密西根州选票的数据分析（全文２４页－有连结，此处只贴总结）。（网友辛迪16贴过 ）

Michigan Vote Analysis

https://www.scribd.com/document/486098384/Michigan-Vote-Analysis

Summary

Several nationally recognized statistical experts were asked to examine some 2020 Michigan voting records, and to identify anything that they deemed to be statistically signi?cant anomalies — i.e large deviations from the norm.

In the process they basically worked separately from other team members, consulted with other experts, analyzed the data they were given from di?erent perspectives, obtained some additional data on their own, etc. — all in a very limited time allotment.

Their one — and only — objective was to try to assure that every legal Michigan vote is counted, and only legal Michigan votes are counted.

The takeaway is that (based on the data ?les they were examining) these experts came to one or more of the following conclusions:

1. There are some major statistical aberrations in the MI voting records, that are extremely unlikely to occur in a normal (i.e. un-manipulated) setting.
2. The anomalies almost exclusively happened with the Biden votes. Time and again, using a variety of techniques, the Trump votes looked statistically normal.
3. Nine (out of 83) Michigan counties stood out from all the rest. These counties (see p 6) showed distinctive signs of voting abnormalities — again, all for Biden.
4. The total number of suspicious votes in these counties is 190,000± — which greatly exceeds the reported margin of Biden votes over Trump. (We don’t know how many of these are arti?cial Biden votes, or votes switched from Trump to Biden.)
5. These statistical analyses do not prove fraud, but rather provide scienti?c evidence that the reported results are highly unlikely to be an accurate re?ection of how Michigan citizens voted.

As stated in the Executive Summary, our strong recommendation is that (as a minimum):

the two worst of the nine abnormal MI counties have an immediate audited recount.

If the results of a carefully audited recount are that there is no significant change in voting results for those two counties (very unlikely), then the authors of this report recommend that we write off those county deviations as an extreme statistical fluke, and that the Michigan voting results be certified.

On the other hand, if the results of a carefully audited recount are that there are significant changes in voting results for either of these two counties, then the authors of this Report recommend that (as a minimum) that the next seven (7) statistically suspicious counties also have an audited recount, prior to any certifying of the Michigan voting results.

 

所有跟帖： 

• 我索性把全文贴这里，方便有兴趣的读者。 -法眼- ♂ (1835 bytes) () 11/30/2020 postreply 19:46:11

• 谢谢，薯爷应该来分析 -雪白小兔- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/30/2020 postreply 20:28:40

• 不客气。 这是依据数学统计的分析，有相关知识的人也可研究、评论。 -法眼- ♂ (0 bytes) () 11/30/2020 postreply 20:41:26