Didn't need BL to see it. The "leaky pipes," blocked observer access and stopped counting in several states simultaneously, after which everything turned around, was the proof. Confirmation was Xiden winning only a fraction of the key bellweather counties.
Excellent job widening the use of the tool! Let’s call it Extended (or Generalized) BL.
One thing that drives me crazy is people equivocating voter fraud and election fraud. I understand that all the talking heads do, which doesn’t help. And even historical uses appear to admit this thing I consider a mistake. Perhaps it’s intentional. As in, to cover the more pernicious issue.
I think it’s important to distinguish between front end fraud and back end fraud. The back end fraud being machine- and hand-counting for example, and the front end fraud being illegal voting and fake ballots for example. The illegal voting seems to be what the powers that be want us to argue about. But the data suggest it’s the lesser problem, and in most if not all cases doesn’t make a difference in outcomes. I’d like to see serious research conducted into each facet, starting with the most pernicious. Extended BL seems to be a great tool to illustrate geographic areas where the research is worthwhile.
Another thing that drives me crazy is the tribal nature of this issue. Red team didn’t seem to care too much when Trump seemed to benefit. Blue team seemed downright giddy when Biden benefitted. In fact, a blue team friend of mine has been railing against this kind of fraud since 2004. When I brought it up for 2020, his answer was something like, “well, our team finally got one, so I’ll become active again next time”. A red team friend of mine won’t entertain the idea of issues in 2016. Until and unless we approach this apolitically, we’re all doomed. I personally haven’t voted since 2000, after I became convinced that fraud has decided every election since. With more research, possibly all the way back to 1960. Real apolitical research will horrify the public and undermine the US on the global stage. That’s why I think it’ll never happen. Instead, we’ll be given the pressure release valve of voter ID and illegal voting as a distraction.
Lastly, 2000 mules is extremely distressing to me. Most people watching it that think there was fraud will be too wrapped up in the “proof” that they will miss the methodology. Pay close attention to the methodology (first 35 minutes ish). It shows that we’re a breath away from digital slavery/imprisonment. The group of people most likely to resist will be the same people paying attention to the “proof” not the methodology. They are then primed into thinking the methodology is ok. It isn’t, and we should all be horrified that people with enough money can buy this. We’ve created an industry that will help law enforcement bypass critical safeguards to keep them from abusing citizens. It’s not ok. Not even when it helps your cause. If it’s not ok for your enemy to use it against you, then it’s not ok to use it against your enemy.
And anyone using the, “well it’s gonna be used/done by them/someone, so why not me?” argument should know that’s how George Soros sleeps at night. Go find the video interview where he explains his role helping the nazis. I mean, I’m not perfect either - I might even have made the same decision as him at that age (13) - but I’m disgusted nonetheless that he doesn’t show regret or remorse. Even if I made the same decision, I doubt I’d say anything more than, “I’m sorry”. Reporter: “How do you sleep at night after helping the nazis?” Ideal Soros answer: “I don’t.”
This! "Lastly, 2000 mules is extremely distressing to me. Most people watching it that think there was fraud will be too wrapped up in the “proof” that they will miss the methodology. Pay close attention to the methodology (first 35 minutes ish). It shows that we’re a breath away from digital slavery/imprisonment. The group of people most likely to resist will be the same people paying attention to the “proof” not the methodology. They are then primed into thinking the methodology is ok. It isn’t, and we should all be horrified that people with enough money can buy this. We’ve created an industry that will help law enforcement bypass critical safeguards to keep them from abusing citizens. It’s not ok. Not even when it helps your cause. If it’s not ok for your enemy to use it against you, then it’s not ok to use it against your enemy."
If those of that don’t vote were to unite and vote together on an issue, we’d have plurality (or nearly so) most elections. But alas, the same thing that motivates many of us not to vote is the same thing that will keep us from uniting.
