This constitutes Legal Proof that Democrats are destroying/tampering with Trump's vote count in North Carolina

[The2ndAmendment]

Abstract: The following links prove with a Benford test on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits, that Democrats are disposing, destroying, ignoring, trading away (by hand or machine) or otherwise tampering with Trump's vote count in Democrat run counties in North Carolina.

The most significant tampering occurs on the 4th digit (most often the last digit, representing the 1's place) of each count, suggesting that each precinct is altering Trump's count in the single digits (at minimum), with a Chi squared value of 443, and a p value , 0.001.

Further tampering occurs on the 3rd digit (most often the second to last digit, representing the 10's place) of each count, suggesting that most precincts are altering the counts in the double digits, with a Chi squared value of 39.6, p < 0.001.

The 1st and 2nd digits are also incredibly fraudulent. This occurs due to the order of magnitude differences for Trump and Biden in each precinct, for instance, in the 1400+ precincts in the data, Trump only has 226 precincts with 4 or 5 digit counts, while Biden has 357 precincts with 4 or 5 digit counts (the n values in the 4th digit tallies in the Benford tables). These massive differences in Order of Magnitude (base 10), are a direct result of single and double digit numbers be subtracted from the counts (the 3rd and 4th digits).

-----------------------------------

This is the foundation of this article, detailing Benford distributions on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits. https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

This is the North Carolina Database from the NC government itself, giving detailed precinct data.

NC SBE Election Contest Details

This is the spreadsheet of the tallies for each precinct based on the above recording Trump's votes.

North Carolina, Democrat Counties, Trump Votes - Google Drive

This is the spreadsheet of the Benford Analysis:

Benford Freq Sheet, Trump, NC, Democrat Counties - Google Drive

This is the program used to verify my manual Chi squared results: GraphPad QuickCalcs: chi square calculator

This is the formula for doing a manual Chi square: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chi-square-statistic.asp#:~:text=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

I know if I had legal proof....I would post it on an obscure message board instead of notifying the authorities.

We sent it to the DoJ and the FBI and SoS of NC, what else do you want us to do?

"We" Did?

You don't think it was a single person that transferred all that data from the PDF file online to a spreadsheet format right?

 

[ReinyDays]

Post a link that asserts that Benford's law is influenced by political parties.

You're aware that you can use any base numeral system correct?
On page 3 and 4 of the linked document, replace the number "10" in the base (and summation coefficient) with with any base you want.

https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See where it talks about "degrees of freedom" ...

Yes, I know you can pick whichever base you want to ... a well known statistical trick to deceive people ... but there's only ONE correct base we should use, or you will absolutely drive up your chi^2 values ... P(d) = logb ( 1 + 1/d) ... you're saying the value of b is immaterial? ... shame on you ...

Yes, I read the instructional worksheet you posted in your OP ... grossly simplified for students to grasp the basic idea ... I've never said you were wrong for overlaying the election data over the top of this grossly simplified demonstration ... your mistake is stopping there and screaming "Ah ha, mine eye hath seen it" ...

Foolishness expecting Republican dominated precincts would follow Benford's law in the first digit ... in rural North Carolina ... for an 80% Republican precinct, 300 votes cast, you expect 150 to go to The Donald? ... silly, we should expect 240 votes for The Donald ... that first digit is changed ... not because of fraud, but because of unequal distribution of voter's political affiliation ... thus our second degree of freedom ... further, this is what will crash your chi^2 values to normalcy ...

Sorry, you can't pick and choose whatever numbers you want ... I haven't even touched upon checksums yet ... jerry The Donald's numbers and your vote totals won't add up ... duh ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Post a link that asserts that Benford's law is influenced by political parties.

You're aware that you can use any base numeral system correct?
On page 3 and 4 of the linked document, replace the number "10" in the base (and summation coefficient) with with any base you want.

https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See where it talks about "degrees of freedom" ...

Yes, I know you can pick whichever base you want to ... a well known statistical trick to deceive people ... but there's only ONE correct base we should use, or you will absolutely drive up your chi^2 values ... P(d) = logb ( 1 + 1/d) ... you're saying the value of b is immaterial? ... shame on you ...

