Lindell's New Film Out Today Shows Scientific Proof Election Was Stolen

  • Join War Room Forum!

    Welcome Deplorable! Please take a moment to Sign Up for a free account so you can join in on the LIVE CHAT and forum DISCUSSIONS.

    Sign Up    Live Chat Login


WillNeverVoteDemocrat

Well-known Member
Feb 15, 2021
246
397
63
Honestly, I could not make it through the video. As I said after watching the first video he produced, Lindell needed someone more polished to host the video. He comes off as an uneducated buffoon on speed during this video, and his constant interruptions of the expert are a real turn-off. If he would have just sat there and shut up so we could hear the expert explain things, it would have been watchable. I know that election fraud was perpetrated for sure. He should have had Dr. Peter Navarro host it or perhaps Dr. Patrick Byrne - credible, educated individuals who speak well.
 
D

doodle9298

Guest
Honestly, I could not make it through the video. As I said after watching the first video he produced, Lindell needed someone more polished to host the video. He comes off as an uneducated buffoon on speed during this video, and his constant interruptions of the expert are a real turn-off. If he would have just sat there and shut up so we could hear the expert explain things, it would have been watchable. I know that election fraud was perpetrated for sure. He should have had Dr. Peter Navarro host it or perhaps Dr. Patrick Byrne - credible, educated individuals who speak well.
I typically ignore posts I find insensitive,insulting and offensive, so I read and ignored your post. I returned because I want you to know that you are wrong to refer to Mike Lindell as an 'uneducated buffoon on speed.' Mike has fought demons most people can't imagine. He prevailed over the demons of addiction. Saying he is 'on speed' only make you look like an uninformed and insensitive buffoon! Mike doesn't deserve the wrath of your 'honesty.' Shame on you.
 

Charleselynn

New Member
Feb 15, 2021
6
20
3
Honestly, I could not make it through the video. As I said after watching the first video he produced, Lindell needed someone more polished to host the video. He comes off as an uneducated buffoon on speed during this video, and his constant interruptions of the expert are a real turn-off. If he would have just sat there and shut up so we could hear the expert explain things, it would have been watchable. I know that election fraud was perpetrated for sure. He should have had Dr. Peter Navarro host it or perhaps Dr. Patrick Byrne - credible, educated individuals who speak well.
Catorgorizing him as an “uneduacated buffoon” is typical rhetoric of the left. Listen to the “signal not the noise”—the facts presented. I am personally thankful that a common person not an intellectual elite is driving this mission—one of us!!!!!!!!!
 

Prophet

Member
Jan 22, 2021
14
61
13
I typically ignore posts I find insensitive,insulting and offensive, so I read and ignored your post. I returned because I want you to know that you are wrong to refer to Mike Lindell as an 'uneducated buffoon on speed.' Mike has fought demons most people can't imagine. He prevailed over the demons of addiction. Saying he is 'on speed' only make you look like an uninformed and insensitive buffoon! Mike doesn't deserve the wrath of your 'honesty.' Shame on you.
great post!
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,459
1,385
113
Once again Lindell oversells his evidence.

I appreciate his life story and overcoming his demons. But I agree with the first poster wrt the presentation.

The expert was just starting to explain about how he connected the 2010 census to registration numbers, and Lindell interrupted him for 15 MINUTES. I was wondering if he was going to be allowed to get back to the point.

If you watched the video because you really like Mike Lindell, it probably doesn't annoy you. But I wanted to see the evidence, and I don't really want to sit through 45 minutes of Lindell's chatter to see 15 minutes of substance.

2 takeways-

The correlation of the 2010 census to voter registrations is interesting, but I don't know how significant it really is. More information about the county-level population growth (or decline) over the time frame is needed. The apparent fact that 2020 voter registrations can be divined from the 2010 census deserves further investigation, but it's not a smoking gun.

The demographic breakdown of votes cast- what he calls the "key" to the algorithm- is likewise interesting. but not dispositive in my mind. Same with the fact that one "key" does not work outside that State. Election laws vary State to State, and election laws affect turnout, so it doesn't surprise me that one "key" would not work everywhere.

While it's somewhat unexpected to have the age demographic splits match perfectly for every county, I can't tell if it's genuinely significant, because I don't know the margin of error in his calculations. I would expect very small counties should show more divergence from the State averages than the large counties, but I'd need to see the data in granular form to see if there's anything there.

