Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PeterNSteinmetz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
Cool Places to Fly / Re: OshKosh 2022
« on: July 22, 2022, 04:46:35 PM »
Now at Osh until very early Wednesday morning. Row 93 in Vintage right by the road. The orange Cardinal.

Cool Places to Fly / Re: OshKosh 2022
« on: July 02, 2022, 03:44:42 PM »
If you see me, give me a wave. I’ll be playing in traffic.

We'll be looking for you.

Cool Places to Fly / OshKosh 2022
« on: July 01, 2022, 08:25:16 PM »
Who is going to OshKosh this year and which dates? My son and I plan on being there 7/22 - 7/26.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: July 01, 2022, 09:52:51 AM »
But Pete will have to speak for himself.

As you know, I don't speak to posters like Number7 or even read their posts as they engage in name calling. It is not only a logical fallacy, but also rude and inappropriate in this context.

Happy to discuss the issues if raised by other posters who don't engage in those errors. But I think you have it about right. And thanks for the more accurate analyses and appraisals.

BTW, I was going to suggest Rush that if you have the time, that you try and write down a good objective summary of what you have found and analysis on this question. As we've discussed here before, it doesn't seem like anything like that is out there or readily accessible. I think you could do a rather good job and I, for one, would be very interested to read it.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 04:00:50 PM »
Examples are:

Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than once

Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.

What are the processes to insure integrity?

Which are the converse for your apparent belief that the elections were perfectly fine

Show how ballot counts were incorrect

etc etc

oh, btw, apparently you are making some rather bold assumptions regarding my belief.

Bob, maybe we are making a little progress here, not sure.

So do you then wish to say that it is not your belief that the election was somehow stolen? Or in the alternative, that your belief is that there was not fraud at a sufficient level to affect the outcome?

Please clarify. No point in debating an inadvertent straw-man.

Spin Zone / 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 03:16:56 PM »
What you think I believe does not make it so.  Nor does it change the facts wrt the methods used, if any, to establish ballot counting process integrity.

If you are unable to engage in conversation of about it (because you don't have information, are unwilling to admit the process lacks integrity, or whatever reason), then I can't force you to do so.
Perhaps, but the fact that you are unable to name any evidence which could in principle falsify your belief, is rather compelling evidence that the belief is non-falsifiable. That is rather near the definition of such a belief.

Such beliefs are logically vacuous and it makes no sense to debate them. See link previously provided.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 02:32:47 PM »
Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than once

Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.

Where is the integrity?
Bob, I have reviewed your posts on this in this thread and I think is is fair and reasonable for me to conclude that you have a non-falsifiable belief that the election was somehow stolen.

So I’m sorry, but while you raise some interesting questions, I don’t discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs with them generally even in person, let alone on the internet.

That is mostly because it is not logically meaningful or interesting to do so. It also just tends to lead to acrimony.

Now I am happy to discuss what falsifiability is and why it is necessary generally or even how it applies to this case. And of course happy to discuss how scientific professionals discuss the evidence for and against a proposition.

But other than that it probably is best if I confine myself to politely acknowledging that you appear to have this belief and it appears you sincerely hold it.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 08:26:21 AM »

Consider quality control procedures that are supposed to be followed to insure that a particular vaccine production lot is correct and safe.

If the manufacturer fails to retain documentation showing that the quality control procedures were in fact followed, do you (A) assume that the procedures were followed and use the lot or (B) toss the lot?

In this hypothetical, we don't know if the procedures were followed or ignored, we don't know if anything bad happened during the production run.  The lot could be perfectly good, but we don't have proof.
Interesting points Bob. But what sort of evidence would persuade that the election was not “stolen” and that it was essentially a toss up based on small essentially random factors?

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 08:24:41 AM »
Peter, there’s no way I can take on an intellect like yours, but I’ll put my little oar in.

One of the reasons that over half the country now believes that President Trump won an overwhelming victory in 2020 is that multiple statistical improbabilities and implausibilities obviously occurred. Even without analyzing the validity of each individual vote, what happened to the count on November 3 could not have happened without an extreme skew in the universe. And people know when this occurs, even if they are uncomfortable admitting it.

These 2020 election impossibilities and implausibilities (I use both terms for a balanced approach) have been listed and analyzed on the internet ad infinitum over the last 18 months, and I’m sure you’ve seen them. Sadly, at this point much of the information had been buried by the narrative-controlled search engines and, as noted earlier in this thread, much information about the election is labeled “conspiracy,” “unfounded,” “baseless,” and the always effective but becoming less so,“right wing extremist.”

Your analysis strikes me as a little too dismissive and convenient, and asks for something that, for an event as massive as the 2020 election, with the subsequent silence and stonewalling by officials who should be safeguarding our elections, and vast media insistence on one narrative only, cannot be provided.

Becky, I appreciate your concerns. I think I have said before I would be very happy to see a written objective evaluation of all of these others factors and how they add up. So far I have never seen one posted.

Since you are friendly and polite, rather than rude and inappropriate, I will comment just a bit more on my overall perspective on this question.

