Reporting on the US Election is less trustworthy since dubious organizations are putting out possibly faked findings.
The validity of Biden’s victory in the 2020 election is now under scrutiny by a majority of Americans—62 percent, to be exact. Furthermore, 6% are uncertain about the result. There is a considerable amount of evidence to back up this rising suspicion, including statements from whistleblowers, professional analysis, and verifiable evidence of electoral system flaws. Many American voters have found these disclosures to be compelling, bringing to light the alarming reality of pervasive political manipulation.
WATCH: Church Leaders PRAYED you’d never see this…
The relevance of the evidence found following the November 3, 2020 election has been further illuminated by independent analysts’ and auditors’ improving understanding of election system design. Notably, many Americans saw improbable changes to their vote totals, while others saw the phenomena of “F-Curves,” which mysteriously added hundreds of thousands of votes to important national elections. The F-Curve is significant in this context because it has come to be associated with manipulated elections and corruption.
The public relies heavily on “Election Night Reporting” or “(ENR)” to discern the election results. Recognizing that the ENR broadcast on election night is not a precise depiction of the real vote tallies is crucial. Instead, it is a tactic that affects how the electorate views the election outcomes. For fear of reaction from the media, political and judicial organizations sometimes hesitant to challenge the results since the television broadcasts are frequently seen as an undeniable truth.
Unveiling Concrete Evidence of Central Election Manipulation: Election Night Reporting.
Learn about several resources for ENR data, such as the websites of the state secretaries of state and cooperating counties. However, Scytl, a dominating business with headquarters in Spain, has the last say in election night reporting.
Scytl collects state ENR data and shares it with Edison Research, a partner of several news organizations that broadcast election results. Scytl-Edison provides the electricity for the vote-tracking tools that appear at the bottom of the screen on Fox and CNN during elections. On election night, the public will only receive information from these two corporate corporations, one of which has foreign ownership and operates beyond the purview of Congress.
During the Trump administration, the media was well aware of this blatant national security concern. The Guardian emphasized the peril of Dominion Voting Systems dominating tabulation and Scytl having complete control of ENR. Surprisingly, after Joe Biden became office, these worries vanished.
Infidelity Curve
Learn about stunning ENR (Election Night Reporting) abnormalities. Take a look at the astounding vote changes in Pennsylvania, where 19,958 votes unexpectedly switched from Trump to Biden. Find out what caused 351,000 votes to disappear from the ballot counts during Gavin Newsom’s recall election for governor of California. You’ll start to wonder about the credibility of our election process in light of these disconcerting irregularities.
TRENDING: Little-Known Trick Clears Blurry Eyesight
The datasets that showed a substantial gain in votes for one candidate while showing little to no increase for the other candidate are one of the most remarkable and puzzling occurrences connected to election integrity. Due to the peculiar shape these datasets take when charting the total votes cast for each candidate throughout the course of the election count, they have come to be known as the “F-Curve” or “Fraud Curve.”
In the ENR datasets, the F-Curve phenomena frequently caused losing candidates to win, frequently in the wee hours of the morning. Notably, this pattern was observed in key states including Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania when the vote-counting was suspended at 10 p.m. on November 3, 2020.
A white vehicle was seen carrying a significant quantity of votes far beyond the delivery date in a surveillance video taken at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan. This happened at the same time as an F-Curve started to show up in the ENR data from Michigan.
The crucial runoff election in Georgia on January 5th, 2021, was one of several contests throughout the 2020 and 2022 elections when the “F Curve” was found. Two U.S. Senate contests were decided by this election, and Democrats eventually won the White House, the House, and the Senate. The next year, outlandish candidates like John Fetterman, who ran for office in casual clothing despite having evident cognitive deficits, were successful in Pennsylvania against well-known public personalities. Similar to how Katie Hobbs used the misleading impression that ENR generated to get an uncertain victory in Arizona, Hobbs avoided discussions and hid from reporters in a restroom.
