in

Laymans version of the Atlanta Rigging Process

This is the Layman’s explanation of what I discovered in Atlanta. I present to you, the Great Wheel of Georgia.

Here’s a small spreadsheet file so you can see for yourself.
Second file does it with 2231 ceiling.

First set of columns is the actual reported total votes/trump votes and their ratios from the last report of the hijacked precincts before they were released from the systems contro.

Second set of columns is those same ratios using the same uniform total in for each precinct, proving it started from an equally weighted position since it produced the same split Trump to Total overall.

Third set of columns is randomly generated precinct totals, to show you that it fails to produce the same Trump to Total split, thus it can only work for those reported totals or using the same uniform number.

https://gofile.io/d/XyFDxo

https://gofile.io/d/h4n8sm

Avatar

Written by Edward Solomon

Comments

  1. This guy is a CON ARTIST. Do not waste your time with this guy people watching, he is a con artist, elaborate troll probably getting an ego boost because people are calling him a genius for the total nonsense being spewed here. I want the dominion voting methods to be found and proven as well, I want the truth to come out, but I'm not blind to bullshit, and this guy ain't the one who is about to save anyone. See below I've tried to highlight some reasons as to why, a huge red flag for you should be him stating in this video just as the last "I'm going into witness protection" what an absurd thing to be claiming in a video, it just screams exaggeration, lies and manipulation of an audience. I want cheating to be exposed, but do not let that cloud your vision of the people out there that are going to take advantage of that. If someone is so intelligent that they understand an advanced concept, they can explain it to others without needing to show the calculation, there is nothing but numbers thrown at us in this video and it's all arbitrarily chosen, no real logic, bunch of jargon and circular discussion that goes nowhere – be warned.

    Ok here we go I reserved judgement after that last 2 hour video waiting for a better explanation, giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm no slouch with math and have done some of it at the university level. Your video here makes no sense, you jump straight into some kind of wheel and leaf plot, you do not at any point explain what these wheels represent, why you are dividing them up equally. Are the division lines representing precincts? Is the wheel a state? What am I looking at? Anyone explaining something is going to tell you right off the bat what the graph/data/visualisation represents first. Nope, no labels, no wording on the paint jpg (lol) of a pretty geometric pattern you've drawn up here. You jump straight into throwing numbers at us just like the previous video. At this point I think you either truly believe you are onto something but cannot explain it (because it's not real), or you are just trolling the crap out of everyone gullible enough to take your word for it.

    You spend about half this video repeatedly saying "we can put x votes in y, then put z votes in c, the wheel stays balanced". And you just keep repeating this process over and over, if we do not get an explanation for why you are dividing up these numbers or how they are meant to represent the votes, why would the 20th example of the same thing do anything different? This is not how you teach math to people. Why do you bring up prime numbers randomly at one point only to never mention them again? About 5 times you say "one more example" only to continue doing the same thing over and over. I can't tell you how many times I heard the statement "the wheel stays balanced", it's truly infuriating listening to this repetitive nonsense.

    Some great quotes @ 23:20 "Let's go through the whole thing…. I'm actually understanding more about this algorithm now than I did when I started.. live demonstration and live discovery" – What so you mean to tell me you've spent countless hours working this "algorithm" out, now you're explaining it, and in the middle of the explanation you realise something else? Well what was it? You don't even say what you "discovered"… sounds to me like you're just pulling this out of your ass. You prepared a bunch of jargon and numbers around a geometric pattern to make it seem like there is some sense to all this, when in reality this has explained absolutely nothing and has given us nothing to quantify or test for ourselves. We are just meant to believe you did every single calculation correctly, no mistakes? Gimme a break, anyone who has done maths knows how common accidental errors are, in your 2 hour long video you misread numbers like 5 times in the first 7 minutes.

    This "wheel number" is not explained, firstly we aren't even told what "the wheel" is, secondly, you pull this 2231 number from nowhere and say "you found it in the data" OK then?? I guess we just believe this?? Then you say "where did I get this number from?" And proceed to go into a circular nonsense calculation at around 33:55 seriously, anyone reading this have a look at the calculation from 33:55 to around 38-40. You've arbitrarily divided "the wheel" into 80 parts, so you pick 14 AT RANDOM (no explanation for why 14/80 is done), this number divides to 17.5 (the % that 14/80 represents). Then you take this % of the total vote count of your example precinct (bearing in mind this number 14 that divided 80 was pulled out of thin air), which is 17.5% of 3156 votes = 552. Then you go back in a circle, and you divide 3156 by 552 to get 17.5 again. Then a statement about "the algorithm" is made how it "treats 17.49 exactly as if it's 17.5% because it knows" A complete nonsense statement that does not explain anything, this is just a circular calculation that is going back and forth with basic multiplication and division – basic algebra and rounding method…. Onto the next part of the calculation, you do 17.5% again (arbitrary unexplained % because remember we got 14 from thin air) of 2231 (your unexplained, supposed "wheel number" so the number of divisions in this "wheel".) 2231 x 0.175 = 390.425, then you again reverse this and do the same exact thing: 2231/391 = 17.5. Then you AGAIN find the % of the example precinct vote count (17.5% of 3156) you get a vote count with 1 higher number at 553, because of how the rounding has changed that's all this is.. rounding differences… This proves absolutely nothing, these numbers were arbitrarily picked out with no explanation for how the real thing supposedly get's the equivalent number, the closest you came to anything was saying you got 2231 from "the data".

