@Pluto's Republic

You have an astonishing array of knowledge, especially in American history. Have you been on Jeopardy?

I'm amazed at the things she knows about and I once messaged her to see why that was. Love the facts from way back when that she brings here.

ETA

If they needed a diversion larger than normal, even larger than a Presidential election could provide, they must have something special planned this time. Do I know what it is? No. We can now be sure it will all be utter BS manufactured to keep your eyes off the real action. They clearly want you in these factional political arguments rather than seeing any truths.

This is a darn good question isn't it? Trump himself has been one big distraction after another, but what else could be in the planning process? The stage is set for martial law here by previous president's executive orders so might it be another economic crisis and then the bank bail ins? Having banks keeping people's money sure would create a lot of havoc. War with Iran would just be the continuation of the war of terror so I don't think that's it. Don't forget that every department of the government has bought lots and lots of bullets. Think that the social security office or NASA needs lots of bullets? The CDC? FDA? Anyone else want to take a guess at what could be in the pipeline?

#1.1.1

You have an astonishing array of knowledge, especially in American history. Have you been on Jeopardy?

Okay, I going to drop this in in hope that you might find it entertaining. What follows is an excerpt taken from a much longer PDF sent to me. It was written by a physicist whose work I am familiar with. Smart guy, and not really political. This was written about a month after the 2016 election. He was waiting for all the numbers to come in. He was unaware of the Russia Hoax until a month later. The final addendum refers to that.

Addendum, December 15, 2016:

The final popular vote is now in, and Hillary didn't win by 1.5%. She won by 2.1%. That's a very comfortable margin in a Presidential election, and — based on all past results and prior data — should have guaranteed an Electoral College win. If we combine that with data from recent polling, including exit polling, we have a slamdunk. Instead, we are told she will get only 43% of the Electoral College votes. That means she will win the popular vote by 2.1%, and lose the Electoral College vote by 14%. Again, not only has that never happened, it has never gotten close to happening. It is so far off the curve and so far outside of any statistical analysis it should be setting off alarms in mathematics departments and statistics departments all over the country.

Instead, I am being answered that it was bound to happen. I am being sent manufactured analyses from fake mathematicians, and they are telling me it is not so strange after all. They are finessing numbers to show me it could have been even worse. I say these analyses are manufactured because they always rely on the assumption that one candidate can win selected large states by huge amounts, while the other candidate wins selected large states by tiny amounts. Why can't that happen? Because real elections don't work that way. How do we know? Because real elections have never worked that way. Even stolen elections have never worked that way. The fact that it hasn't ever happened or even gotten close to happening should have been the first clue these fake mathematicians were ignoring basic facts.

Since this has never happened and never gotten close to happening, any logical person would assume the odds were very much against it. He or she would then study the numbers to see why the odds were very much against it. But no one is doing that, are they? Instead, they are spinning furiously to make it look normal. That by itself gives them away. Instead of asking rational questions of irrational numbers, they are bending over backwards to make those numbers look rational. That is the definition of anti-science. I know because I have been fighting anti-science for 15 years. I know what it looks like by long acquaintance. Let me give you some more reasons these numbers should look very unnatural to you.

• The 2.1% margin in the popular vote was matched in 1976, when Carter beat Ford. That election wasn't considered especially close, since Carter ended up with 297 Electoral votes. That's a 57 vote win. So we should have expected something along those lines for Hillary. We see a 2.1% popular win going with a 10% Electoral win.

• What about 1968? Nixon beat Humphrey by .7% in the popular vote, which is exactly three times closer. But he still won the Electoral vote by a huge amount: 56% to 35.5%. So we see a .7% popular win going with a 20% Electoral win. [**These numbers are also highly suspicious, but I won't go there here.]

• We are skipping landslides, so let's go back to 1960. Kennedy beat Nixon by just .17% in the popular vote. But that was still enough to win the Electoral College by a large amount: about 12%.

• Before that, we have to go back to 1916 for a close election. Wilson beat Hughes by 3.1% in the popular vote, and won the Electoral vote by only 4%.