Local election authorities take criticism personally since they have a great deal riding on the results of the 2020 election. They fervently defend the manner they conducted their elections, and they firmly accept the talking points offered by the vendor regarding the decentralization of their operations. These talking points, however, have been totally disproven by the indications of centralized control over election night reporting.
After the 2020 election, several states revealed blatant anomalies. The Edison data revealed puzzling trends, particularly in Georgia and a few other states.
This is what we called “The Drop and Roll”:
The aforementioned study has been independently validated by many analysts, who found it to be present in a variety of races across several states. One of these analysts is Todd Buffington, a former systems consultant and MBA. He has found proof of the F-Curve in at least 20 different states. The similarity of the Scytl and Edison datasets has also been verified by Buffington.
Buffington’s examination of Georgia uncovers the errors in the ENR data, demonstrating that there was electoral fraud. Up to Line 371, it is evident from the statistics that Trump and Biden were in the lead. A batch of 5,972 more votes were added at Line 372, with a curiously high 91% in support of Biden. Concerns regarding the validity of the election were raised as a result of Biden’s total suddenly matching Trump’s due to this rapid spike. Please watch the following video for further details and proof:
Concerns have been raised about the most recent set of votes since they nearly match Trump’s total, but what follows in the ENR data is simply astounding. Despite several batches having an odd number of votes that should prevent an equal split, the next 55 batches of ballots maintain an exact 50/50 split between Trump and Biden. The veracity of the results is seriously questioned by this oddity.
It is exceedingly unlikely that these things could have happened by accident. What is happening in each electoral jurisdiction is not adequately reflected in the news on election night. The employment of an algorithm to automate and fractionize the votes is the only explanation that makes sense for these trends. Across the nation, this technique, often known as a proportional-integral-derivative control function or “PID control,” is in use.
The research of Draza Smith reveals the actual nature of ENR data as a means of influencing public opinion. Smith has investigated election night reporting and the data produced by the election system in great detail thanks to his skill in control systems and his experience as a senior cyber engineer at Sandia National Labs with a focus on Cyber and Grid Security. The results unequivocally show that ENR is completely automated in each of the 50 states. You may get a thorough analysis of Smith’s work here.
Smith applied a different strategy than what was used in the preceding section to analyze the ENR data. She looked at the ratio between the cumulative distribution of votes for each candidate rather than the repeated patterns of vote distribution in each batch. She determined what she refers to as the “Trump to Biden ratio” for the presidential contest, which is the proportion of Trump votes to Biden votes at each timestamp in the ENR dataset.
She saw something important after reviewing the data in a new way. The data’s curves were very similar to a function she regularly encountered while working as a control systems engineer. A proportional-integral-derivative control function, or PID control, is what this function is called.
PID control is a feature that is frequently seen in thermostats and cruise control systems for automobiles. To keep a system in a steady condition or gradually move it from one state to another is its goal. Imagine, for instance, that it is winter and your home is now 55 degrees. Your furnace will operate at full capacity to heat your home if you raise the thermostat setting to 68 degrees. The system will automatically change to a lower power level when the temperature approaches the target 68 degrees; once it slightly reaches the set point, it will then turn off. The furnace will eventually restart on a lower power level when the inside temperature drops below 68 degrees, raising it briefly over the set point before turning off once more. Until you adjust the thermostat’s set point, this cycle will continue.
Throughout the election, there were recurring trends in the Trump to Biden ratio in every state. Plotted against the election “count,” the ratio looks like a home’s temperature chart. Here are three instances of this tendency from various states. The ratio progressively grew until it above a particular threshold, then gradually declined to hover around that threshold for the duration of the count.
In the preceding part, we talked about how the Georgia presidential election’s consecutive batches had recurring percentages that looked improbable. The analysis conducted independently by Buffington and Draza Smith agrees completely. This explains why each contender received many repeated percentages during the count’s last phase, when the results were settling into their predetermined spots. The ENR data was not recording an additive process at the conclusion of the count. Instead, it concentrated on maintaining the fixed point by updating the overall number of votes and allocating the percentages to each contender. Sometimes, this led to candidates receiving separate votes.