On some comment thread a week after the election, I came across the same Chicago data and I suggested that someone practiced in the art should look at the precinct voting data in base 3, or look at the data as logs of various bases. I was going to try it myself, but I forgot all about it.
May 17, 2022·edited May 17, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
I am writing a series leading up to this on my own substack. It's a really interesting a surprisingly complex issue. The short version of my take is that Zipf's law is a little more generally useful for things like this. It's very closely related.
Essentially he was saying that whether or not a district follows Benford's law can't tell you anything, it's just an expression of the underlying data structure. Well, sure, but with that attitude you may as well chuck the entire edifice of scientific statistical mechanics out the window, because that critique applies to everything.
Also, my preprint paper discusses some of the issues around using these principles in analysis:
"Well, sure, but with that attitude you may as well chuck the entire edifice of scientific statistical mechanics out the window, because that critique applies to everything."
I recall watching that video. That guy is a tool.
In 1998 I taught federal regulators in New York how to use BL while I was between hedge funds, and they were thrilled with the results.
Thank you for your paper. I will save it, though I don't have time for more than a superficial read just now. I wanted to dodge Zipf's law for this article, but those who can apply this, like you, are the same audience who don't need it.
Are you familiar with the Lagarias version of the Riemann hypothesis? I wish that I had a parallel life to dig deeper into real math.
Thanks! I come at things more from an analysis side than from the Math side myself but I think I can just about wrap my head around Lagarias if I spend some time on it. It certainly looks interesting.
But I really like your suggestion to use Benford with different bases. It's a really neat solution to the orders of magnitude problem. The nice thing about Zipf's law in this context is that it works even for very small sets, but the interpretation is really not obvious.
What I've found is that the the Zipfian approach to information theory is the thing that is really useful, with Zipf's law just being an interesting general case. But coherent phenomena (like musical works) seem to cycle around there own central Zipfian value, which is not necessarily -1. So it's not the distribution itself that is immediately important, but changes to the cyclical behavior around the central tendency of the distribution.
That should hold for Benford too especially in the election context, if it is of any use to you. If believe you can use the principle to pick up discontinuities both over time within one election count and across several election cycles. It won't tell you if there was cheating, but it can help show you where to look.
I read this whole article, but my understanding of it is ignorant...however, I intuit that it has done nothing to change two suppositions I have been holding for awhile:
1. Trump couldn't win in 2024 even if he won.
2. If Dems do well in 2022 and hold on to power, then we can know that the Dem party, big media, big tech, big banks, big corps, the military, the CIA, FBI, CDC, FDA, NIH and Pharma have the tech to decide who will win, no matter what Americans voted for.
This is why Republicans need to focus on changing the technology, and not on fighting voter fraud. There is no way to win against voter fraud with the current technology.
Voting should be done entirely with pre-registered fingerprints. It would make cheating almost impossible, and create a lot of flexibility for the voters who need it.
Republicans are too busy trying to game the system by gerrymandering and making it harder for low income people to vote, because that is what they have always done and they are too dumb to change apparently. It has always been a curious point to me that neither party advocates for paper ballot only. Dems, between digital and absentee seem to have ultimate control of outcomes, at least in blue states. I think for many Americans fingerprints would be a bit too dystopian for them. And if it is still digital, a fingerprint is not a solution if the result can be changed behind the scenes.
In case any mathematicians are wondering: yes, there can be more than one digital representation in non-integer bases. Prior to running the filter, optimize the digital sum starting from the left in order to set a standard prior to applying the BL filter.
I understand you and your associates are having difficulty getting some sort of official response of any kind to your concerns of the safety signals of the Covid-19 vaccines and other issues surrounding the disease and the response to it.
Now I don’t mean to give this as legal advice, so don’t take it as such, but I’ve stumbled onto a method that you all might be able to make use of to your advantage. I’ve attached several sources below that argue and claim to explain how to make use of notices and affidavits to elicit a response to your objections and concerns.
