You need to be honest: nothing will convince you. You smear The Epoch Times as “far-right,” and therefore feel justified in dismissing the entire case. But who else is talking about this.

These are not claims. This isn’t political. It’s an analysis of hard data, publicly available to anyone. The only question here is whether or not the data makes sense. They claim it does not, and they have the weight of long-established statistical analyses behind them. You’re welcome to analyze it differently, but you don’t. Instead you pretend that data is a social construct, malleable according to the dictates of whatever political ideology runs ones perception.

No one is asking you to prove or refute anything. Just explain the results that are on view and undisputed.

@Edgework One of the analyst said something that was incorrect. He said, relating to a graph, that the graph never goes down in the middle of a vote. That peaked my interest because i know that is not true and, as a statistician, so would he.
It depends on the type of analysis e.g Why does Bidens figures not follow Benford's law and Trump's does? Was it a scattershot type graph? Was a "Z" test included?
You state "Instead you pretend that data is a social construct, malleable according to the dictates of whatever political ideology runs ones perception."
You appear to be unaware that statistics can be manipulated to show anything you prefer if not carried out correctly.

The statistician does not show his data sets and does not reveal the code used to compile his figures. Both are critical to be able to check the validity of the data and offer any rebuttal or to concur with the findings.
He said that the data is publicly available but does not reveal the exact source. The source of the data is important as i'm sure you'll agree.
I did not use my own words to "smear" The Epoch Times. It is described as a far right media outlet in internet search results.
I did not dismiss the report, i merely pointed out the information lacking to double check the figures.
It is suspicious if relevant information is missing and the Epoch Times might be motivated to withhold such information.

"No one is asking you to prove or refute anything. Just explain the results that are on view and undisputed.

It is impossible to explain the results without all the necessary facts.

It could be proven if the crooked Courts would simply LOOK at the cases.

@Tanya Like I said... you have to prove it first.

@Lightman, @Tanya

It’s not about proof. It’s not about this person did that and those other people did some other shit.

The data simply exists. How it got that way is not under discussion here. The data either makes sense, according to long established principles if statistical analysis, or it doesn’t. No one in the video accused anyone of fraud. They simply point out that the data makes no sense, in a narrative of fair voting patterns.

They didn’t make it up. You can get the exact same data from The NY Times and process it yourself. But if there are counter explanations for how the data results got that way, they haven’t been offered.

@Edgework Oh dear.... I said they had evidence... I also said they have to prove it.... that is the issue.
This is what I said..
You have to prove it that seems to be the problem... no one has managed to prove anything yet.
Personally I hope it happens.

I didn't say it was a lie or made up...