It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton Has The Most Statistically Improbable Coin-Toss Luck Ever

page: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The devil takes care of it's own. With her satanic issues what else would you expect. She is the best 'poster boy' (probably got more male hormones than Bill) for being born again since the Salem Witch trials!




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Being wrong with what?
Can't wait for this explanation.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   


DNC Involved in Joint Investigation into Clinton Coin Toss


INCRIMINATING UPDATE:



DES MOINES, IOWA A full scale investigation has been launched following a discovery of potential corruption in the Iowa caucus by a local. Black Box Voting, a nonpartisan investigative organization dedicated to preserving the integrity of elections has joined with the Democratic National Committee over allegations that a coin toss to decide six total delegates for Secretary Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders was fixed in her favor.

ABC News interviewed Liz Krupa, the 19 year old who claims to have found evidence of Clinton’s fraud.

“Well, I was shocked a coin flip was considered a fair way to decide delegates in the case of a tie. It is 2016 after all. I saw Sanders lose the flip, and all I could think about was when I was in elementary school I used to bend coins with my teeth in order to give myself an unfair advantage over bets.”

With that thought, when Liz saw the caucus worker put the coin on a table, it was her immediate reaction to grab it. “I felt bad for taking it, but I ended up getting out my phone and I recorded myself flipping it seven times before two big men noticed me. Every flip was tails.” At this point, the coin was taken back from Krupa, and the men, likely security guards, insisted that she delete the video she had taken, and then tried to confiscate her phone.

When she refused, the men physically and forcibly removed her from the Desmond caucus location. “I was thinking, maybe this was just strange chance. It wasn’t until security acted forcibly towards me that I knew I needed to send the video somewhere for investigation.”


Hillary Clinton has come under fire for several controversies recently, the most recent being a massive scandal with government emails being stored on a private server. As a result, she has gained the reputation among many voters to be dishonest. She won six out of six total delegates in the coin toss, giving her an extra edge in over Sanders, who nearly tied with her for votes. Statistically, the chance of Clinton winning all six coin tosses is a mere 1.6%. Once Black Box Voting received the video, they promptly launched an investigation, with the Democratic National Committee joining the investigation soon after.

When CBS News asked Lisa Heddons, the woman who flipped the coin in Desmond, on early Tuesday who she supported in her bid for the president, she originally maintained a position of no bias. However, with later pressing, she admitted she favored Clinton over Sanders. When CBS News began to press further questions about the legitimacy of the coin toss, interviewers were swiftly and curtly asked to leave.

Black Box Voting refuses to make an official statement claiming whether this case is being considered fraud currently. Regrettably, they will also not release the video of the coin flip until further study of the legitimacy of the local video and investigation into Clinton’s campaign are concluded.


abcnews.com.co...



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

If the video disappears and cant be found ever!! Then I suggest this fraud goes right to the top, and most elections in the past few decades might be questionable. We know that the probability of her winning those amounts of coin tosses was to put it mildly highly unlikely. Its also strange that such a method of determining a winner was done with a method that , a common street hustler type wide boy, would use in a gambling scam. Sounds more like a Mafia trick, but they might have taken over years ago . Their would be more money in Government contracts than Vegas.
edit on 3-2-2016 by anonentity because: (no reason given)


(post by luciferslight removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


In all six instances, the coin toss was won by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Don't try this at home.

Imo, odds had nothing to do with it. Neither do votes.


Yeah, this whole discussion is moot really. It's all smoke and mirrors to keep our minds occupied, while they screw us with more policies and Executive Orders. They already know who the net President is.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Heads I win....tails you lose.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
To be clear, are you suggesting the coin tosses were rigged? I can't see how that's possible. Penn and Teller could probably do it but Hilary Clinton? Come on...
edit on 4-2-2016 by ted4d because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
It seems this thread was written by someone that has no clue about chance! XD... Look for the record for such a thing as a coin toss streak... Red black on the roulette table too... You will soon see 6 is nothing! Yes okay you are more likely to lose such a thing but it's not that improbable! 6 is really really low to be shouting fix! 10 would be too low! Lol



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

10 times would be .098%, y'know...

And looking at IAMTAT's post, there may be something to this after all.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Meee32

10 times would be .098%, y'know...

And looking at IAMTAT's post, there may be something to this after all.


Yeah it doesn't matter, it's not like the chance of winning the lottery or something... Play a 50/50 dice game or something and you will see how often these kinds of streaks happen...

Hell even someone in this thread had 6 tails in a row very easilly... The statistics sound really heavy but it's not so unlikely.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

It matters when we're talking about a presidential election involving one of the most untrustworthy candidates the US has ever seen. Yes, the odds are not impossible, they aren't even absurdly unlikely ("just" very unlikely.)
However, it is odd enough to warrant some form of skepticism.

There's also, as I said, the contents of IAMTAT's post, though I'm unsure as to the source's legitmacy.
edit on 4/2/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
The odds were actually 1:2- same as a standard coin flip. In this case, the flips were independent of each other. The Des Moines Register described the process. Source: www.desmoinesregister.com... 2/

"A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.
Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss."

The odds of 1:64 only apply if the coin flips are not independent of each other and should be interpreted as a "set" consisting of six flips. Had these flips been "consecutive" e.g. each flip occurring consecutively by the same coin flipper, then, yes, on average, a coin tossed six times would produce an outcome of exactly 6 heads one time out of 64 sets of six flips. Because these flips were not performed consecutively by the same coin flipper, but, in fact were performed in different locations by different people, each coin flip is independent of every other coin flip. Thus, the odds of producing 6 heads is simply 1:2, or the odds of hitting heads for one coin. By comparison, the odds of hitting black on six different roulette wheels (independent) vs. hitting black six times in a row on the same roulette wheel (not independent).