The method might be similar to what worked with Safeway in Hawaii and DMED. They claim success with the United Auto Workers and even being instrumental in stopping the OSHA mandate.
It is particularly attractive as it would give everyone, every individual concerned with a given issue with a word processor, something to do from their house.
Their argument is that with notices sent as they outline, and if they don’t desist then sending affidavits counting as sworn testimony, that the recipient has to respond. They would have to reply point by point explaining where they have constitutional authority, or to rebut your affidavit on matters of fact, within a time limit or the notice and affidavit can be used as evidence before a court of record, and that they ‘acquiesce’ to everything in your affidavit as true if they ignore it. If they lie in their response it counts as lying under oath.
In short, the argument is that if they ignore you completely it is as good as a confession that you are right or they are breaking the law. The catch is you have to have a solid argument with the truth. They claim to have success getting institutions to relent on a number of issues by sending these; even if they don’t openly respond or acknowledge them, the problem stops. If not they are trying to gain access to the grand juries and the courts. It is a bit more involved than just the usual petition or letter however, and you all would have to pick the addressees of these notices and affidavits.
I know that these sources might be on one end of the political spectrum, but perhaps their particular method has merit despite your differences. Please share this with anyone who may be interested or you think would benefit from it. Including The Unity Project, Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Toby Rogers, Aaron Siri, and, El Gato Malo.
YouTube / Odysee / Rumble Channels
- ' Affidavit Mommas 2021 ' / anonymous on Odysse / Affidavit Mommas 2021- (This should have the most concise explanations) The original channel I was going to show you is down.
“Affidavit Mommas on the Process of how you do Notices and Affidavits”
“What you might want to know about Notices and Affidavits”
Other Website: https://affidavitmommas.com, they have prepared examples here they also have a telegram account.
- ' Dave Cares for You ' YouTube is still up, also on Odysee and Rumble
He has a lot of videos and is tied to Josh Barnett below. He seems to have been the first to figure this method out, even though he doesn’t have a formal education.
“The Hidden Secret Revealed that stops Gov Corruption [Share RAPIDLY TO FREE THE PEOPLE]Dave Jose”
Thank you!!! So many applications!!! ♥️ I confess I haven't been able to open affidavitmommas, they seem to have ditched. Maybe someone else had success?
I first heard about Befords law during the 2020 election. I learned more about wikipedia than anything else from that - watching it being updated in real-time to try to discredit it for election results.
For us old folks, the most interesting factoid about Benford's Law (and maybe the only interesting one) is not mentioned here. BL was first noticed by an astronomer observing the pattern of wear on the pages of a book of logarithms is nonuniform. Some of us are old enough to have had such a book, and even know why such used to have a purpose--so much so that the pages would wear. Also, not mentioned here is that there is no connection between 2000 Mules and BL analysis except that both have something to do with the 2020 election (one far more than the other, in my opinion.) Regarding the possible extension of BL to the election data problem (precincts are intentionally constructed to have similar populations--pretty much the opposite numeric distribution that is amenable to BL) by using BL in non-integer bases. I remain skeptical without reading all the references. The underlying data points are all in the same order of magnitude regardless of how you play with the units and I have trouble getting past that.
Great idea regarding use of smaller bases. I had looked at the BL issue right after the 2020 election but had moved on quickly after the objection of the district size limitations reducing the orders of magnitude and (supposed) applicability. Using bases less than ten easily removes this objection.
I read those proposals to the IHR, and they are nothing whatsoever like what is being promoted on various "Aha!" websites. There is absolutely nothing in there that supersedes sovereignty of States Parties (nations). The only "shall" in the whole proposal ("wills" or "shoulds" are not binding, they are recommendations) was a requirement for States Parties to report outbreaks that are discovered.
No more coverups like China did. All the other "shalls" are those binding the WHO's responsibilities, of which there are many in the proposals.
That being said, the true danger is not the IHR proposed changes, but the Pandemic Treaty which is being crafted. That is where supranational WHO sovereignty will almost certainly be slipped in.