Most states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Arkansas, exhibited behavior that was consistent with the example plots displayed above. The swing states, on the other hand, showed a unique behavior when they abruptly stopped counting in the middle of the night. They really acted in a manner that was strikingly similar to a PID control algorithm responding to a rapid change in the set point.
PID controlled behavior may be seen in the charts for the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia. All agreed on a Trump-to-Biden ratio that would have led to Trump winning the election. The swing states then “stopped counting.” When they began counting once more, they were getting close to a new set point, one that would result in Biden winning the swing states.
The ENR data showed a strange phenomenon during the pauses between set point changes in swing states. For a brief period, all fifty states had a total vote count of 0. Within the realm of electoral integrity, this phenomena is referred to as the “Edison Zero”.
Take a look at expert Jeff O’Donnell’s instructive dual graphic. It has two lines: a green line showing the Trump-to-Biden ratio and a yellow line showing the total cumulative votes cast nationwide. The crucial moments when Florida and Texas were called in Trump’s favor are also marked by vertical lines in yellow and blue. This graphic depiction offers insightful information about the mechanics of the election.
In plain English, it is thought that all the votes in the Scytl-Edison ENR system nationwide were removed and reset to zero after Florida and Texas were declared for Trump. Restoring the identical votes to the system took over two days. Before 10 o’clock, when all the swing states opted to “stop counting,” Trump was in the lead. Following the Edison Zero and the re-insertion of ballots that had purportedly already been tallied, Biden surged ahead and remained there until the end of the “counting.”
According to a number of specialists in the field of election research, Biden was initially expected to win Florida and Texas, but “Plan B” was implemented after Trump garnered more support than anticipated. For the election to go to Biden, this needed seven smaller states to: (1) cease counting; (2) recalculate the algorithms; (3) restart the ENR system; and (4) retabulate the votes in various percentages.
Shortly before the election, Bernie Sanders deftly presented “Plan B” to the public, fostering a sense of routine and expectation. In a late-night television interview, Sanders identified the precise states that will stop counting votes at 10 p.m.
After the Edison Zero, a number of states showed a distinct reset in their ratio control. Of them, Virginia is one:
Jeff O’Donnell has found more evidence of the algorithmic control over the ENR. This proof is based on county-level ENR data collected by Scytl-Edison during the presidential election in the counties of Chester and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, Fulton, Macomb, and Bibb in Georgia, and Chatham and Surry in North Carolina.
These seven counties’ ENR figures give a more thorough breakdown of the total number of votes cast, separating mail-in and in-person ballots. The videos that go along with this article show the erratic variations in vote totals for each category starting on November 3rd evening. The data shows an algorithm that is having trouble fitting itself inside the constraints.
The ENR data that Americans view on election night is an algorithm, not a straightforward representation of a true tally, according to all available evidence. Additionally, that algorithm is pre-configured with a specific point of percentages for each candidate that each state is predicted to reach by the end of election night. On November 3, 2020, Trump’s popularity outweighed whatever “Plan A” there had been, prompting a complete re-boot of the reporting of election results. This forced the swing states to all “stop counting” at 10 pm so that their set-points could be adjusted to give Biden a victory.
Careful preparation and calculations are needed to get ready for a national election theft. To rig an election, one must figure out how many fake ballots must be carefully inserted in various jurisdictions.
Regularly studying previous elections helps campaign strategists create winning tactics for their candidates. To ascertain the precise areas and quantity of voters that must be persuaded in order to win, consultants carefully examine past voting statistics at the county and precinct levels. They thoughtfully schedule campaign appearances, calls, and door-to-door campaigns in accordance. Additionally, the candidate’s campaign team regularly engages with supporters who indicated support for them during the campaign, reminding and enticing them to vote on election day and during early voting.
