>>14315628

anon opines

sorry, the "mathematician" proved NOTHING. i've been to more scientific seminars than i can remember, and this guy just likes to hear himself talk. he showed a bunch of curves and then ASSERTED that the correlation was "unnatural." hogwash. you don't simply make assertions like that. if it were true, it would be easy enough to demonstrate by performing the same analyses on PAST elections. if the same correlations DIDN'T occur in the past, THEN he can claim it's "unnatural." c'mon lindell, you had months to prepare for this. if he's the best you could find, we're doomed. the guy came off as full of shit, and he FAILED to take the next step that MIGHT have given his analyses some credence.

>>14315693

>nice try but the math is good. learn some.

i taught it at the university level, fuckwit. maybe YOU should learn some. if you believe that analysis, they you must believe in greenhouse global warming. those curves matched too. retard.

>>14315710

>How do you explain how the same pattern applied to every county in every state

i don't have to explain that. HE is the one making the assertion that this pattern is NOT NORMAL. to do that, he has to FIRST establish what normal is, by using REAL HISTORICAL DATA, not his half-assed UNSUBSTANTIATED assertions about correlation factors. LEARN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, then come back with an intelligent comment

>>14315779

wrong fuckwit, there is NO SUCH THING as statistically "impossible." he has to show that the 2020 election was DIFFERENT than real historical past elections. he DID NOT.

ALL of the TRIGGERED retards responding to my OP are just proving that you're just as mindlessly brainwashed to your preconceptions as the normies.

i am NOT attacking the idea that the election was stolen. i'm attacking the half-assed job this fucktard did in presenting cogent and comepelling evidence. if you can't see the difference, YOU are part of the problem, or YOU are the shill.

>>14315831

<i taught it at the university level,

>theres the problem

so did the fuckwit at mr mike's symposium. logic not your strong suit?

>>14315854

> go collect that 5 mil then

i can't prove it's false. i can only prove that it's MEANINGLESS. capiche?

>>14315873

>It's all compared to previous years through out history

NO, it was NOT. that is precisely my POINT!