From what roguski said, they do incentivize nations to report pandemics, funding and all that 'good stuff'.
As for China, what pandemic? Their death rate even at wuhan is miniscule.
What we got were bullshit weird videos of people dropping on the floor in mostly isolated areas .. and a few photos of bodies on the ground with people walking by lol.
Another thing that made me wonder about lab leak: why would they let foreign 'enemies' in their bio labs, when we wouldn't allow the same? Smells fishy as fk
Anybody that thinks China's death rate is what is officially reported is willfully blind. There are stories (with video) of crematoriums operating overtime in places like Wuhan in 2020. Of course, there's no way the CCP would ever tell the truth about it. Those fake "people dropping in the street and malls" videos were a distraction, also part of the propaganda; part of the "wet market" smokescreen.
Of course there is "incentivizing" in the IHR amendments, just as there presently is in the IHR. No extragovernment compulsion, and nothing in the amendments removes the overriding statement about States Parties sovereignty. There is, however, a stronger "requirement" for reporting observed outbreaks (although no specific requirements for increasing efficacy of monitoring, just "incentives").
Watch for the strongarming of national governments in the Pandemic Treaty, because it's apparent the IHR amendments will not be enough power for the UN. Also watch which government heads of state can't wait for the stronger Treaty.
As for "allowing foreign 'enemies' in", think about who was allowed in - Peter Daszak and Ecohealth Alliance-connected flunkies, who were appointed by CCP puppet Tedros to the WHO "investigative committee". Sure Peter, go investigate yourself, and report on your nefarious GOF activity and the results. Hardly an "enemy".
We already know about the previous US work in the Ralph Baric UNC labs and such on precursor GOF research. It's already documented, one reason it was banned, and why Fauci/Daszak shifted it to the WIV, which already had instances of BSL4 lab leak problems. So was the leak intentional? Who knows ?(Shi Zhengli certainly) But for sure it came from the WIV.
Sorry, but no. Even in NYC a hotbed of con-vid, the average age of death was around life expectancy. Same in most nations.
Plus 2020 total deaths were in line with previous years.
After the clot shots, the average age of death dropped and the total deaths are up
But feel free to worry about biolabs and feel free to believe that China started it.
Feel free to ignore the actual stats that con-vid is as deadly as the flu, as many have predicted, including John ionnadis of Stamford who predicted an ifr around the flu, which pretty much matched what really happened in 2020.
I don't have time to teach base number conversion, much less for fractional bases. I have too many projects. But I wanted to get this out there for those who might be able to make it handy for studying election results.
I think that we over-focus on democracy in the wrong ways. Were we not governed by a shadow state, power would simply be more decentralized no matter what. The invisibility of power is requisite for the highest levels of centralization.
I was reading Benford breakdowns the day after. They stole that fuckin election.
But it was "the most secure election ever". I mean...totally safe and effective.
“ totally safe and effective”
I have to wipe my beverage off my screen now :-)
I wasn’t expecting this article and I’m glad you wrote it. Thanks! Excellent commentariat as well.
Yes. They stole the election fair and square, using totally safe and effective methods.
Agreed. More than 50 intelligence officials confirm.
Didn't need BL to see it. The "leaky pipes," blocked observer access and stopped counting in several states simultaneously, after which everything turned around, was the proof. Confirmation was Xiden winning only a fraction of the key bellweather counties.
Excellent job widening the use of the tool! Let’s call it Extended (or Generalized) BL.
One thing that drives me crazy is people equivocating voter fraud and election fraud. I understand that all the talking heads do, which doesn’t help. And even historical uses appear to admit this thing I consider a mistake. Perhaps it’s intentional. As in, to cover the more pernicious issue.