Overall I came away disappointed. I was hoping for something more substantive. If you're going to claim irrefutable scientific proof, it should be IRREFUTABLE. This doesn't rise to that level.

Let the flaming begin- but if I can't use this video to convince a knowledgeable skeptic, I should not use it to convince myself. There is some 20/20 hindsight being applied. He can't generate his "prediction" of votes cast, without first knowing the percentages of turnout and registrations- and if you look close, they change for each jurisdiction to make his predicted curve match the actual.

Could it show any other result? I feel like this is suspicious, and deserves a lot more analysis, but what is presented in this video is not conclusive, to me anyway.

To sum up his presentation:

He shows a very close correlation between the 2010 census and voter registration databases.
He shows that voter turnout by age parallels voter registrations by age, and parallels the 2010 census age demographics after that data is shifted 10 years forward to 2020, and adjusted for mortality.
He shows that voter turnout, by age group, is uniform throughout a State, but not nationally.

This is not the Kraken. The Kraken has to convince someone who does not want to believe, but also will not deny irrefutable facts. This video does not accomplish that.
 

Timothy Bair

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,247
1,746
113
timothybair.wordpress.com
Honestly, I could not make it through the video. As I said after watching the first video he produced, Lindell needed someone more polished to host the video. He comes off as an uneducated buffoon on speed during this video, and his constant interruptions of the expert are a real turn-off. If he would have just sat there and shut up so we could hear the expert explain things, it would have been watchable. I know that election fraud was perpetrated for sure. He should have had Dr. Peter Navarro host it or perhaps Dr. Patrick Byrne - credible, educated individuals who speak well.

Once again Lindell oversells his evidence.

I appreciate his life story and overcoming his demons. But I agree with the first poster wrt the presentation.

The expert was just starting to explain about how he connected the 2010 census to registration numbers, and Lindell interrupted him for 15 MINUTES. I was wondering if he was going to be allowed to get back to the point.

If you watched the video because you really like Mike Lindell, it probably doesn't annoy you. But I wanted to see the evidence, and I don't really want to sit through 45 minutes of Lindell's chatter to see 15 minutes of substance.

2 takeways-

The correlation of the 2010 census to voter registrations is interesting, but I don't know how significant it really is. More information about the county-level population growth (or decline) over the time frame is needed. The apparent fact that 2020 voter registrations can be divined from the 2010 census deserves further investigation, but it's not a smoking gun.

The demographic breakdown of votes cast- what he calls the "key" to the algorithm- is likewise interesting. but not dispositive in my mind. Same with the fact that one "key" does not work outside that State. Election laws vary State to State, and election laws affect turnout, so it doesn't surprise me that one "key" would not work everywhere.

While it's somewhat unexpected to have the age demographic splits match perfectly for every county, I can't tell if it's genuinely significant, because I don't know the margin of error in his calculations. I would expect very small counties should show more divergence from the State averages than the large counties, but I'd need to see the data in granular form to see if there's anything there.

Overall I came away disappointed. I was hoping for something more substantive. If you're going to claim irrefutable scientific proof, it should be IRREFUTABLE. This doesn't rise to that level.

Let the flaming begin- but if I can't use this video to convince a knowledgeable skeptic, I should not use it to convince myself. There is some 20/20 hindsight being applied. He can't generate his "prediction" of votes cast, without first knowing the percentages of turnout and registrations- and if you look close, they change for each jurisdiction to make his predicted curve match the actual.

Could it show any other result? I feel like this is suspicious, and deserves a lot more analysis, but what is presented in this video is not conclusive, to me anyway.

To sum up his presentation:

He shows a very close correlation between the 2010 census and voter registration databases.
He shows that voter turnout by age parallels voter registrations by age, and parallels the 2010 census age demographics after that data is shifted 10 years forward to 2020, and adjusted for mortality.
He shows that voter turnout, by age group, is uniform throughout a State, but not nationally.

This is not the Kraken. The Kraken has to convince someone who does not want to believe, but also will not deny irrefutable facts. This video does not accomplish that.
When you start paying for the films...by all means play Director all you like. ;)
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,459
1,385
113
When you start paying for the films...by all means play Director all you like. ;)
Fair criticism, but doesn't change the state of affairs. Lindell is a good guy, but I can't use this video to convince someone if I'm not convinced myself.

