Dominion Must Be Hurting.

[scruffy]

WHILE you're thinking about these graphs, let's do another little exercise

Because graphs .. well... kinda like polls ... third party information from an unreliable second party.

So I'd like you to do this little verification exercise:

You can go to the DDHQ web site, and build a timeline of when they say they received data

You can also go to the Michigan SOS web site, to the press releases, and build a timeline of when they claim they released it, and specifically, when they claim the dump/typo/counting error (whatever it was) occurred, and how long it took to fix it

If everything's hunky dory and everyone's telling the truth, the two timelines should match. Right?

 

[Marener]

Yes, it is.

If you're actually interested, I'm willing to show you why. Step by step.

The first part is easy, you just look at the graph. Those graphs are reported BY the office of the Michigan Secretary of State. They are "unofficial" (ie pre-certification) but they are real time. All private companies downstream (and news agencies) get exactly the same data.

The second part is a little longer because there are more possibilities. The claim is that the counting error was unitary, but that is not possible because we don't see an equal-but-opposite movement elsewhere.

So then, what we're left with, is the worst nightmare of ALL - the counting error occurred ALL THROUGH THE DAY, it got incorporated into the "smooth" portion of Biden's curve.

And next I'll show you why THAT is impossible

Unless it was done deliberately

First, the graph is not directly from the state. It’s data compiled by individual vendors that news organizations pay. I don’t know precisely where yours comes from but I’m willing to be it was compiled by Edison research.

Second, I don’t know what “counting error“ that you are referring to specifically. There isn’t any downward movement in the graph because votes aren’t ever subtracted. They’re only added to. That’s how tallies work.

 

[Marener]

lol

You're going with that BS story?

Yeah, that's another good one.

Sorry, but.... that's impossible too.

Yeah, the fact checkers were running with that for a while. Like this:

Clerical Error Prompts Unfounded Claims About Michigan Results - FactCheck.org

A data input error that briefly showed an unusually large uptick in votes for Joe Biden in Michigan prompted suspicions online and an unfounded claim of voter fraud. The error came down to a typo by a county's reporting that was quickly corrected.

www.factcheck.org

"That's impossible too"

Explain. It seems entirely possible that someone entering votes could make a data entry error.

 

[scruffy]

First, the graph is not directly from the state. It’s data compiled by individual vendors that news organizations pay. I don’t know precisely where yours comes from but I’m willing to be it was compiled by Edison research.

Second, I don’t know what “counting error“ that you are referring to specifically. There isn’t any downward movement in the graph because votes aren’t ever subtracted. They’re only added to. That’s how tallies work.

Heh heh.

Let's talk about everything you just said.

One moment please, I need coffee.

 

[scruffy]

"That's impossible too"

Explain. It seems entirely possible that someone entering votes could make a data entry error.

Finally, a question!

Did you ever see the Star Trek where Spock says "what is it?" and then the machine wakes up and says "a question! Five thousand years I have been here waiting for a question!" lol

Good question. I will explain. Be right back.

 

[scruffy]

First, the graph is not directly from the state. It’s data compiled by individual vendors that news organizations pay. I don’t know precisely where yours comes from but I’m willing to be it was compiled by Edison research.

Yes. The actual graph I posted comes from an election information clearing house called Decision Desk HQ (dot com). They pay the various Secretaries of State for direct access to their election information. It's the same info the news channels get - they can get it either directly from the SOS or indirectly through one of these third party compilers.

Second, I don’t know what “counting error“ that you are referring to specifically.

There was a thorough summary of that particular excuse in one of the links I posted

There isn’t any downward movement in the graph because votes aren’t ever subtracted. They’re only added to. That’s how tallies work.

Only... the erroneous 135,000 votes from the alleged typo WERE subtracted. According to the lying SOS Jocelyn Benson, that was done "within minutes". But DDHQ claims 5am. Hence the timeline exercise.

 

[scruffy]

Finally, a question!

Did you ever see the Star Trek where Spock says "what is it?" and then the machine wakes up and says "a question! Five thousand years I have been here waiting for a question!" lol

Good question. I will explain. Be right back.