Elections can be accurately modeled, but they can also be inaccurately modeled. In order to steal an election, bad actors would need to know the following information, just like a candidate: (1) how actual voters intend to cast their ballots (pre-election polling); (2) the turnout during early voting and election day (gathered by internet-connected electronic pollbooks and distributed by SOSs); and (3) how those voters were casting their ballots (exit polling). They would also require (4) a system of censorship to stop any discussion of the problems voters saw with the election.
Utilizing online-connected electronic pollbooks makes it simple to get turnout statistics. Secretaries of State (SOSs) around the nation periodically disseminate this important information. There is a censoring system in place, and it is run by the Department of Homeland Security, according to recent findings from the US House Oversight Committee. Election authorities, well-known social media sites, and leftist organizations collude under this system.
Are there any people or groups gathering thorough pre-election and exit polling data for every county in the United States? To fill in the gaps left by computerized pollbooks and the Department of Homeland Security’s censoring techniques, we need this data.
I’d say there is.
The organization collaborating with Scytl we just talked about, the aforementioned Edison Research, has a total monopoly on Election Night Reporting. They claim on their website, “Edison provides the National Election Pool [ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News] with pre-election polling, early voter exit polling, Election Day exit polling, and tabulation of the national vote across every county in the United States.” (emphasis added)
They continue by explaining how Edison manages “election polling for international clients, most recently Venezuela, Iraq, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia.”
Both in Venezuela and Ukraine, there have been numerous claims of election fraud. High-ranking U.S. officials detailed their intention to remove a democratically elected president in Ukraine during a phone call in 2018. The fact that Edison has a presence in Ukraine is remarkable.
It is possible to correctly predict the number of ballots necessary in certain jurisdictions for early voting to significantly impact an election outcome by utilizing the enormous data gathered by Edison in all fifty states. Furthermore, by include the actual vote total as it develops on election day, these estimates may be continually updated and improved in real-time. Scytl’s control over the national flow of ENR data makes it feasible for them to regulate its pace and make the required modifications, even if it takes weeks to do so.
Early voting tampering has been shown by evidence. Notably, the election integrity group True the Vote carried out in-depth investigation and collected video surveillance and mobile phone data. By inserting thousands of votes into drop boxes around the nation, “ballot mules” were engaging in criminal activities, as shown by this evidence.
A new postal service record backs up a truck driver’s assertion that he sent several ballots from New York to Pennsylvania in the month of October 2020.
Election authorities and hostile “fact-checkers” have provided two unsatisfactory justifications for why ENR isn’t conclusive evidence of widespread election fraud and manipulation. Election officials’ first and most frequent justification is that the ENR is third-party information. So, without challenging the relevant statistics, they just declare: “We don’t know where it comes from! We are not responsible for what is in it!”
Software for transferring electoral data and displaying it on state websites costs thousands of dollars. The public views this data as the official outcome, thus the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) requires states to make sure it correctly reflects the election results.
When the percentage of votes processed in the Pennsylvania 2022 Primary mysteriously plummeted from 99 percent down to 95 percent on live TV, the second explanation is that ENR numbers are “projections” and susceptible to change, as reported by a Fox News reporter below:
In most places, it is now feasible to ascertain the number of votes cast within a 1 percent margin shortly after the polls close because to the extensive usage of computerized pollbooks nationwide. Therefore, a dramatic drop in the number of ballots processed by 5% raises serious concerns and raises the possibility of fraud. Given this new criterion for precision, Fox News erred by proclaiming Biden the victor of the 2020 presidential election on the basis of shaky estimates.
The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) prohibits the public reporting of election results using predictions or polls. The agreements that ENR providers have with states do not include this provision either. A reporter unwittingly revealed a stunning reality in a video. He unintentionally disclosed that the Scytl-Edison election figures are not the genuine results of the election.
Reporting on Election Night: Exposing Political Theater
Learn about the reality that exists behind the scenes of the meticulously planned Election Night Reporting program. Stop being duped; it’s time for Americans to face the truth and reject the cycle of elected officials.
