*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10633
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9100 on: August 13, 2021, 02:27:51 AM »
The packet capture claim is just a claim, since no one outside of them has access to them. However, Dr. Frank proved the fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and has provided verifiable evidence. Watch Scientific Proof or his presentation at the symposium.

Dr. Frank's speech from the symposium - https://rumble.com/vkzdlu-mike-lindells-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-frank.html

Dr. Frank's documentary Scientific Proof - https://rumble.com/vf9xk1-mike-lindell-presents-scientific-proof..html

It's all described in the first 15 minutes of Scientific Proof.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9101 on: August 13, 2021, 02:33:33 AM »
Plus, claims are evidence too, so Biden is probably, like, pretty worried.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10633
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9102 on: August 13, 2021, 02:44:29 AM »
Well it's not possible to get those correlations; and Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.

Maybe you should post some counter-opinions from random unqualified people on the internet like stack, rama set, and aatw are assuredly trying to find. It's totally convincing to cite high school flunkies on mathematical questions.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4182
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9103 on: August 13, 2021, 03:22:24 AM »
The packet capture claim is just a claim, since no one outside of them has access to them. However, Dr. Frank proved the fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and has provided verifiable evidence. Watch Scientific Proof or his presentation at the symposium.

Dr. Frank's speech from the symposium - https://rumble.com/vkzdlu-mike-lindells-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-frank.html

Dr. Frank's documentary Scientific Proof - https://rumble.com/vf9xk1-mike-lindell-presents-scientific-proof..html

It's all described in the first 15 minutes of Scientific Proof.

So... you're saying Mr MyPillow already presented definitive proof that the election was stolen, and the proof that he's been hawking the last several weeks (alongside his pillows, of course) that wasn't proof wasn't the only definitive proof he had?

Fascinating. Why is it that the more recent proof was worth 5 million dollars to debunk (until it wasn't)? Did I miss him offering 5 million dollars for debunking the real definitive proof? ???
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9104 on: August 13, 2021, 05:29:38 AM »
Well it's not possible to get those correlations; and Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.

So any physicist that says the earth is round is correct, got it.  Physicists are never wrong.

Quote
Maybe you should post some counter-opinions from random unqualified people on the internet like stack, rama set, and aatw are assuredly trying to find. It's totally convincing to cite high school flunkies on mathematical questions.

lol


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9105 on: August 13, 2021, 09:05:52 AM »
Fraud continues to be revealed! 


After Data Is Posted On Conspiracy Website, Colo. County's Voting Machines Are Banned https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027225157/after-data-is-posted-on-conspiracy-website-colo-countys-voting-machines-are-bann?sc=18&f=1001

Basically.... A republican county clerk who failed to collect a box of ballots in 2019, disabled the cameras watching the voting machines and allowed someone who wasn't an employee to access the voting machines then leaked the passwords to the systems online.

Sounds like someone is trying to rig the next election....

Curious, no?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6487
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9106 on: August 13, 2021, 09:49:09 AM »
Dr. Frank proved the fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and has provided verifiable evidence.
Have you verified it? Has anyone? Can you show your/their workings if so.

I watched a bit of one of the videos, the fact that he says at one point that more people voted in certain age groups than were registered tells me immediately that he's using out of date or wrong data. Because if that were so then that would have been very easy to prove in court. They had enough court cases to present that evidence.
He's talking about a rate of 30% "phantom votes". So has he got sworn affidavits from those people? Again, why hasn't all this been presented in court?
He's claiming an impossible correlation between two datasets but doesn't give the source of those data sets. You say he's provided verifiable evidence but I don't know how to check his workings without knowing the source of his data.

In brief...yes yes, claims are evidence but as I have said to you repeatedly - not all evidence is created equal. Anyone can claim anything, but in court, when evidence is actually scrutinised and has to stand up to that scrutiny, none of it stood up. Your level of credulity in anyone saying anything which backs up your beliefs and level of incredulity in anything which doesn't is once again noted.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9107 on: August 13, 2021, 11:19:18 AM »
I looked him up and apparently he presented his findings in a case in MI. In that case a few things came out that mean his results are not indisputable as Tom says. For example, he performed his calculation only using people who registered up until the beginning of October and counted anyone who registered in the subsequent month as a phantom voter. He also said that any discrepancy between the census data and real numbers were reconciled via an imputation, but no specifics on how accurate that was. So, obviously, in the absence of peer reviewed publication, there is some space to reasonably doubt his findings.

