UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

page: 8
89
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Alright, they have a mathematical formula. By what actual method do they say this is happening? A formula is, after all, only as good as the variables plugged into it. Do they have any hard evidence? Not saying it can't happen, but we need something solid. Can't take a formula to court.




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Here's something I noticed: When Romney, Ron Paul and Gingrich, were running 1-2-3 in the polls, Santorum's campaign was all but dead. At that time, just when Ron paul was surging in the polls past Gingrich and within a few points of Romney, and even surpassing him in some cases, Santorium mysteriously came out of nowhere. For some reason suddenly everyone supposedly fell in love with Santorum and out of love with Paul and Santorum became the new darling of the media.

Now that they've pretty much knocked Ron Paul back off the front page, they're back to showcasing Romney as the shoo-in candidate. Call me cynical, but this is extremely suspicious as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe for a second that every day of this canpaign isn't being manipulated.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
On a cursory overview I can say without a doubt that this isn't mathematical proof, let alone undeniable. Excel graphs mean nothing. Just because the expected data did not match the actual data does not mean that significantly different. Where are the equations? Where is the data set? As someone who has done a number of studies involving surveys (which is essentially what voting is) I can tell you that it is exceedingly rare for your expected and actual data to match perfectly. When I get some more time I'll check the actual methodology to see if what the author is doing even makes sense.


Well, if this is true: why can the media call a winner just a couple of hours into a Primary? You would be surprised how telling expected data is, especially if voting is essentially just a "special case" of another survey. As the sample size increases beyond 30, assuming the survey is conducted according to the right methodology, the sample error will decrease to near zero. A random sample size of 1000 should be more than enough to predict a presidential outcome, especially if more than one sample is conducted and a mean of the results is taken.
edit on 1-3-2012 by NowIsThe because: clearification
edit on 1-3-2012 by NowIsThe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Although this data indicates that their is probably voter fraud it can not be proven conclusively. This leaves open plausible deniability which allows these people to get away with it yet again. If a person could prove conclusively that their was voter fraud then they would probably disappear. If absolute voter fraud was proven and enough people knew about it the tptb would just call marshal law and all election rights would be taken away. The pbtb would love this situation because they could then do what they liked and would try to murder all their opposition before they could get organised. This may also lead to a brutal civil war in America with both sides virtually annialating one another as the tbtp would rather all die and destroy the world than give up.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
All it would take would be checking the guts of the voting boots, right? So is the code of those things rigged or not?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by YERWRONG
Does it really matter? Obama is going to win a second term anyway...even if its true, which im sure it is. What could anyone do about it?
reply to post by NeoVain
 




Yeah,..you are right. My intuition says that Obama has been designated as a two term president. Thes guys can debate and promote themselves across the country to their hearts content but it will not matter for the seat of the presidency.

It is all theatre and introducing themselves to the people of the US, who knows what they will be good for in the next 4 year white-house theatre performance.

Rigging the elections has become an art and with modern technology it will be easier than ever.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I hate to be real simplistic about this, but the solution seems real simple to me. Dump the gizmos and gadgets for voting and just return to the straight out punch or..even better...the open arrow you fill in with ink to indicate a choice. All on paper, all across the nation and without exception. What else is there? If technology leaves any questions, it's too many when the stakes are the control of a nation with the power or threat (if out of control) of a nation like the United States.

Oh...and dump the caucuses already. What a silly concept. It's always struck me as a back smokey room type approach. My state does a primary and it's run like every other election always is. Oh, and it's done on paper. 100%, at least in Southern Missouri. I believe it's statewide on that part. caucuses aren't even something I'd feel comfortable with attending. The whole thing just reeks of party insider...and I'm definitely not. Primaries are as open as anything and carry local issues to vote on at the same time here. It encourages people to come, not the opposite.

Just my thoughts...


You have some good points there boss - but do you know why a Caucus is so important?

It's because Caucus's allow us to continue the tradition of a Representative Democracy as our fore fathers intended. Many Primaries are purely democratic - and unfortunately that brings with the chance of 'mob rule' and the trampling on the rights of minorities. Our founding fathers recognized this, and as such instituted the Representative process.

Also, astutely - I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that 1/3 of the population will support the establishment in it's current form no matter what, 1/3 of the population just doesn't care, and 1/3 of the population will actually work to implement change.

If a pure democracy were instituted, you can see that the possibility for mob rule becomes a reality if one of the groups can convince the 1/3 who don't care to vote. This is bad, and why we have a Representative Democracy.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Nobody talks about the voting boots and their Software and Hardware. There would lie the answer to wether the voting is faulty or not, or at least we could find out if the votes are sent off somewhere to be processed by an unkown code before being published.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Nobody talks about the voting boots and their Software and Hardware. There would lie the answer to wether the voting is faulty or not, or at least we could find out if the votes are sent off somewhere to be processed by an unkown code before being published.