Technical experts who have thoroughly analyzed the facts and reached the same conclusion as the author find the claim made in the last paragraph to be both bold and simple to understand. A compelling piece of evidence, however, that calls into question the objectivity of the “fact-checkers” and improperly swayed election officials may be discovered in the little state of Rhode Island. The Election Management System (EMS), which acts as a central computer for gathering and storing election data, allows the state to manage the whole election process despite its size.
Two graphs created by Draza Smith are displayed in the image below. The top graph shows how Trump and Biden’s votes gradually accumulated on televisions across America on November 3, 2020, and it reveals an intriguing pattern in Rhode Island that is comparable to other battleground states. The official election results, which were computer-stored, are shown on the bottom graph.
Despite the fact that there is no reason for these two graphs to differ, it is clear that they do. There are three possible justifications for this inconsistency: (1) tampering with the data aired on election night, (2) tampering with the data kept in the central computer, or (3) tampering with both the official results and election night reporting. Experts claim that the public is misled about our elections, with a preference for the third explanation.
Who Is Liable for Falsified ENR Data?
Consider Georgia.
exposing those responsible for the electoral statistics being presented as being partially fake.
It is significant to highlight that strong evidence of fraud in the ENR data is frequently disregarded by election authorities. They contend that because it is third-party data, they are not responsible for it. However, nine distinct states—Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia—are exempt from this justification. For its election night reports, Scytl has direct contracts with these states. This indicates that Scytl alone is responsible for providing the statistics seen on TV screens because it receives them straight from election authorities. The EAC interprets this to mean that those figures are in fact the responsibility of the state election officials.
Given that we have previously covered Georgia’s statistics in this post, let’s examine the election results provided by the Georgia Secretary of State. You will be sent to a Clarity Election website, which is legitimately owned by Scytl, by clicking on any election result since 2012. It’s vital to remember that Scytl is the owner of the ENR data for Georgia.
Given that Georgia’s data has previously been covered in this post, let’s examine the election results from the Georgia Secretary of State. You may visit a Clarity Election website, which is legally owned by Scytl, by clicking on the results of each election held since 2012 in any election results page. The ownership of the ENR data for Georgia is owned by Scytl, it should be noted.
Issues with the 2020 General and Runoff Election results are directly the fault of Scytl and the Georgia Secretary of State. Specifically, when taking into account the “Fraud Curve” data, Scytl may be quickly identified as a prominent player at blame.
Despite having indisputable evidence of election fraud and video footage of the theft, election integrity campaigners have acknowledged the great difficulties in contesting a rigged election after the official announcement. This demonstrates the enormous power that may be exerted on elections by limiting the announcement of winners. Unsettlingly, historical trends imply that later data is of little importance because, in most cases, nothing is done to remedy these problems.
After acquiring “100% of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the United States.” Scytl now controls not just the ENR reporting market but also the official election data in 26 states. “Clarity,” a collection of 8 software modules owned by SOE Software, is used in 900 different American jurisdictions. The truth of Scytl-Edison publishing what seems to be false ENR data on live television is horrifying. There are no restrictions on what they may do once they get access to the official election data.
Due to Luis Nabergoi-Puente, a Spanish citizen who worked as both a program manager for Scytl and Konnech’s worldwide technical director, the two companies had an unhappy relationship.
An election startup called Konnech is confident in claiming that many election offices across North America have used their software. However, alarming information suggests that they are keeping private data on poll workers in China and giving Chinese citizens full access.
True the Vote reveals Konnech’s questionable connections to China. The FBI in Washington, D.C., steps in as a result of the disclosure to stop the probe and accuse the committed researchers who discovered the finding.
In the US elections, Scytl, Edison, and Clarity have become powerful influences. But it’s still unclear where their influence came from. Their actions during the US elections also create concerns.
Listen to the Joe Hoft Show now on TNTRadio.live discussion about Scytl and other topics with Professor David Clements.