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: intrptr


In all six instances, the coin toss was won by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Don't try this at home.

Imo, odds had nothing to do with it. Neither do votes.


Yeah, this whole discussion is moot really. It's all smoke and mirrors to keep our minds occupied, while they screw us with more policies and Executive Orders. They already know who the ne(x)t President is.


One hundred percent agree with that assessment.

So glad to read that, thanks.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
What The hell kind of democracy needs coin tosses?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: preezy120

The odds of 1:64 only apply if the coin flips are not independent of each other and should be interpreted as a "set" consisting of six flips. Had these flips been "consecutive" e.g. each flip occurring consecutively by the same coin flipper, then, yes, on average, a coin tossed six times would produce an outcome of exactly 6 heads one time out of 64 sets of six flips. Because these flips were not performed consecutively by the same coin flipper, but, in fact were performed in different locations by different people, each coin flip is independent of every other coin flip. Thus, the odds of producing 6 heads is simply 1:2, or the odds of hitting heads for one coin. By comparison, the odds of hitting black on six different roulette wheels (independent) vs. hitting black six times in a row on the same roulette wheel (not independent).

6 coins with 2 outcomes each means the probability of getting 6 heads is at bare minimum 1 in 7. (6h-0t, 5h-1t, 4h-2t... etc.)

Each toss has a 1:2 probability but as you add the tosses together (which you have to do in this case) the odds begin to stack against the outcome.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
To be honest not being from America I wasn't fully educated on the Clinton's.

After reading and watching videos on the Clinton's in Arkansas I am shock and horrified.

To clear it up....I'm not shocked and horrified at what they have done and got away with. I'm shocked, horrified and disgusted that the American people keep voting for them.

In my opinion these two criminals are the biggest threat to the US national security. They should be tried for treason and a bucket full of other crimes.

I don't care about the flaws and faults of the other presidential runners. It should be the case of anyone but Hillary Rotten Clinton.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The stench of Democrat Party corruption continues:



The Iowa Democratic Party Chair Refusing To Review Caucus Results Is A HUGE Hillary Supporter





The Iowa Democratic party chair who is refusing to release raw vote totals from Monday’s state caucuses is a long-time Hillary Clinton supporter who donated to the politician’s various campaigns and who reportedly drives a Buick with the license plate “HRC 2016.”

Dr. Andrea “Andy” McGuire has shot down calls to review vote tallies from Monday’s contest despite Clinton’s razor-thin win over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The former secretary of state squeaked by the democratic socialist, hauling in 49.9 percent of state delegate equivalents versus Sanders’ 49.6 percent.

The Clinton campaign claimed complete victory in the caucuses on Tuesday despite the close vote. But others, including the Sanders campaign, are questioning the outcome, citing paperwork irregularities and coin flips that awarded county delegates in some precincts.

In a column published in the Des Moines Register on Thursday, the paper’s editorial board called Monday’s caucuses a “debacle” and said that a complete audit was in order.

“First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results,” reads the article, entitled “Something smells in the Democratic party.”

“Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states,” the editorial reads.

The paper called on McGuire, who once ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor, to embrace transparency by releasing raw vote totals.

“So her path forward is clear: Work with all the campaigns to audit results. Break silly party tradition and release the raw vote totals. Provide a list of each precinct coin flip and its outcome, as well as other information sought by the Register. Be transparent,” the editors write, noting that the Sanders campaign is reviewing precinct tallies and claims to have found irregularities.


But McGuire, the former president of Meridian Health, has so far resisted calls for a review of the vote.

“The answer is that we had all three camps in the tabulation room last night to address any grievances brought forward, and we went over any discrepancies. These are the final results,” she told the Register.

There’s plenty of reason to question McGuire’s objectivity, however.

A Daily Caller analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that McGuire has contributed $7,139 to Clinton’s campaigns over the years. On Dec. 29, 2008 she donated to Hill PAC, a political action committee set up for Clinton. On Sept. 30, 2007 McGuire gave $2,300 to Clinton’s presidential campaign. She donated $588.80 to the campaign on June 27, 2007. And on June 7, 2005, McGuire gave $4,000 to Clinton’s Senate campaign.

According to a 2007 New York Times article, McGuire hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at her Des Moines home.

Besides the financial ties, McGuire is close to Clinton in other ways. In 2007 she was appointed to the Women’s Leadership Council for Team Hillary, a group of 250 women whose goal was to help Clinton reach the White House. She also served as Iowa co-chairwoman on Clinton’s campaign during that election.


McGuire, who claimed that she would be objective when she took over the Iowa Democratic party last year, has also reportedly put her affection for Clinton on public display. According to a 2014 Des Moines Register article, the former physician drives a Buick with a license plate that reads: “HRC 2016.”

McGuire did not return a request for comment. Nor did the Sanders campaign.



dailycaller.com...
edit on 4-2-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

This is outrageous. I can only hope the FBI goes forward with their supposed indictments on the emails. We can expect this kind of transparency in a HRC administration, if so this country is so screwed.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
bizarre but ive done it before
1/64 odds are not really that crazy

shes a lying, cheating, conniving little so and so but you guys are really losing your # trying to get anything and everything to stick
most of you are just as bad as hillary as far as how you lie and contort information




top topics



 
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join