In his CO work, there are similar reports of the numbers he cites not matching official numbers. Again, sunlight (or publication) is the best disinfectant.

Just generally though, the number of registered voters exceeding the number of actual voters has already been simply explained: quite often, voter rolls have not been purged of dead voters.

So from my research, I wouldn’t agree with Tom that he is right because he is a physicist, but I will encourage people to remind him of his stance the next time he disagrees with a physicist.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4182
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9108 on: August 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM »
So from my research, I wouldn’t agree with Tom that he is right because he is a physicist, but I will encourage people to remind him of his stance the next time he disagrees with a physicist.

So according to Tom, physicists are infallible in matters of statistical impossibility (for some reason ???) but hopelessly incompetent in matters relating to the shape of the Earth.

And people question my assertion that Tom is nothing but a dedicated troll out for the lulz.  ::)
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9109 on: August 13, 2021, 03:43:25 PM »
Today's the day.  Any moment now.  Big BIG news coming.  Trump reinstated as president.  Just wait.  Any second now. 
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6487
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9110 on: August 13, 2021, 03:50:49 PM »
So from my research, I wouldn’t agree with Tom that he is right because he is a physicist, but I will encourage people to remind him of his stance the next time he disagrees with a physicist.

So according to Tom, physicists are infallible in matters of statistical impossibility (for some reason ???) but hopelessly incompetent in matters relating to the shape of the Earth.
Maybe he's Schrödinger's physicist - the things he says are either right or wrong depending on whether Tom agrees with him or not on any particular topic.

Quote
And people question my assertion that Tom is nothing but a dedicated troll out for the lulz.  ::)

That does seem increasingly likely.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10633
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9111 on: August 13, 2021, 04:16:41 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I watched a bit of one of the videos, the fact that he says at one point that more people voted in certain age groups than were registered tells me immediately that he's using out of date or wrong data.

Dr. Frank has multiple degrees and over 60 publications. I am pretty sure he knows more about how to use data than what you find likely.

Quote from: Rama Set
I looked him up and apparently he presented his findings in a case in MI. In that case a few things came out that mean his results are not indisputable as Tom says. For example, he performed his calculation only using people who registered up until the beginning of October and counted anyone who registered in the subsequent month as a phantom voter.

He used data from October because voters were injected into the system to pump up the numbers during election. Remember when multiple states started adding massive dumps of Biden voters on election night?

Regardless, the correlations he saw shouldn't happen in data from October either. Pretty poor argument.

Quote from: Rama Set
So any physicist that says the earth is round is correct, got it.  Physicists are never wrong.

Actually, the FE Wiki is saying that the physicists are correct in their findings that the physics of RE don't really work. I would suggest you read it.

You guys very weakly claim that it's "cherry picking," but there are numerous physicists cited stating that the three body problem doesn't work, while you have provided none saying the opposite. Same for the other articles in there. If you want to claim something is cherry picked you have to actually show the overwhelming evidence of the opposite, which you guys have continuously failed to do so.

Look at what AATW just said:

"Maybe he's Schrödinger's physicist - the things he says are either right or wrong depending on whether Tom agrees with him or not on any particular topic."

If you want to claim something is cherry picked, you actually have to provide the opposite evidence by qualified sources. AATW has not provided contradictory evidence or analysis from qualified sources to contradict Dr. Frank. He doesn't know what "cherry picking" is. If you want to claim that something is cherry picked you have to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite from qualified sources.

Yet, rather than actual mathematical or scientific evidence, he cites court cases in which these arguments from Dr. Frank did not even appear in as his "evidence". How bad of an argument is that? It's like arguing with sixth graders here.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 05:36:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9112 on: August 13, 2021, 04:33:47 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I watched a bit of one of the videos, the fact that he says at one point that more people voted in certain age groups than were registered tells me immediately that he's using out of date or wrong data.