Okay. You've touched upon the juicy part.

You asked, why is it impossible for someone to make a data entry error?

Answer: it's not. It's what happened AFTERWARDS that's impossible.

So, graph analysis 201: there is a SECOND glitch in the voting graph, isn't there?

Yes there is. It's right after the first. You can measure it, it's smaller, but it has the same SHAPE and characteristic as the first one.

So now, you tell me - what's your guess?

Is that another data entry error?

Or, does that one pertain to one of the other excuses, like ballot dump or counting error?

 

[Marener]

Yes. The actual graph I posted comes from an election information clearing house called Decision Desk HQ (dot com). They pay the various Secretaries of State for direct access to their election information. It's the same info the news channels get - they can get it either directly from the SOS or indirectly through one of these third party compilers.

There was a thorough summary of that particular excuse in one of the links I posted


Only... the erroneous 135,000 votes from the alleged typo WERE subtracted. According to the lying SOS Jocelyn Benson, that was done "within minutes". But DDHQ claims 5am. Hence the timeline exercise.

The graph you posted appears to be a screenshot from Fivethirtyeight which is run by the NY Times. NY Times uses AP reporting for vote updates. But it's a minor point.

The erroneous votes weren't really subtracted. They just fixed the typo. That means, when they fixed the typo, the graph corrected. If they had left the typo, it would have shown a large jump in votes for Biden if it had been left in but since the typo was corrected the graph does not include it.

You assume that this 5 AM vote spike was related to the typo. That's not an accurate assumption.

 

[Marener]

Okay. You've touched upon the juicy part.

You asked, why is it impossible for someone to make a data entry error?

Answer: it's not. It's what happened AFTERWARDS that's impossible.

So, graph analysis 201: there is a SECOND glitch in the voting graph, isn't there?

Yes there is. It's right after the first. You can measure it, it's smaller, but it has the same SHAPE and characteristic as the first one.

So now, you tell me - what's your guess?

Is that another data entry error?

Or, does that one pertain to one of the other excuses, like ballot dump or counting error?

These large jumps in Biden votes aren't glitches.

Simple.

 

[scruffy]

The graph you posted appears to be a screenshot from Fivethirtyeight which is run by the NY Times. NY Times uses AP reporting for vote updates. But it's a minor point.

The erroneous votes weren't really subtracted. They just fixed the typo. That means, when they fixed the typo, the graph corrected. If they had left the typo, it would have shown a large jump in votes for Biden if it had been left in but since the typo was corrected the graph does not include it.

You assume that this 5 AM vote spike was related to the typo. That's not an accurate assumption.

I assume nothing!

I'm a scientist. I run through the possibilities methodically. I try very hard not to assume. (Sometimes I catch myself, and then I get very mad at myself and self-flagellate for a few days lol).

You say, they fixed the typo. Jocelyn Benson says the same thing. In fact, she says it was fixed "within minutes" (that's a direct quote from one of the links I posted).

Yeah really? REALLY? So how come we still see the erroneous first glitch on the graph, EVEN AFTER the second glitch has occurred?

Look at the X axis. You can figure out how much time has elapsed. Much more than just a few minutes. And the graph keeps going, long after the second glitch.

The second glitch is what puts the lie to the first glitch, and all the excuses around it.

 

[Marener]

I assume nothing!

I'm a scientist. I run through the possibilities methodically. I try very hard not to assume. (Sometimes I catch myself, and then I get very mad at myself and self-flagellate for a few days lol).

You say, they fixed the typo. Jocelyn Benson says the same thing. In fact, she says it was fixed "within minutes" (that's a direct quote from one of the links I posted).

Yeah really? REALLY? So how come we still see the erroneous first glitch on the graph, EVEN AFTER the second glitch has occurred?

Look at the X axis. You can figure out how much time has elapsed. Much more than just a few minutes. And the graph keeps going, long after the second glitch.

The second glitch is what puts the lie to the first glitch, and all the excuses around it.

Because there aren’t any glitches on the graphs. These are actual vote.m counts.