I think it’s important to distinguish between front end fraud and back end fraud. The back end fraud being machine- and hand-counting for example, and the front end fraud being illegal voting and fake ballots for example. The illegal voting seems to be what the powers that be want us to argue about. But the data suggest it’s the lesser problem, and in most if not all cases doesn’t make a difference in outcomes. I’d like to see serious research conducted into each facet, starting with the most pernicious. Extended BL seems to be a great tool to illustrate geographic areas where the research is worthwhile.
Another thing that drives me crazy is the tribal nature of this issue. Red team didn’t seem to care too much when Trump seemed to benefit. Blue team seemed downright giddy when Biden benefitted. In fact, a blue team friend of mine has been railing against this kind of fraud since 2004. When I brought it up for 2020, his answer was something like, “well, our team finally got one, so I’ll become active again next time”. A red team friend of mine won’t entertain the idea of issues in 2016. Until and unless we approach this apolitically, we’re all doomed. I personally haven’t voted since 2000, after I became convinced that fraud has decided every election since. With more research, possibly all the way back to 1960. Real apolitical research will horrify the public and undermine the US on the global stage. That’s why I think it’ll never happen. Instead, we’ll be given the pressure release valve of voter ID and illegal voting as a distraction.
Lastly, 2000 mules is extremely distressing to me. Most people watching it that think there was fraud will be too wrapped up in the “proof” that they will miss the methodology. Pay close attention to the methodology (first 35 minutes ish). It shows that we’re a breath away from digital slavery/imprisonment. The group of people most likely to resist will be the same people paying attention to the “proof” not the methodology. They are then primed into thinking the methodology is ok. It isn’t, and we should all be horrified that people with enough money can buy this. We’ve created an industry that will help law enforcement bypass critical safeguards to keep them from abusing citizens. It’s not ok. Not even when it helps your cause. If it’s not ok for your enemy to use it against you, then it’s not ok to use it against your enemy.
And anyone using the, “well it’s gonna be used/done by them/someone, so why not me?” argument should know that’s how George Soros sleeps at night. Go find the video interview where he explains his role helping the nazis. I mean, I’m not perfect either - I might even have made the same decision as him at that age (13) - but I’m disgusted nonetheless that he doesn’t show regret or remorse. Even if I made the same decision, I doubt I’d say anything more than, “I’m sorry”. Reporter: “How do you sleep at night after helping the nazis?” Ideal Soros answer: “I don’t.”
Methodology is where the academics go to work as propagandists.
This! "Lastly, 2000 mules is extremely distressing to me. Most people watching it that think there was fraud will be too wrapped up in the “proof” that they will miss the methodology. Pay close attention to the methodology (first 35 minutes ish). It shows that we’re a breath away from digital slavery/imprisonment. The group of people most likely to resist will be the same people paying attention to the “proof” not the methodology. They are then primed into thinking the methodology is ok. It isn’t, and we should all be horrified that people with enough money can buy this. We’ve created an industry that will help law enforcement bypass critical safeguards to keep them from abusing citizens. It’s not ok. Not even when it helps your cause. If it’s not ok for your enemy to use it against you, then it’s not ok to use it against your enemy."
You lost me at, "I personally haven't voted since 2000." Sit. Down.
If those of that don’t vote were to unite and vote together on an issue, we’d have plurality (or nearly so) most elections. But alas, the same thing that motivates many of us not to vote is the same thing that will keep us from uniting.
On some comment thread a week after the election, I came across the same Chicago data and I suggested that someone practiced in the art should look at the precinct voting data in base 3, or look at the data as logs of various bases. I was going to try it myself, but I forgot all about it.
I am writing a series leading up to this on my own substack. It's a really interesting a surprisingly complex issue. The short version of my take is that Zipf's law is a little more generally useful for things like this. It's very closely related.
The worst take on it was by Stand up maths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
Essentially he was saying that whether or not a district follows Benford's law can't tell you anything, it's just an expression of the underlying data structure. Well, sure, but with that attitude you may as well chuck the entire edifice of scientific statistical mechanics out the window, because that critique applies to everything.
