That’s not the question I asked.
Here’s what I think happened, you saw the guy doing equations and wanted a quick way to “debunk” it, so went running to some forum on Reddit and took whatever answer was up there, in this case someone who claims to do charts and was “debunking” the claim by saying multiply by 0.86 doesn’t result in the red line. Duh!
Well, all the other dunces in that forum probably upvoted him because they so much desire the need to “debunk” everything they see, without realizing it was nonsense, now you are on here trying to explain and defend the nonsensical reply by insisting 0.86 of the black line doesnt result in the red line.
When its a stupid claim because the claim is when a POLYNOMIAL is used in conjunction with a SCALAR you get the red line.
Mr, I have an “aerospace engineering degree”, I think you have just burned every ounce of credibility you ever thought you had in this exchange.
1 Like
Nope. I watched the video (the portion you specifically referenced, where they talk about this), and heard it with my own ears. Nice deflection though, and good attempt to not answer the question, so again:
Do you acknowledge one step was them saying multiplying the black line by .86 results in the red line? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Because it is a partial fit above ages of 62. That is what he is pointed to.
THEN he highlights the differences below 62, obviously by doing that, he is NOT claiming it is a perfect match, you must be a humanities degree guy only a humanities guy would be so obsessed with the exact verbiage.
He illustrates the differences between the red and 0.86 line by drawing lines which is done to show you he is mapping the differences so he can plot them on a chart and from that chart figure out the polynomial used.
Then he goes back and applies the formula, Scalar * (formula for polynomial) to get the red line. No he didn’t include his working out and I would like to see that, but yes it is entirely possible to figure out the polynomial needed to make it work from the method discussed.
Holy crap bro. They didn’t say it was for 62+ at all. To justify their lies to you, you’re flat out making shit up.
1 Like
My names not bro. Your interpretation is boring me, he clearly went on to highlight the differences. Watch it again. Moving on, interesting interview with Sidney Powell.
https://rumble.com/vfbwwh-part-1-sidney-powell-is-not-backing-down.html?mref=23gga&mc=8uxj1
https://rumble.com/vfbwzt-part-2-sidney-powell-gives-her-side-of-the-story.html?mref=23gga&mrefc=2
It’s not an interpretation - it’s a cold, hard fact. If I’m wrong, give us the timestamp.
I find ‘bud/buddy’ condescending (might as well say ‘little guy’), and ‘bro’ implies the user is a meathead or being sarcastic; yet I am OK with ‘dude’, which is strange, isn’t it?
Alright, guy. 
10.37 he starts talking about a more sophisticated key, illustrates the outstanding differences, and explains how to create a curve based on the outstanding differences and where the forumula for the polynomial comes from.
Why does he need the more sophisticated key? Because multiplying by 0.86 doesn’t give a good enough fit. It gives an almost perfect fit above 62 years of age and he shows that in the first example, but goes back to the drawing board so to speak (actually works off the registered numbers, not the 0.86 ones) and figures out the polynomial needed. I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling up.
Nope, he doesn’t say that at 10:37.
The fit they say is perfect .
I trust our courts and judges. Politicians not so much. Trump not at all. I think that is a very clear lesson of the last few months. For those of us who know the election fraud is the biggest load of crap, that is a clear lesson. They’ll sort this out through our courts and judges. Sidney will lose big time. Trump will come out okay because mob bosses are very good at covering their butts.
3 Likes
If they fit perfectly, he wouldn’t have the need to create a more sophisticated key, he pointed to a part of it the fit, one the simplistic scaling example at ages above 62.
Then had the need to create a more sophisticated key, because the simplistic scaling does work across the entire, I can’t believe this needs explaining to someone with an an “aerospace engineering degree”, I teach math to kids who would have got this 10 posts ago.
You’re basically saying don’t believe what they say, instead it’s a performance piece you have to interpret. 
2 Likes
No, why would he go to the trouble of creating a more sophisticated key if he thinks just multiplying by 0.86 is a perfect fit?
Because he doesn’t and isn’t making that claim. The entire point of doing it was to show even with that simple step parts lined up very nicely (well above 62 anyway), then worked on a more sophisticated method that didn’t rely on a single scaled value but one that changed for every age group.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-campaign-scam/
“Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election,” reported Shane Goldmacher. “Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out. As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a “money bomb,” that doubled a person’s contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language.”
Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.
It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help.
What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud.
Victor Amelio, a 78-year-old retiree in California, donated $990 in September via the Republican portal WinRed, and before he knew it the “opt in” he had never checked debited $8,000 of his money to the Trump campaign. “Bandits!” he told The Times . “I can’t afford to pay all that damn money.”
Trumpism doesn’t care if it fucks over its own supporters; it’s just a scam for funneling money into Trump’s pockets.
3 Likes
Raffensperger suggests he is simply ‘protecting the public’s interest’ in allowing on the ballot images to be used, and not the actual paper records.
Not because they set the machines to an unreasonably high level to send ballots for adjudication, over 60% in the one and I think only machine they ever got a look at which means in between someone scanning their ballot and a ballot image being created, someone gets to adjudicate what the voters intent was. Noooo, that wouldn’t be it.
The fun and games continue.
update, it seems they are still fighting to get a full audit done in one county in Arizona and are still being fought tooth and nail by an army of lawyers. Because naturally thats what transparency and having faith the elections were held fairly looks like.
1 Like
“Rumble”, “CD Media”, “Epoch Times”… Do you ever have a link from a normal, mainstream news site that doesn’t have an extreme rightwing agenda they’re trying to set a narrative for, or do you just read fringe sites all day? Wake me when you’re ready to address the 5 dozen losses in court that the Trump team endured trying to overturn a fair and free election… or when there’s an actual new court case pending.
2 Likes
If you read the bias in the media thread, it is becoming increasingly obvious to even independents and fair minded left leaning people the media you talk about pushes an agenda.
Voter fraud is not a part of that and they will not report on anything related in any way whatsoever even if it is newsworthy.
Check Tempo’s last post for another example of media malfeasance.
1 Like