you can play with the distribution and see when Benford's law applies and when it doesn't

I would say for me, what I would need to be convinced that there was widespread election fraud would be sworn witness testimony that HAS to be in line with the observed vote counting data. Further, there should be a pattern across several states in which the witness testimony and voting data all coincide with each other.

if you try to apply Benford's law to any narrow distribution, it won't work

also, it requires more than "69 samples" to work

I'll give this guy a watch when I have time

so american prosecutors and other LEO agencies branded this as a mathematical law to justify building cases against corporations and dictating foreign policy? then suddenly after nov3 2020 it was no longer a reasonable or valid indicator ?

wouldnt surprise me honestly

no

It people coming up with excuses after the fact. Again affidavits mean nothing If they can’t be proven true or false. You don’t get in trouble for something than can’t be observed or verified. So far that is all what the affidavits claim. @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

Thabks! And let me know because you do seem knowledgeable.

But this vid goes into what you vring as counter

it is called "law" colloquially, it isn't an actual mathematical law

yeah so american officials branded it as a law?

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire Not necessarily across states. They could have targeted different states in different ways. Anyone could have, actually. Point being, each one could be stand alone methodology.

I think in order for one to clear themselves of ideologically driven opinions, they need to identify what specifically would be needed to change their opinion

nothing, these people are the actual drones they claim we are

No, it isn't a mathematical law, nor is it a legal law. It is a colloquial law, like Murphy's law, or Betteridge's law, or Godwin's law

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire Ok I see now. Court ruling.

He does way more than just benfords law as well.

I was about to reference Godwin's law for the meme.

@Maw, you just advanced to level 24!

I agree it’s possible different states would have different fraud methodology, and that’s fine, but it wouldn’t necessarily convince me there was widespread election fraud alone

!rank

This means you have no life 😛

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire That was my point. It's not a necessary component of 'proof'.

I thought you had retaken your rightful spot... @Maw

its been used to initiate probable cause in the past https://www.wsj.com/articles/accountants-increasingly-use-data-analysis-to-catch-fraud-1417804886 it was only controversial once it was applied to US politics

🤔 Leap in logic fallacy

There have been proven cases of voter fraud before. If you make the fantastical claim of wide spread voter fraud you would have to prove it. Like I said the affidavits don’t mean anything is they can’t be verified. @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

It can be used to initiate probably cause perhaps, but someone who has actually studied the _math_ (as I have) will understand that it will just give false-positives for fraud if you use it on any distribution that is narrow

Spears doesn’t understand math or understands benfords law

go tell people sitting life in prison that affadavits mean nothing

That’s fair. I could challenge you on that, and reference a handful of court rulings in which justice was indeed not served, but it’s a reasonable spot to be in if you don’t have access to all the information.

🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

Affidavits that can’t be proven are worthless @SPEARS you can’t convict someone on a affidavit alone

And how would you verify the affidavits?

Benford's law is used as a means to show irregularities worth investing more time into investigation.

It's by no means an adequate tool of proof.

if anyone is interested in actually _trying_ benford's law on random normal distributions, see here: https://observablehq.com/@realazthat/benfords-law/2

the only way to get it to work is to raise the sigma

Well In some cases you can’t . Some lady say she saw something. You can’t prove that false or true unless there were camera present or something @AdvanceManExtraordinaire