Also, my preprint paper discusses some of the issues around using these principles in analysis:
https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPVKOYG.v1
"Well, sure, but with that attitude you may as well chuck the entire edifice of scientific statistical mechanics out the window, because that critique applies to everything."
I recall watching that video. That guy is a tool.
In 1998 I taught federal regulators in New York how to use BL while I was between hedge funds, and they were thrilled with the results.
Thank you for your paper. I will save it, though I don't have time for more than a superficial read just now. I wanted to dodge Zipf's law for this article, but those who can apply this, like you, are the same audience who don't need it.
Are you familiar with the Lagarias version of the Riemann hypothesis? I wish that I had a parallel life to dig deeper into real math.
Thanks! I come at things more from an analysis side than from the Math side myself but I think I can just about wrap my head around Lagarias if I spend some time on it. It certainly looks interesting.
But I really like your suggestion to use Benford with different bases. It's a really neat solution to the orders of magnitude problem. The nice thing about Zipf's law in this context is that it works even for very small sets, but the interpretation is really not obvious.
What I've found is that the the Zipfian approach to information theory is the thing that is really useful, with Zipf's law just being an interesting general case. But coherent phenomena (like musical works) seem to cycle around there own central Zipfian value, which is not necessarily -1. So it's not the distribution itself that is immediately important, but changes to the cyclical behavior around the central tendency of the distribution.
That should hold for Benford too especially in the election context, if it is of any use to you. If believe you can use the principle to pick up discontinuities both over time within one election count and across several election cycles. It won't tell you if there was cheating, but it can help show you where to look.
Ugh. Another fabulous substack to which I need to subscribe. 🤣
I read this whole article, but my understanding of it is ignorant...however, I intuit that it has done nothing to change two suppositions I have been holding for awhile:
1. Trump couldn't win in 2024 even if he won.
2. If Dems do well in 2022 and hold on to power, then we can know that the Dem party, big media, big tech, big banks, big corps, the military, the CIA, FBI, CDC, FDA, NIH and Pharma have the tech to decide who will win, no matter what Americans voted for.
This is why Republicans need to focus on changing the technology, and not on fighting voter fraud. There is no way to win against voter fraud with the current technology.
Voting should be done entirely with pre-registered fingerprints. It would make cheating almost impossible, and create a lot of flexibility for the voters who need it.
Republicans are too busy trying to game the system by gerrymandering and making it harder for low income people to vote, because that is what they have always done and they are too dumb to change apparently. It has always been a curious point to me that neither party advocates for paper ballot only. Dems, between digital and absentee seem to have ultimate control of outcomes, at least in blue states. I think for many Americans fingerprints would be a bit too dystopian for them. And if it is still digital, a fingerprint is not a solution if the result can be changed behind the scenes.
Somehow, part of the article vanished upon publication, but I think it's all back now.
In case any mathematicians are wondering: yes, there can be more than one digital representation in non-integer bases. Prior to running the filter, optimize the digital sum starting from the left in order to set a standard prior to applying the BL filter.
“If they ignore you, you still win”
Mathew Crawford and company,
I understand you and your associates are having difficulty getting some sort of official response of any kind to your concerns of the safety signals of the Covid-19 vaccines and other issues surrounding the disease and the response to it.
Now I don’t mean to give this as legal advice, so don’t take it as such, but I’ve stumbled onto a method that you all might be able to make use of to your advantage. I’ve attached several sources below that argue and claim to explain how to make use of notices and affidavits to elicit a response to your objections and concerns.
The method might be similar to what worked with Safeway in Hawaii and DMED. They claim success with the United Auto Workers and even being instrumental in stopping the OSHA mandate.
It is particularly attractive as it would give everyone, every individual concerned with a given issue with a word processor, something to do from their house.