    I'm just so frustrated because I truly believe you are taking everyone for a ride here and enjoying every moment of it. Complete and utter waste of time, if you cannot put into words what is going on then you do not understand your supposed "discovery", it's as simple as that. You should be able to explain in a few sentences what an algorithm's purpose is, what it is doing. Your explanations are random calculations over and over the same thing, for 40 minutes, no semblance of any truth or logic to this. There are videos on youtube that explain advanced quantum mechanical theories in less than 5 minutes, people explain quantum entanglement, black hole calculations SUPER ADVANCED CONCEPTS in 10 minutes. You cannot explain a single algorithm in 40 minutes or even in 2 hours. Is this about ego to you? Do you even have any base in mathematics, from a quick glance at your channel it's all religious material, no maths whatsoever.

  2. Here is a key question for consideration. What is the Ware County, GA impact inside this study? How does that calculated number compare to the 11/25/2020 audit and hand recount which observed that 37 Trump votes were flipped? Please produce a short Ware value lookup video and explain any difference.

  3. Okay, so I'm a scientist but not a mathematician. How do we avoid confirmation bias in this? Can the math prove that there is no natural way this could happen? My understanding is the easiest way to prove this occurred is with forensic audit of the ballots; even a simple recount in small precincts would show this happened. Here in WI I worry because in my area we are normally some of the reddest counties in the country (The "WOW" counties in SE Wisconsin) and it appears vote siphoning happened here based on the returns (versus historical norms) but I don't know how to find time stamped data to replicate your work, and since the Trump campaign only recounted in two counties, the difference will never be captured now by physical recount.

  4. Is there someone out there who can do a computer program based on this ? Is the logic all in here to write the program. It could help in the court and also help Edward in reverse engineering PA, MI and other states. Programming anyone ? Please ..to save a country..

  5. On a video I just watched from your post (Andrew Jackson's answer to fixing the economy) 2 years ago you asked for more info on the bankers. You probably already know this by now but I'll leave the link anyway. It's from Bill Still I couldn't find the full vid on his channel but he's a very good source for economic & financial newshttps://youtu.be/Drp7-he9cbo

  6. The algorithm makes sense on many levels. But it would be very helpful if you also make a video explaining your hypothesis on how handling of actual (real or fake) ballots corresponds with this tally manipulation.

    Are fake ballots inserted later at every single precinct? (That seems far-fetched considering how many precincts there are.)
    Or inserted after they are all gathered together at state level?
    It seems many real ballots would also have to be removed to adjust for new ratios.

    I and many others are having a hard time understanding how this manipulation fits with actual ballots (real or fake) be counted on the ground.

  7. To all the Normies who can't understand. What Solomon is presenting is a spherical Rubik's cube. If you've spent one minute trying to solve a Rubik's cube, you understand that something happening on the front face causes something Else to happen on other faces. It all looks like a jumble, right up until you "solve" the puzzle and recognize the necessary sequences to accomplish your goal. Since this was used to hide a cheat, they were hoping you'd be confused by all the manipulation and not notice the constant progression towards the predetermined goal.

  8. You made this unnecessarily complicated.
    It's a weighted scalar against each group of votes with a goal of an average at zero to not be immediately suspicious.
    Writing it out would be two polynomial equations with variables numbering the 80 or 2231 or whatever and votes in each variable with the scalar in front of each and the equations balance.

  9. So the software applies vote ratios to counties and moves every few hours to avoid suspicion. Still don't know why it's significant that certain ratios appear. No offense, but a judge or senate won't sit there listening to a 2 hour summary.

  10. Reversing any loss of precision (floor/ceil/cast/etc) is only accomplished through observation of any visible side effects.

    For example, if I have two pencils, but one is half worn, I technically only have 1.5 whole pencils. If I then say, "well, I can't half a whole pencil, so I only have ONE pencil," I have just lost precision…. but if I say I used this pencil to write this short novel, but it's unused, then we have to infer that there was a different pencil that was partially, or wholly, used.

    The only way for me to ascertain the loss of precision in the statement is to figure out how much of a pencil would be needed to write the short novel – this would give me a tight range, say 0.4~0.6 of a pencil to write the novel, so I'd estimate that I actually have 1.5 pencils worth of writing capability.

    To a layman this seems odd because they don't lose that precision in real life, but to a programmer it's very natural.