Yes, I read the instructional worksheet you posted in your OP ... grossly simplified for students to grasp the basic idea ... I've never said you were wrong for overlaying the election data over the top of this grossly simplified demonstration ... your mistake is stopping there and screaming "Ah ha, mine eye hath seen it" ...

Foolishness expecting Republican dominated precincts would follow Benford's law in the first digit ... in rural North Carolina ... for an 80% Republican precinct, 300 votes cast, you expect 150 to go to The Donald? ... silly, we should expect 240 votes for The Donald ... that first digit is changed ... not because of fraud, but because of unequal distribution of voter's political affiliation ... thus our second degree of freedom ... further, this is what will crash your chi^2 values to normalcy ...

Sorry, you can't pick and choose whatever numbers you want ... I haven't even touched upon checksums yet ... jerry The Donald's numbers and your vote totals won't add up ... duh ...

What? Bedford's law works for all base numeral systems.

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The graph to the right shows Benford's law for base 10, one of infinitely many cases of a generalized law regarding numbers expressed in arbitrary (integer) bases, which rules out the possibility that the phenomenon might be an artifact of the base 10 number system. Further generalizations were published by Hill in 1995[3] including analogous statements for both the nth leading digit as well as the joint distribution of the leading n digits, the latter of which leads to a corollary wherein the significant digits are shown to be a statistically dependent quantity.[4]).

You're making shit up at this point for a political purpose.

And degree of freedom is simply equal to (n-1), where n = number of data entries.

Estimates of statistical parameters can be based upon different amounts of information or data. The number of independent pieces of information that go into the estimate of a parameter are called the degrees of freedom. In general, the degrees of freedom of an estimate of a parameter are equal to the number of independent scores that go into the estimate minus the number of parameters used as intermediate steps in the estimation of the parameter itself (most of the time the sample variance has N − 1 degrees of freedom, since it is computed from N random scores minus the only 1 parameter estimated as intermediate step, which is the sample mean).[2]

Degree of freedom is not a political/philosophical concept, it's a well defined integer.

Degrees of freedom (statistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The laws of mathematics are not subject to political bias.

---------------------------------

Benford's law only detects if data is fabricated. It cannot tell you:

Who fabricated it.
How much of an impact the fabrication had.
Who the fabrication was supposed to favor.
...that if the data the conforms to the Benford curve, that is indeed genuine (it cannot be used to disprove fraud).

If North Carolina's 2020 election were 100% fair and honest, and passed the Benford test and then a random person came by and added and subtracted a handful of votes from each tally, it would then show up as fabricated (fail the Benford test), without affecting the actual outcome of the election.

The only thing the Benford test CAN do is:

Assert, with legal force, that fraud has occurred (for very high chi).

Assert, with suspicion, that fraud may have occurred (for medium chi), and further investigation is required.


And I know you're going to hate this, but the results came back normal for all other candidates in North Carolina in the Democrat districts (low chi), and came back normal in the Republican counties as well (for all candidates, including the President).

The high chi abnormality was the Presidential vote.

To make things worse, Biden's vote came with medium chi (meaning it's plausible, since it was on the lower end). This is worse, because Trump's rally came back with very high chi.

So what did the data show, that ONLY Trump's tally, in Democrat Counties, came back as fabricated (with legal force based on the very high chi). We also note that the n values in the 4th digit were 30-40% lower, meaning Trump had only 2/3 as many precincts with 4digit counts as Biden...that's very weird, and that's why the 1st and 2nd digits Benford distribution had VERY HIGH CHI.

Although the Benford test cannot determine which party did the fraud nor who the fraud was intended to benefit...we can (OPINION) assume it was done by Democrats to reduce Trump's count, especially since the n value on the 4th digit was 30-40% lower for Trump than Biden.

The part that I wrote above in BLUE TEXT is the only subjective thing that I've written, that would have to be decided by a jury/judge, since there's no abstract mathematical approach to proving it.