What does this historical analysis of real US Presidential elections tell us? It tells us that when the popular vote is close, the candidate who won the popular vote is extremely likely to win the Electoral vote. If he doesn't win, he will lose the Electoral vote by a hair. In fact, the only time he didn't win was in 1876, 1888 and 2000, elections almost as fishy as this one.

The 1888 election is the only one that compares to this one at all. There, Harrison lost the popular vote by .8%, but won the Electoral vote by 16%. However, although this one is fishy, it is far less fishy as a matter of statistics than the current one. Why? One, because there were only 401 Electoral votes on the board. The lower the total number, the higher the probability of off-curve results. Two, and more importantly, back then the entire election could swing on one state, and it did. If Cleveland had won New York, he would have won the Electoral vote. The popular margin in New York was about 1%. So the Electoral margin of 16% is deceiving. The Electoral margin was 1% of one state.

I will be told the same can be said of the current election, where if Hillary had won Texas, say, it would have reversed the outcome in the Electoral College. True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go anywhere because she wasn't even close in Texas. If we give her enough popular votes to win Texas, her national popular vote gap goes up to around 3.5%. Or, four times larger than the gap in 1888. So, with a pool 26% larger, the 2016 election is about 400% farther off-curve than the election of 1888. Making the current election about five times less likely as a matter of statistics than the 1888 election. Don't get me wrong: I think the 1888 election was also stolen; I am just saying the 2016 election was stolen in a way that was about five times as obvious as the previous record.

To give you something to compare it to, it would be like someone beating Usain Bolt's world record time in the 100 meter dash with a time that was five times greater than the previous gap. He beat his own record by .11 in 2009, so multiply by five to get .55. So it would like someone running a 9.03 100m tomorrow. Would you be suspicious? Well, that's roughly how suspicious I am of the current election.

Those critiquing my analysis above have seized on my use of the word “impossible”. They say the current numbers aren't strictly impossible. Well, a 9.03 100m isn't strictly impossible, either, as a matter of pure math. But life isn't pure math. Life generally conforms to previous expectations and results, and when it doesn't we should at least do it the courtesy of being suspicious and demanding further proof. Given the current human body, a 9.03 time is impossible, so if we see a 9.03 tomorrow, we can assume someone tweaked reality in some way. When I see the current numbers in the election, I assume someone tweaked reality in some way. Those who don't even consider this possibility are the ones you should be looking at sideways, not me.

.

His statistical approach has more situational probability befitting a complex system, I think. It is unorthodox, but this and other related discussions I've read, strike me as persuasive. I'm starting to see the contextual variables that are missing from much [easily manipulated] statistical analysis [and polling]. We can do better with the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Entanglement added to the mix. He wrote The following addendum when he got wind of the Russia Hoax in late January 2017.

Addendum addendum: the big news this week is that Russia allegedly hacked the election in favor of Trump. I told you to be on alert for more hijinx, and they are already arriving.

Is there any chance Russia or Putin hacked the US election in any way? No. It is cover for something else. The controllers don't even need to hack actual machines anymore, since they can control the numbers more directly. As I said above, they just make them up out of thin air and then report them via the media.

It is all a virtual reality. There is no longer any connection between the voting machines and the numbers reported, so there is nothing for Russia or anyone else to hack. They would have to hack the report of the manufactured numbers between Langley and Google, for instance, or between Langley and CBS, in real time. There is no possibility that happened.

So what is this all about? It is difficult to say. If they needed a diversion larger than normal, even larger than a Presidential election could provide, they must have something special planned this time. Do I know what it is? No. We can now be sure it will all be utter BS manufactured to keep your eyes off the real action. They clearly want you in these factional political arguments rather than seeing any truths.

.

Since he has no idea of the things we on this site have discovered and the evidentiary distance we have traveled, I find his first impressions informative. He has, since, begun to pay attention to the political charade unfolding. He began investigating and including his discoveries in his work. He has also started having problems with his server, his emails, and his access.