A high interest for Paul on the internet and at rallies and a low turnout for Romney and forums that indicate he is no popular at all, are suspicious but not evidence.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I am the author of the first report and have quickly browsed through the majority of these posts. As convinced as I was of vote manipulation the day I wrote the report, now there is NO doubt that the votes in NH, Iowa, SC, Florida, and Nevada have been reassigned for the benefit of Mitt Romney.

Several statistical analysts have been working to debunk the allegations of the original report. Their efforts have not only fallen short but have reinforced and proven the fact that the vote totals have been altered to boost Mitt Romney. Just as I pointed out in the original report, the alogrithms used to accomplish the vote theft are very crude and, therefore, easy to identify. Some of the research has been through online forums and some has been by independent analysts. My understanding is that a report has been sent to "dozens" of analysts for their review and independent analysis. Following is what we know to date:

1. The huge difference between Romney's low vote precinct total percentage and high vote precinct total percentage is not caused by any combination of demographics in any of the counties examined. Its cause is a mathematical algorithm that flips votes from another candidate's total, usually Ron Paul but all 3 have been victimized, into Romney's total count. If the reader would like to know more details, go to www.ronpaulforums.com... ote.
2. The only precincts affected are the ones in "significant" counties that represent a certain minimum percentage of the total vote in that county.
3. At least 4 independent statistical methods have been used to prove that Romney's gains are impossible in an honest election.
4. I encourage anyone that can help explain this anomaly to submit your report. Because all of the obvious demographical factors have been discounted, this has escalated to a high academic level.

To the posters on this site claiming that the initial paper was so "bad", "would have gotten an F in Statistics," etc., please grace the rest of us with your genius by supplying your analysis that would explain this in any way other than pure computer algorithmic vote theft. But if you aren't going to do an in-depth analysis, stop spewing troll garbage targeted at the weak- minded.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
edit on 2-3-2012 by pwe11 because: Double post



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pwe11
 


Awesome work, my friend, but i am sure the resident trolls/shills on this site will find some way to attack your research in an effort to turn the weak-minded and easily distracted away from this very important issue. Know that most of us appreciate you efforts and awesome investigative work though, and to me there is no doubt about it´s merit and authenticity.

If it weren´t for all that fluoride in the water being force-fed to the sheeple, i am sure more people would see right through the shills efforts on this topic as well. The voting fraud is so blatant you would have to be heavily flouridated not to see it at this point, once you really look at the numbers. And i applaud your efforts on structuring this in such a comprehensible way in your effort of enlightening those of us that still have the capacity to understand this, at least.
edit on 3-3-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I find these revelations very depressing. How do we keep trudging on with the knowledge TPTB will stop us at every turn?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
I find these revelations very depressing. How do we keep trudging on with the knowledge TPTB will stop us at every turn?


You must not give up. They will only win once everyone gives up. You are helping them if you give up.


There are numerous ways they can be stopped, public awareness of a certain magnitude is one, once critical mass is achieved they are doomed.

They know this, hence the shills in this thread.
edit on 3-3-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I'm no ron paul fan, but we really need to go back to paper ballots

I can wai 4 weeks for results, just schedule accordingly



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 





I'm no ron paul fan


Why not?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Nobody talks about the voting boots and their Software and Hardware. There would lie the answer to wether the voting is faulty or not, or at least we could find out if the votes are sent off somewhere to be processed by an unkown code before being published.

A high interest for Paul on the internet and at rallies and a low turnout for Romney and forums that indicate he is no popular at all, are suspicious but not evidence.


Very suspicious. More than 2/3 the population has Internet access now (if not directly, indirectly)...and of those who do vote, it's an even larger percentage.

Something is going on. That is for sure. To what extent, exactly, is hard to say...
edit on 4-3-2012 by NowIsThe because: added info



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I gave you a star. Not because you are not a Ron Paul fan, but because you make good sence.

Ron Paul 2012



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

I am the "Fool" that made these graphs. This pattern of Romney siphoning votes from other candidates in larger precincts has now been verified by multiple independent analysts. Perhaps YOU would be so kind as to share with the rest of us YOUR brilliant research. From reading your post, you are very confused. Statistically speaking, four independent analytic methods have now confirmed that the vote siphoning anomalies present in Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada, and more states were impossible in an honest election (a probability of less than 1 in "pick any number with more zeroes behind it than you know how to pronounce"). The initial report intentionally focused on a single anomaly in a single County for the purpose of simplifying so that the average person could clearly comprehend. Thank you for your post, which has conclusively proven that no matter how simple an explanation, its reader must possess a certain minimal intelligence level in order to comprehend. Unless you wish to post real research of yours as a counter argument, do ATS's readers a favor: raise the collective IQ of this site by ceasing to post on it any more.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pwe11
 


So far everything I have seen uses the same flawed methodology as your original analysis. Where are the tests for heteroskedasticity? Where are the tests for linearity? No one has even attempted to prove their model meets the assumptions required for a regression. As I told Neo Vain in another thread if you are willing to compile all of these analyses together in a professional and organized manner I have no problem reviewing the evidence. If you do this I will even perform my own analysis on this matter using proper methodology and then we can compare results.





new topics
top topics
 
89
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join