Dr. Frank has three PhDs. I am pretty sure he knows more about how to use data than what you find likely.

Quote from: Rama Set
I looked him up and apparently he presented his findings in a case in MI. In that case a few things came out that mean his results are not indisputable as Tom says. For example, he performed his calculation only using people who registered up until the beginning of October and counted anyone who registered in the subsequent month as a phantom voter.

He used data from October because voters were injected into the system to pump up the numbers during election. Remember when multiple states started adding massive dumps of Biden voters on election night?

Regardless, the correlations he saw shouldn't happen in data from October either. Pretty poor argument.

Quote from: Rama Set
So any physicist that says the earth is round is correct, got it.  Physicists are never wrong.

Actually, the FE Wiki is saying that the physicists are correct in their findings that the physics of RE don't really work. I would suggest you read it.

You guys very weakly claim that it's "cherry picking," but there are numerous physicists cited stating that the three body problem doesn't work, while you have provided none saying the opposite. Same for the other articles in there. If you want to claim something is cherry picked you have to actually show the overwhelming evidence of the opposite, which you guys have continuously failed to do so.

Look at what AATW just said:

"Maybe he's Schrödinger's physicist - the things he says are either right or wrong depending on whether Tom agrees with him or not on any particular topic."

If you want to claim something is cherry picked, you actually have to provide the opposite evidence by qualified sources. AATW has not provided contradictory evidence or analysis from qualified sources to contradict Dr. Frank. He doesn't know what "cherry picking" is. If you want to claim that something is cherry picked you have to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite from qualified sources.

Yet, rather than actual mathematical or scientific evidence, he cites court cases in which these arguments from Dr. Frank did not even appear in as his "evidence". How bad of an argument is that? It's like I'm arguing with sixth graders here.

Relax Tom.  You won, okay?  Trump is president again.  But I'm sure the fake news media will take their sweet time informing the American public.

So just kick back and drink some liberal tears.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9113 on: August 13, 2021, 05:03:26 PM »


Dr. Frank has multiple degrees and over 60 publications. I am pretty sure he knows more about how to use data than what you find likely.
...
He used data from October because voters were injected into the system to pump up the numbers during election[unsupported conjecture]. Remember when multiple states started adding massive dumps of Biden voters on election night [another unsupported conjecture]?
Fyp?

Quote
Regardless, the correlations he saw shouldn't happen in data from October either.
Source?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10633
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9114 on: August 13, 2021, 05:24:18 PM »
The correlations demonstrate the fraud, and the rest of it, as stated by Dr. Frank.

See the timestamp here at 29:29 -



Plot from that segment:



How is this possible from October 2020 data? It's not.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 05:27:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9115 on: August 13, 2021, 05:44:44 PM »
The correlations demonstrate the fraud, and the rest of it, as stated by Dr. Frank.

See the timestamp here at 29:29 -



Plot from that segment:



How is this possible from October 2020 data? It's not.

Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10633
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9116 on: August 13, 2021, 05:49:03 PM »
Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

Is that data from October 2020 like what Dr. Frank used? It doesn't appear to be. You have presented nothing.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9117 on: August 13, 2021, 06:16:23 PM »
Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

Is that data from October 2020 like what Dr. Frank used? It doesn't appear to be. You have presented nothing.

It’s data from the actual election he is supposed to debunk. How is he debunking an election result that doesn’t account for election results?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9118 on: August 13, 2021, 09:54:16 PM »
I block Tom and don't feel like dealing with his shit links.

Can someone (not Tom) explain why # votes cast is odd?  Seems like the total eligable is larger than registered which is larger than votes cast.  This seems pretty normal to me.  Not everyone who can vote is registered.  Not everyone who is registered can or did vote.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9119 on: August 13, 2021, 10:08:36 PM »
I've only watched the first 10 minutes of what Tom posted.  But one of the lines of reasoning they used to claim the election was stolen was a lot of people who rarely vote decided to vote this election and that they went out and knocked on their doors and a lot of people didn't answer the door.

This was sufficient evidence that these were fraudulent votes.  The fact that an orange faced maniac would bring out people who rarely vote or the fact that no one in the right mind would answer the door if Mike Lindell was knocking was never mentioned.