Their argument is that with notices sent as they outline, and if they don’t desist then sending affidavits counting as sworn testimony, that the recipient has to respond. They would have to reply point by point explaining where they have constitutional authority, or to rebut your affidavit on matters of fact, within a time limit or the notice and affidavit can be used as evidence before a court of record, and that they ‘acquiesce’ to everything in your affidavit as true if they ignore it. If they lie in their response it counts as lying under oath.
In short, the argument is that if they ignore you completely it is as good as a confession that you are right or they are breaking the law. The catch is you have to have a solid argument with the truth. They claim to have success getting institutions to relent on a number of issues by sending these; even if they don’t openly respond or acknowledge them, the problem stops. If not they are trying to gain access to the grand juries and the courts. It is a bit more involved than just the usual petition or letter however, and you all would have to pick the addressees of these notices and affidavits.
I know that these sources might be on one end of the political spectrum, but perhaps their particular method has merit despite your differences. Please share this with anyone who may be interested or you think would benefit from it. Including The Unity Project, Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Toby Rogers, Aaron Siri, and, El Gato Malo.
YouTube / Odysee / Rumble Channels
- ' Affidavit Mommas 2021 ' / anonymous on Odysse / Affidavit Mommas 2021- (This should have the most concise explanations) The original channel I was going to show you is down.
“Affidavit Mommas on the Process of how you do Notices and Affidavits”
“What you might want to know about Notices and Affidavits”
Other Website: https://affidavitmommas.com, they have prepared examples here they also have a telegram account.
- ' Dave Cares for You ' YouTube is still up, also on Odysee and Rumble
He has a lot of videos and is tied to Josh Barnett below. He seems to have been the first to figure this method out, even though he doesn’t have a formal education.
“The Hidden Secret Revealed that stops Gov Corruption [Share RAPIDLY TO FREE THE PEOPLE]Dave Jose”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WseDVwhHcc
“Big Victories versus UAW …”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY9f00DOV1g
“Federal Mandate Owned Josh Barnett and David Jose method drops affidavit in Fed case (Praise God)!!!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoiEq205dvE
Other Website: www.RestoreMYRepublic.com
- ' Josh Barnett for US Congress ' - (Yes I know, this is not an endorsement)
“How to stop mandatory V’s” now seems to only have a Odysee channel
Other Website: https://www.barnettforaz.com
Thank you!!! So many applications!!! ♥️ I confess I haven't been able to open affidavitmommas, they seem to have ditched. Maybe someone else had success?
I don't grok this, but it makes me want to get back into mathematics. Thank you.
The best. I did some multiplication earlier. Got a lil chub.
I first heard about Befords law during the 2020 election. I learned more about wikipedia than anything else from that - watching it being updated in real-time to try to discredit it for election results.
I liked Crawford's filter, since you lack a filter. Good one!
Mathew, I can see only the first paragraph of the paper as an image. Can you provide a link to the whole paper?
For us old folks, the most interesting factoid about Benford's Law (and maybe the only interesting one) is not mentioned here. BL was first noticed by an astronomer observing the pattern of wear on the pages of a book of logarithms is nonuniform. Some of us are old enough to have had such a book, and even know why such used to have a purpose--so much so that the pages would wear. Also, not mentioned here is that there is no connection between 2000 Mules and BL analysis except that both have something to do with the 2020 election (one far more than the other, in my opinion.) Regarding the possible extension of BL to the election data problem (precincts are intentionally constructed to have similar populations--pretty much the opposite numeric distribution that is amenable to BL) by using BL in non-integer bases. I remain skeptical without reading all the references. The underlying data points are all in the same order of magnitude regardless of how you play with the units and I have trouble getting past that.
Order of magnitude is an expression of the numerical base. That perspective is altered along with the change of base.
Great idea regarding use of smaller bases. I had looked at the BL issue right after the 2020 election but had moved on quickly after the objection of the district size limitations reducing the orders of magnitude and (supposed) applicability. Using bases less than ten easily removes this objection.
Election fraud very well may be allowed to make people think that there's a good guy and a bad guy.