 

[ReinyDays]

Post a link that asserts that Benford's law is influenced by political parties.

You're aware that you can use any base numeral system correct?
On page 3 and 4 of the linked document, replace the number "10" in the base (and summation coefficient) with with any base you want.

https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See where it talks about "degrees of freedom" ...

Yes, I know you can pick whichever base you want to ... a well known statistical trick to deceive people ... but there's only ONE correct base we should use, or you will absolutely drive up your chi^2 values ... P(d) = logb ( 1 + 1/d) ... you're saying the value of b is immaterial? ... shame on you ...

Yes, I read the instructional worksheet you posted in your OP ... grossly simplified for students to grasp the basic idea ... I've never said you were wrong for overlaying the election data over the top of this grossly simplified demonstration ... your mistake is stopping there and screaming "Ah ha, mine eye hath seen it" ...

Foolishness expecting Republican dominated precincts would follow Benford's law in the first digit ... in rural North Carolina ... for an 80% Republican precinct, 300 votes cast, you expect 150 to go to The Donald? ... silly, we should expect 240 votes for The Donald ... that first digit is changed ... not because of fraud, but because of unequal distribution of voter's political affiliation ... thus our second degree of freedom ... further, this is what will crash your chi^2 values to normalcy ...

Sorry, you can't pick and choose whatever numbers you want ... I haven't even touched upon checksums yet ... jerry The Donald's numbers and your vote totals won't add up ... duh ...

What? Bedford's law works for all base numeral systems.

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The graph to the right shows Benford's law for base 10, one of infinitely many cases of a generalized law regarding numbers expressed in arbitrary (integer) bases, which rules out the possibility that the phenomenon might be an artifact of the base 10 number system. Further generalizations were published by Hill in 1995[3] including analogous statements for both the nth leading digit as well as the joint distribution of the leading n digits, the latter of which leads to a corollary wherein the significant digits are shown to be a statistically dependent quantity.[4]).

You're making shit up at this point for a political purpose.

And degree of freedom is simply equal to (n-1), where n = number of data entries.

Estimates of statistical parameters can be based upon different amounts of information or data. The number of independent pieces of information that go into the estimate of a parameter are called the degrees of freedom. In general, the degrees of freedom of an estimate of a parameter are equal to the number of independent scores that go into the estimate minus the number of parameters used as intermediate steps in the estimation of the parameter itself (most of the time the sample variance has N − 1 degrees of freedom, since it is computed from N random scores minus the only 1 parameter estimated as intermediate step, which is the sample mean).[2]

Degree of freedom is not a political/philosophical concept, it's a well defined integer.

Degrees of freedom (statistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The laws of mathematics are not subject to political bias.

---------------------------------

Benford's law only detects if data is fabricated. It cannot tell you:

Who fabricated it.
How much of an impact the fabrication had.
Who the fabrication was supposed to favor.
...that if the data the conforms to the Benford curve, that is indeed genuine (it cannot be used to disprove fraud).

If North Carolina's 2020 election were 100% fair and honest, and passed the Benford test and then a random person came by and added and subtracted a handful of votes from each tally, it would then show up as fabricated (fail the Benford test), without affecting the actual outcome of the election.

The only thing the Benford test CAN do is:

Assert, with legal force, that fraud has occurred (for very high chi).

Assert, with suspicion, that fraud may have occurred (for medium chi), and further investigation is required.

Hilarious ... you vomit forth political rhetoric to hide your complete lack of understanding of the math you present ... statistics are full of bias, of all kinds, foolish to rely on statistics when empirical data is at hand ... you already know real data disputes your claims, thus you constantly direct us away from this real data ...

Assert, with legal force, that fraud has occurred (for very high chi).

Then there is a written law and/or court precedence establishing this ... do you have a citation? ... perhaps the Rules of Evidence are different there in Russia ... no way does your first approximation fly ... like I said above, your mistake is stopping with your grossly simplified tables, courts will make you refine your chi^2 distribution and re-calculate your values ... or make you use the empirical data that's freely available ...