I am old enough to remember the 2000 election as I imagine most of us here are. Remember all the debates about the rules for hanging chads etc? My view is predicated on an interesting follow on to that election. After the dust had settled, the major news organizations hired a separate re-analysis in the county in FL which was pivotal. They concluded that if the rules advocated by the Bush side had been adopted, then Gore would have won. And if the rules advocated by Gore side had been adopted, then Bush would have won! It was essentially a toss up decided by small random factors like the rules about counting chads in a county.

When there is little actual data on a subject, it is very easy for people to form and retain non-falsifiable beliefs. So my challenge stands.

Think about what would persuade you of the falsity of your current position and let us know. Then one can meaningfully debate the criteria and how the data fit in. Until then, it bears much resemblance to a religious debate.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 07:48:56 AM »
But I notice my prior question about non-falsifiable beliefs has gone unanswered by all of the posters here. Thus I will repeat the request.

I would challenge each of the posters advocating for the theory that the election was "stolen" to post some type of evidence, which could exist in principle, that would be persuasive for them that it was not stolen, and that what we had was simply the type of error and problems typical in an election and basically a tie which was decided by random factors. What would be persuasive of that?

If you can't think of any then you have a non-falsifiable belief. No evidence will ever be persuasive for you and so future discussion and debate is pointless. Please also note that I have already led the way by posting several concrete types of evidence that I think would be persuasive that the election was in fact fraudulent and have even suggested specific ways to use existing datasets to test that hypothesis.

See for a further explanation of this approach.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 30, 2022, 07:42:18 AM »
The trouble is wiki is biased. 

When an article calls anyone who questions the total security of the 2020 election “right wing conspiracy theorists” yet nowhere in all of wiki do you see those who question the 2016 election as “left wing conspiracy theorists” you know a source is not objective or trustworthy.

I will grant that it’s extremely difficult to find an objective source.

As you know, I am not really that interested in debating the quality of this source or that source generally. It just isn't as productive as looking at what a source actually has to say.

Now I understand that most people commenting on social media are not in a position to actually do that, give training and time available. That is why one sees so much debate about sources rather than actual facts. It is important to realize all sources have their inclinations and biases. That is why it is so important to actually look at and evaluate the facts. Focus on that rather than throwing around accusations of bias or lack of objectivity. 

If and when his methods are fully and accurately described, one can judge them. Until then, I won't hold my breath because of both the very light description of this 'kinematic analysis" which is available and the description of his past questionable business practices. But as I said, we can wait and see.

Spin Zone / 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 07:45:20 PM »
It will be interesting to see more of the report of his investigation. I don’t quite understand what he did from that description.

It will be best if the methods are fully described and reviewed and the datasets made publicly available. That way, anyone can double check.

May be too much to hope for given his background. But I guess it can be judged if more fully described by its merits.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 04:47:24 PM »
  So a 10,457 split.  Joe Biden "won" by 10,457.

 And yet in one county we have:

* 5K dead people voted in Maricopa county
* 10K voters used the same SS#
* 246,691 phantom voters on the Maricopa County voter rolls
* 235,367 ballots were changed by either a human or machine after they were tallied
* 10,943 ballots were counterfeit
* 94,737 more ballots were counted than the number of official ballots sent out in Maricopa County
* 120,867 ballots in Maricopa County had ghost votes on them from the use of Sharpies
* There were 11X more ghost votes that went to adjudication than the historical average
* 343,304 ballots were printed out of compliance
* 200,000 ballots were printed on non compliant paper
* 120,867 ballots were compromised by going to forced adjudication

  So with what's known above, wouldn't a recount be in order after removing the problematic ballots cited above?
Have they recounted? Certainly seems like a count of the problematic ballots cast for each candidate and then subtracting would be good. Essentially what I was suggesting above. But I have not seen that done. I do not understand why that was not done while examining each ballot with a magnifier, etc.

There are several possible explanations for a lack of report of that. One of which is that it effectively has been done and that the problematic ballots are distributed roughly like all the other ballots and so it makes no difference in the outcome. There are other more sinister possible explanations as well of course.

We don’t know and that does seem a pity given the effort which the GOP in this state has invested in re-examination.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 04:39:57 PM »
Go to 49 minutes into the video I posted and listen for a few minutes, then maybe come back here and give the explanation.
As I have noted before, I don’t generally watch videos for this sort of thing. That is mostly because I absorb information at least ten times more quickly reading and because it is very easy for videos to make a misleading impression. Sorry. If you have a written summary of the facts with references I can have a look.

I only watched 2000 Mules per Rush’s request as a sort of favor given our past discussions.

Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 03:04:30 PM »
  What was the vote total in Arizona for Biden, and the vote total for Trump?

Looks like 1,672,143 Biden, 1,661,686 Trump. It was rather close.

One of the things which has puzzled me with the recount is that I have not seen them tally the disputed votes in Maricopa County and then compute what happens if you throw out all of the votes in specific categories. Clearly some are more suspicious than others.

One could likely gain some insight by looking at the vote distribution in each category of problematic ballot. For example, do the 'dead people' tend to vote more for Biden? I have asked people involved in this why this has not been done and have never received an answer other than it would be a lot of work.

There is a mixture of preferences in the other counties (Tucson contains the University of Arizona for example) but those have not been examined in such detail.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29