed up. His announcement of something earth shattering at 7 PM CST was a bust. (What’s with our side always telegraphing momentous events that turnout to be less than a whimper - eg Hannity numerous times.)

First as far as a physicist being an excellent mathematician (From a PhD in theoretical math) is highly questionable.

"During the 1990s, Dr. Frank helped to establish The Schilling School for Gifted Children in Cincinnati, Ohio. Schilling is a K-12 school for extraordinarily gifted youngsters, and Dr. Frank continues to teach a couple of their most advanced math and science classes each year, and continues to serve as the Math and Science Department chair."

Sounds like he teaches math to me.

I listened to Dr. Frank’s presentation and was compelled by it and I wanted to share it with my expert PhD in math who I am close with. (He contends strongly that that there is no vote fraud and he has done a credible research into a number of reporting. He is strongly fact based and would be willing to be proved wrong if the facts bear it out.)

Tell your maths PhD to compare the 2008 election numbers for each state by county with the 2020 "election" numbers for each state by county.

Do a spread sheet.

You'll see patterns that will blow your hair back [assuming you have hair to blow back].

The Democrats aren't the only ones who are cheating:

Here’s Why So Many Republicans are Involved in Covering Up 2020 Election Fraud
https://archive.vn/cUUJX

If the Media ignores and poo-poos the vote fraud committed by the Uniparty, OF COURSE it will go "undetected".

Look at the sales job they pulled over Covid.

You asked why they would use it in every state.

It's like keeping a battery on trickle charge, or starting the engine of a car in storage occasionally. You want to see if it works if you need it.

Look what happened to Hillary in 2016. They didn't have their vote fraud machine in tune.

You can bet it was in tune in 2020, as the Time Magazine article bragged about.

Do some Excel spreadsheets comparing 2008 with 2020 by county. It doesn't take long.

I'll post back to you on this thread when I have Ohio done [starting from scratch].