Recount the ballots ... easy peasy ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Post a link that asserts that Benford's law is influenced by political parties.

You're aware that you can use any base numeral system correct?
On page 3 and 4 of the linked document, replace the number "10" in the base (and summation coefficient) with with any base you want.

https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See where it talks about "degrees of freedom" ...

Yes, I know you can pick whichever base you want to ... a well known statistical trick to deceive people ... but there's only ONE correct base we should use, or you will absolutely drive up your chi^2 values ... P(d) = logb ( 1 + 1/d) ... you're saying the value of b is immaterial? ... shame on you ...

Yes, I read the instructional worksheet you posted in your OP ... grossly simplified for students to grasp the basic idea ... I've never said you were wrong for overlaying the election data over the top of this grossly simplified demonstration ... your mistake is stopping there and screaming "Ah ha, mine eye hath seen it" ...

Foolishness expecting Republican dominated precincts would follow Benford's law in the first digit ... in rural North Carolina ... for an 80% Republican precinct, 300 votes cast, you expect 150 to go to The Donald? ... silly, we should expect 240 votes for The Donald ... that first digit is changed ... not because of fraud, but because of unequal distribution of voter's political affiliation ... thus our second degree of freedom ... further, this is what will crash your chi^2 values to normalcy ...

Sorry, you can't pick and choose whatever numbers you want ... I haven't even touched upon checksums yet ... jerry The Donald's numbers and your vote totals won't add up ... duh ...

What? Bedford's law works for all base numeral systems.

Benford's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The graph to the right shows Benford's law for base 10, one of infinitely many cases of a generalized law regarding numbers expressed in arbitrary (integer) bases, which rules out the possibility that the phenomenon might be an artifact of the base 10 number system. Further generalizations were published by Hill in 1995[3] including analogous statements for both the nth leading digit as well as the joint distribution of the leading n digits, the latter of which leads to a corollary wherein the significant digits are shown to be a statistically dependent quantity.[4]).

You're making shit up at this point for a political purpose.

And degree of freedom is simply equal to (n-1), where n = number of data entries.

Estimates of statistical parameters can be based upon different amounts of information or data. The number of independent pieces of information that go into the estimate of a parameter are called the degrees of freedom. In general, the degrees of freedom of an estimate of a parameter are equal to the number of independent scores that go into the estimate minus the number of parameters used as intermediate steps in the estimation of the parameter itself (most of the time the sample variance has N − 1 degrees of freedom, since it is computed from N random scores minus the only 1 parameter estimated as intermediate step, which is the sample mean).[2]

Degree of freedom is not a political/philosophical concept, it's a well defined integer.

Degrees of freedom (statistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The laws of mathematics are not subject to political bias.

---------------------------------

Benford's law only detects if data is fabricated. It cannot tell you:

Who fabricated it.
How much of an impact the fabrication had.
Who the fabrication was supposed to favor.
...that if the data the conforms to the Benford curve, that is indeed genuine (it cannot be used to disprove fraud).

If North Carolina's 2020 election were 100% fair and honest, and passed the Benford test and then a random person came by and added and subtracted a handful of votes from each tally, it would then show up as fabricated (fail the Benford test), without affecting the actual outcome of the election.

The only thing the Benford test CAN do is:

Assert, with legal force, that fraud has occurred (for very high chi).

Assert, with suspicion, that fraud may have occurred (for medium chi), and further investigation is required.

Hilarious ... you vomit forth political rhetoric to hide your complete lack of understanding of the math you present ... statistics are full of bias, of all kinds, foolish to rely on statistics when empirical data is at hand ... you already know real data disputes your claims, thus you constantly direct us away from this real data ...

Assert, with legal force, that fraud has occurred (for very high chi).

Then there is a written law and/or court precedence establishing this ... do you have a citation? ... perhaps the Rules of Evidence are different there in Russia ... no way does your first approximation fly ... like I said above, your mistake is stopping with your grossly simplified tables, courts will make you refine your chi^2 distribution and re-calculate your values ... or make you use the empirical data that's freely available ...