I recently found out via James roguski that trump was the one who put the authoritarian amendments proposals to the WHO...
After all, each candidate has to be vetted by their party in a primary.
So all this number play might prove something, but it just reinforces the idea that we even have a choice.
And a funny from George Carlin on voting https://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk
I read those proposals to the IHR, and they are nothing whatsoever like what is being promoted on various "Aha!" websites. There is absolutely nothing in there that supersedes sovereignty of States Parties (nations). The only "shall" in the whole proposal ("wills" or "shoulds" are not binding, they are recommendations) was a requirement for States Parties to report outbreaks that are discovered.
No more coverups like China did. All the other "shalls" are those binding the WHO's responsibilities, of which there are many in the proposals.
That being said, the true danger is not the IHR proposed changes, but the Pandemic Treaty which is being crafted. That is where supranational WHO sovereignty will almost certainly be slipped in.
From what roguski said, they do incentivize nations to report pandemics, funding and all that 'good stuff'.
As for China, what pandemic? Their death rate even at wuhan is miniscule.
What we got were bullshit weird videos of people dropping on the floor in mostly isolated areas .. and a few photos of bodies on the ground with people walking by lol.
Another thing that made me wonder about lab leak: why would they let foreign 'enemies' in their bio labs, when we wouldn't allow the same? Smells fishy as fk
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/gain-of-function-gaslighting:8
Anybody that thinks China's death rate is what is officially reported is willfully blind. There are stories (with video) of crematoriums operating overtime in places like Wuhan in 2020. Of course, there's no way the CCP would ever tell the truth about it. Those fake "people dropping in the street and malls" videos were a distraction, also part of the propaganda; part of the "wet market" smokescreen.
Of course there is "incentivizing" in the IHR amendments, just as there presently is in the IHR. No extragovernment compulsion, and nothing in the amendments removes the overriding statement about States Parties sovereignty. There is, however, a stronger "requirement" for reporting observed outbreaks (although no specific requirements for increasing efficacy of monitoring, just "incentives").
Watch for the strongarming of national governments in the Pandemic Treaty, because it's apparent the IHR amendments will not be enough power for the UN. Also watch which government heads of state can't wait for the stronger Treaty.
As for "allowing foreign 'enemies' in", think about who was allowed in - Peter Daszak and Ecohealth Alliance-connected flunkies, who were appointed by CCP puppet Tedros to the WHO "investigative committee". Sure Peter, go investigate yourself, and report on your nefarious GOF activity and the results. Hardly an "enemy".
We already know about the previous US work in the Ralph Baric UNC labs and such on precursor GOF research. It's already documented, one reason it was banned, and why Fauci/Daszak shifted it to the WIV, which already had instances of BSL4 lab leak problems. So was the leak intentional? Who knows ?(Shi Zhengli certainly) But for sure it came from the WIV.
Sorry, but no. Even in NYC a hotbed of con-vid, the average age of death was around life expectancy. Same in most nations.
Plus 2020 total deaths were in line with previous years.
After the clot shots, the average age of death dropped and the total deaths are up
But feel free to worry about biolabs and feel free to believe that China started it.
Feel free to ignore the actual stats that con-vid is as deadly as the flu, as many have predicted, including John ionnadis of Stamford who predicted an ifr around the flu, which pretty much matched what really happened in 2020.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/gain-of-function-gaslighting:8
for the mathematically illiterate the article seemed to be leading up to something it never reached....
I don't have time to teach base number conversion, much less for fractional bases. I have too many projects. But I wanted to get this out there for those who might be able to make it handy for studying election results.
i get the base number thing. you don't understand me any more than I understand you, I think is how it is.
Okay.
As is life.
yep.
There are more forms of democracy than voting. This is something that needs to be rediscovered.
I think that we over-focus on democracy in the wrong ways. Were we not governed by a shadow state, power would simply be more decentralized no matter what. The invisibility of power is requisite for the highest levels of centralization.