You are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of a mathematician. Sorry.
Good thing I haven't done that. I have pointed how nonsensical his factual assertions are. Have you figured out why the PA voting data from Nov. 3 isn't accurate yet? Can I help you with that? Or do you want to let that drop?
You are not qualified. Please find an appropriate source to rebut the content.
I'm not sure what qualifies as being qualified, but your "mathematician", Bobby Piton, according to his bio at his company site, is a self taught "scientist" and "mathematician". He said he's read a lot of books about science and math.
In an interview with Anna Kaight(sp) (You know, the Survivor contestant of the
terrabytes of treasonous data and the Falconer fame, that Anna) Piton starts talking about how the actual Census data is wrong after he had done his "calculations". I find that bizarre - Saying Census data is wrong so he runs off with his own extrapolated numbers? In any case, his math qualifications seem to be him just saying he knows Excel pretty well. If that's all you need to consider someone a learned expert in a field, well I guess that says a lot right there.
Tom is willing to discount almost any mathematician out there...unless they're coming up with equations for a Trump victory in 2020
I've asked to see positive statistical evidence which supports Biden's win plenty of times here.
For some reason you guys just keep trying to justify anomalies rather than simply showing strong positive evidence supporting Biden.
We've been over this - Positive statistical evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and the electoral college. You know, votes counted. That's all there is to it. That's statistically and historically how presidents get elected, by the number of votes received. I mean statistically we had never had a black president until Obama. Should he have been rejected as President based upon your "positive statistical evidence" theory?