It isn't more arm waving we need right now- it's hard evidence. If the expert had been given the opportunity to fully and methodically present his case, we might have more to go on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MEAN BUSINESS

Timothy Bair

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,247
1,746
113
timothybair.wordpress.com
Fair criticism, but doesn't change the state of affairs. Lindell is a good guy, but I can't use this video to convince someone if I'm not convinced myself.

It isn't more arm waving we need right now- it's hard evidence. If the expert had been given the opportunity to fully and methodically present his case, we might have more to go on.
I got the evidence out of the presentation...which this expert has presented many times...Mike is clearly eager but Dominion has grabbed hold of a honey badger and they know it..
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,459
1,385
113
I got the evidence out of the presentation...which this expert has presented many times...
Can you summarize for me? I watched it several times and froze the video so I could examine the numbers in as much detail as possible, and I red-teamed the presentation mentally as I do for all such evidence.

I posted my takeaways, what did I miss?

I see two tight correlations, but correlation is not causation. And in both cases there is a plausible "non-fraud" explanation. That explanation may or may not be correct- the same analysis on previous elections would tell.

Do previous elections show the same correlations between the prior census and voter registrations? Do the turnout percentages by age track the same way across counties? If they do, it weakens the case. If they do not, it strengthens the case.
 
Last edited:
M

MYA

Guest
I understood the renowned scientist/professor to say that the 2010 census was used in every county throughout our nation. It’s the algorithmic smoking gun that supports the data sheet evidence showing the machine IP addresses in America and overseas, date/time stamps, number of votes stolen from Trump/added to Biden, and country of origin, including the CCP, who coordinated the big steal. By the way, we All have demons before being saved through the blood of Christ, so no finger pointing. We are born in the image of Adam, and this temporary life is our ‘second and final chance’ to accept Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, High Priest, and King. Once we accept Him, His Holy Spirit dwells inside our minds and hearts, guiding us on the narrow path to our eternal home. <><
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timothy Bair

Timothy Bair

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,247
1,746
113
timothybair.wordpress.com
Can you summarize for me? I watched it several times and froze the video so I could examine the numbers in as much detail as possible, and I red-teamed the presentation mentally as I do for all such evidence.

I posted my takeaways, what did I miss?

I see two tight correlations, but correlation is not causation. And in both cases there is a plausible "non-fraud" explanation. That explanation may or may not be correct- the same analysis on previous elections would tell.

Do previous elections show the same correlations between the prior census and voter registrations? Do the turnout percentages by age track the same way across counties? If they do, it weakens the case. If they do not, it strengthens the case.
What is posited as I understand that the census statistics from 2010 match virtually EXACTLY the alleged vote fraud...and stats in Nov election...a mathematical impossibility imo A false premise would be to assume there is correlation without proof as posited. Correlation doesn't IMPLY causation in this instance...it PROOFS the mathematical equation...with actual voter census names imo...an important and critically determinative distinction in statistics imo
 

Attachments

  • CausationvsCorrelation.jpg
    CausationvsCorrelation.jpg
    72.7 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Prophet

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,459
1,385
113
What is posited as I understand that the census statistics from 2010 match virtually EXACTLY the alleged vote fraud...and stats in Nov election...a mathematical impossibility imo A false premise would be to assume there is correlation without proof as posited. Correlation doesn't IMPLY causation in this instance...it PROOFS the mathematical equation...with actual voter census names imo...an important and critically determinative distinction in statistics imo
I just can't see that. The census numbers are the census numbers. We can treat that as empirical.

Some portion of the population that is represented by the 2010 census voted in this election. That cannot surprise anyone. So the question becomes what is that portion of the population that is still here 10 years later, and are registered voters?

He shifted the census numbers by 10 years. That's fine, we are looking at the same people, but it's 10 years later. He adjusts for mortality, that's also fine. 70 year old people have a higher mortality rate than 60 year old people. That's a legitimate correction to make.

He took those numbers and subtracted 4% to correct for the percentage of the voting-age population that are ineligible voters.

The result is the portion of the 2010 population that are 2020 registered voters, and it was pretty close to the SOS database of registered voters in PA, so his corrections appear to be reasonable..

It is bound to be SOME percentage- that number will not be zero. Then he took his numbers and multiplied times the actual election turnout, That put the curves on top of each other.