  11. Laymans' version? Dude, I'm a physicist and I don't know what the fuck you're rambling about. I'm kinda surprised, to be honest, that "sacred geometry" didn't make a cameo in this video. MS paint, however, was perfectly fitting.

  12. Great work. Your challenge will be putting it into an 'executive summary' with layman's language for the Courts. You need to assume you have only 3 minutes to present this to a Court in a way even the lowest common denominator can understand it.

  13. Wow, take a bunch of precincts that have the same percentage of winning and losing votes (after rounding the crap out of the numbers) then claim that there had to be an "algorithm" that created those numbers,…but only in those selected areas, not in the entire state. Yeah how about x/y=z…well duh, I'm totally impressed. It's easy to come up with the numbers when you already know the answer you want. Gee-zus, his rounding errors alone are greater than the actual vote count difference. All this video does is explain "the wheel" but it does nothing to explain his methodology…and if you watch that 2+ hour rambling discourse of his where he gets lost in his explanation and eventually basically says (around the 1 hour and 46 minute mark) "trust me but I can't explain how I did it" you'll never get there either.

  14. Ed, thanks so much for the work you're doing. You've already cracked the code on the pattern recognition of Dominion's "Fraction Magic". I'd like to throw out a few ideas that might further corroborate your work.

    The more I thought about the ratios you point out, the more I questioned why they are always whole numbers in the numerator and denominator. I've worked with number theory a lot, and have intimate knowledge of Euler transforms. The more I thought about the behavior you were identifying, the more I went back to one of the tenets of software development – "every problem can be solved by one degree of separation". Simply put, I believe there is an abstraction (caching mechanism in the software) that explains the whole number ratios in a more simplistic manner, while considering in a potentially easier manner to code into a scalable software application. This becomes more obvious if the total number of ballots is known before applying the "Fraction Magic" algorithm, which I would assert is the case in all these November elections.

    What if every precinct that was intended to be manipulated was broken up into 100 vectors/hash tables? Then the 100 vectors/hash tables per precinct could consider the ballots as a cache/buffer in memory, while grouping them in a manner that will result in the desired percentages presented as outbound totals in real-time. The inbound per vote registration becomes easier to categorize/synthesize, and the calculations to ratio position the output becomes a mechanism that simply moves one vote from a single collection to another, positive or negative in reference.

    If the inbound is broken up into virtual buckets of 100 per precinct, it makes the math, and the outcome "facade" much easier to code as the math becomes much easier to calculate in real-time. Such a scheme would also explain how the transferred ratios between collections are always whole number numerator/denominator fractions instead of decimal ratios, even if the ongoing representation is a decimal percentage output that changes as calculation continues.

    Potential reporting software designed to identify these patterns could simply scan each voting update, and record any unique/new whole number numerator/denominator fractional ratio as a "flagged" update. Then the flagged update could be tracked until it is switched to another precinct (or group of precincts) in a short time frame as you have identified. Might make the analysis you are performing a bit easier for nationwide or down ballot analysis as a software reporting application.

    If you'd like me to explain in more detail, please let me know. I'm just considering potential coding constructs that may serve to validate your observations, and hopefully expose more patterns to correlate your effort in the process.

  15. This may be the layman's explanation but you'll have to tighten it up to an even simpler version so the average person can understand.

    Try using examples outside of statistics if you can even do that. For example, if you can use common objects or food or perhaps even a short story? When dealing with a complicated subject such as this, you really need to break it down to almost a kindergarten level. 🤣

    I watched your entire presentation but felt more confused than watching 25 minutes of your algorithmic version. Not sure how that's possible but it is what it is.

    In either case, I want to let you know that I and I'm sure many others like myself really appreciate your hard work. You are a brave soldier fighting on the front lines and you deserve credit for your courage. Thank you!

  16. Hello Edward,
    I've been so inspired by your videos that I decided to create my own Dominion simulation. I'll create a web application that shows how an election in an example state (like PA) is rigged in real time. The goal is to demonstrate your math in a way that ordinary people can understand and use to fight for election integrity.
    I'll use Typescript and React. I'm good at programming but I'm not an expert in statistics like you are. Hopefully I'll be able to pull it off!

    The app will have two live maps: one one the top that shows what the election would look like to an unsuspecting observer, and one on the bottom that shows the shenanigans happening under the surface with Smartmatic. It'll show what precincts are seized, how many fake votes were printed, etc.
    Once I finish the project, I'll make it open source on Github/Bitbucket and create a website for everybody to look at it.

  17. I have ADHD. I need the cliff notes version of what happened in Atlanta. Bottom line, how many votes for stolen from Trump and given to Biden?

  18. At 25:35, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lowest number you can go with for an even number is not 2 – it's one. For Leaf 16, with 6 votes, you can do 1 vote on 13, 14, 15, and 1 vote on 17, 18, 19. Correct?

Loading…

0