Recount the ballots ... easy peasy ...

I like how you ignored the fact I linked two quotes from wikipedia PROVING that the base numeral used doesn't matter, and that Degree of freedom is = n-1.

Good day and welcome to ignore.

Report:

Poster intentionally denied the Base Numeral Neutrality of Benford's Law, I posted a direct wikipedia quote affirming Base Numeral Neutrality.

Poster (in same post), intentional lied and redefined "degrees of freedom" as a political concept, instead of a well defined number equal to (n-1) for number n = number of data entries. I also linked a wikipedia quoting showing this.

Poster then continued to post, without acknowledging the quotes and links to disprove their lie, and continues to spew bullshit.

I know it's intentional (the lies), because you were smart enough to detect the parameter value of n in the original post leading to astronomically high chi values. I refuse to believe you are dumb enough to believe the rest of what you've said in this thread.

Good day.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yup ... bragging about putting someone on ignore ... what a loser ...
Reported me to the moderators ... the ones who put this thread in Conspiracy Theories ...
Copy/pasted the report to the public forum, crybaby snowflake ...

Again ... 2nd is on the right track ... just needs to keep following the leads ...

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Vote For Confidence For CZD or Science And Technology Or Elections Sub Forum "

* Facebook Phone Home *

Who moved it to conspiracy?

To move a thread to conspiracy theories would expect that a premise is exceedingly outlandish and lacking any basis in fact .

This thread does not lack a basis in fact and given the analysis it is also not exceedingly outlandish .

It seams that a usmessageboard moderator dismissed an elevated ability to understand the content as an indication that the content was unfounded , or perhaps written by a lunatic , and then jumped the gun to engage in mainstream media tactics .

 

[ReinyDays]

" Vote For Confidence For CZD or Science And Technology Or Elections Sub Forum "

* Facebook Phone Home *

Who moved it to conspiracy?

To move a thread to conspiracy theories would expect that a premise is exceedingly outlandish and lacking any basis in fact .

This thread does not lack a basis in fact and given the analysis it is also not exceedingly outlandish .

It seams that a usmessageboard moderator dismissed an elevated ability to understand the content as an indication that the content was unfounded , or perhaps written by a lunatic , and then jumped the gun to engage in mainstream media tactics .

I agree ... the OP in of itself does belong in Science and Technology where I first picked it up ... the math is sound as far as it goes ... and the thread never did devolve into CT-ness ...

With so many threads of a CT flavor being started based on similar (but profoundly wrong) maths is making the moderators quick to move them all into CT ... where most of them belong ... easy to miss a small diamond in a heap of coal ...

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Interesting But Disconcerting Label "

* Winds Eventually Change Directions *

I agree ... the OP in of itself does belong in Science and Technology where I first picked it up ... the math is sound as far as it goes ... and the thread never did devolve into CT-ness ...

With so many threads of a CT flavor being started based on similar (but profoundly wrong) maths is making the moderators quick to move them all into CT ... where most of them belong ... easy to miss a small diamond in a heap of coal ...

Thank you for your candor and thread inputs .

I disagree entirely with putting another on ignore , especially in doing so to one of the few thus far able to discuss this issue ; just because ones comments may be disagreeable at the moment , they may have plenty to share on another thread at another time .

It is just as easy to ignore responses though we all understand a compulsion to answer retorts even when discussion may have devolve into rhetorical points of view .

 

[ReinyDays]

Thank you for your candor and thread inputs .

I disagree entirely with putting another on ignore , especially in doing so to one of the few thus far able to discuss this issue ; just because ones comments may be disagreeable at the moment , they may have plenty to share on another thread at another time .

It is just as easy to ignore responses though we all understand a compulsion to answer retorts even when discussion may have devolve into rhetorical points of view .

I can like someone even if we disagree on everything ... I'm not always right ... easy enough to ignore the comments I know are faulty, expand on the ones I'm not so sure ... the ignore function is for people who won't admit they're ever wrong ... and get sick of being reminded of that fact ... meh, it's the internet, no bloody noses, changes the metric of conversation ...