This does not surprise me, it's what I would expect to see if his number of registered voters is accurate,

.If he used a different turnout number, the curves would still be parallel, but they wouldn't be on top of each other any more. He cannot predict total votes if he does not know the turnout percentage. That is an "after the fact" number.

It's a quantitative analysis, not a qualitative one. It does not imply fraud until it can be shown to be an outlier to all previous elections.

Will the same adjustments made to the 2000 census reflect registrations in the 2008 election? If it does, then it may nothing more than a novel way to estimate registered voters in a county.

This kind of analysis hasn't been done before to my knowledge, so it's hard to judge if it's really saying anything other than "here is my formula to predict registered voters based on the previous census".

FWIW.
 
Last edited:

GaryRitter

Well-known Member
Feb 25, 2021
147
262
63
Honestly, I could not make it through the video. As I said after watching the first video he produced, Lindell needed someone more polished to host the video. He comes off as an uneducated buffoon on speed during this video, and his constant interruptions of the expert are a real turn-off. If he would have just sat there and shut up so we could hear the expert explain things, it would have been watchable. I know that election fraud was perpetrated for sure. He should have had Dr. Peter Navarro host it or perhaps Dr. Patrick Byrne - credible, educated individuals who speak well.
I agree. The material was compelling but Mike kept jumping all over the message. Steve was a film director. He should set Mike up with a pro to present the data
 
M

MYA

Guest
I just can't see that. The census numbers are the census numbers. We can treat that as empirical.

Some portion of the population that is represented by the 2010 census voted in this election. That cannot surprise anyone. So the question becomes what is that portion of the population that is still here 10 years later, and are registered voters?

He shifted the census numbers by 10 years. That's fine, we are looking at the same people, but it's 10 years later. He adjusts for mortality, that's also fine. 70 year old people have a higher mortality rate than 60 year old people. That's a legitimate correction to make.

He took those numbers and subtracted 4% to correct for the percentage of the voting-age population that are ineligible voters.

The result is the portion of the 2010 population that are 2020 registered voters, and it was pretty close to the SOS database of registered voters in PA, so his corrections appear to be reasonable..

It is bound to be SOME percentage- that number will not be zero. Then he took his numbers and multiplied times the actual election turnout, That put the curves on top of each other.

This does not surprise me, it's what I would expect to see if his number of registered voters is accurate,

.If he used a different turnout number, the curves would still be parallel, but they wouldn't be on top of each other any more. He cannot predict total votes if he does not know the turnout percentage. That is an "after the fact" number.

It's a quantitative analysis, not a qualitative one. It does not imply fraud until it can be shown to be an outlier to all previous elections.

Will the same adjustments made to the 2000 census reflect registrations in the 2008 election? If it does, then it may nothing more than a novel way to estimate registered voters in a county.

This kind of analysis hasn't been done before to my knowledge, so it's hard to judge if it's really saying anything other than "here is my formula to predict registered voters based on the previous census".

FWIW.
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,459
1,385
113
Why don’t you ask the scientist in the film your questions?!
Because he is not available to me, and this thread, on this discussion board is.

Why the snark? I critiqued the video. I watched it closely, numerous times. I have familiarized myself with most of the available data sources, and downloaded the Emerson feed to my computer for my own analysis.

I've seen our side misinterpret this data before. That is not helpful, imho.

There will be a reaction to this video from analysts on the left. I think it's worthwhile to anticipate their response..It's called red-teaming, and our side would be well-served to do it more often.

So I look at our "proofs" with a critical eye because our enemies will do the same. If I cannot anticipate their response, I am flying blind. So I look I look for answers to the objections that I WOULD RAISE if the shoe was on the other foot.

That is what I am doing here. I am asking the board if they see some flaw in my reasoning, or if I am missing something important.

There is a very disturbing undercurrent here that people who don't toe the line exactly on every detail don't belong here. You guys prefer an echo chamber? You are afraid to challenge your own biases?

I do not, and I am not. When I find myself wrong on something, I am just fine with it. It's an opportunity to learn. You don't learn anything when you are right. I want to know what I am not seeing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NvEric

War Room Live Chat

Support War Room With a Small Donation
Donations pay for increased server capacity, Live Chat and patriots/causes that appear on the show.

Hey Deplorable! Join us...

Never miss out. Join in on all that our community as to offer!

Sign Me Up!

War Room Podcast

War Room Live Chat