“Evidence vs Proof”

It might seem like a trivial distinction at first, but it is really important when you are presenting an argument to distinguish between “evidence” and “proof.”

For example, the 2000 Mules documentary provides a small sampling of evidence and a compelling argument supporting the claim that a massive amount of ballot-stuffing took place in the 2020 general election.

Of course, I agree with their claim because I have also accumulated a massive amount of evidence which supports it. But it is incorrect to say that the documentary itself proves it. But it does provide additional very compelling supporting evidence.

The documentary was designed to reach the general listener and was time-constrained. Accordingly, they did not ‘dig into the weeds’ and show you all the data; they told you about it. You have to trust them and their methodology. (And I do.)

I think the most compelling argument they make that widespread ballot-stuffing took place is that many single individuals visited multiple ballot drop boxes, often in the wee hours of the night.

But allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment with an unlikely example. Imagine that there are single moms who make extra income after hours by picking up ballots from multiple care facilities and delivering them to multiple drop boxes. They would meet the criteria shown in the documentary, showing up in the video and the geolocation data.

One of the important lessons we learned during 2021 is that even the most compelling sounding evidence needs to be followed up with additional, in-person investigations. And near the end of the documentary the producers of 2000 Mules wisely made this very recommendation.

Be careful when you discuss the documentary with your friends to not overstate your argument; you actually decrease your own credibility when you do so. Encourage people to consider the very compelling evidence, and then let them come to their own conclusions.

You saw compelling evidence and heard a compelling argument, not proof.

The follow up investigations are going to be glorious!

The Otero County Commission heard from nation-state vulnerability expert, Jeff Lenburg.

Lenburg explains how Dominion machines are able to fill out a ballot, and make it look as if a human filled in the ballot oval.

No tabulating machine should both scan and fill out a ballot.

Yet, this highly vulnerable and exploitable feature exists in Dominion machines across the country.

This is unacceptable.

Get rid of the rigged election machines.

#NMauditforce

"Scientist/Teacher Temperament"

In my "Good Grammar" and "Evidence vs Proof" posts above, you can see my Scientist/Teacher temperament showing.

The enemy is constantly looking for ways to attack our movement. So I want our side to be as rigorous and credible as is feasible.

So the teacher in me likes "coaching" a bit. (I can hear my Dad nagging me to use good grammar.)

And my scientist side constantly nags me to be skeptical and self-critical. (Find the loopholes in the argument before the enemy exploits them.)

The scientific method is powerful, but it works by the inductive method; the best explanation for the best current best evidence. One never knows anything for sure; the next experiment has the potential to overturn the current paradigm.

Einstein said, "Any scientist who believes his own theory ceases to be a scientist."

So please interpret my posts as coaching and encouragement to everyone in the fight... nothing critical of anyone in particular.

I'm also preaching to myself!

"Proof"

As an expert witness in legal proceedings before I've learned that how a court looks upon evidence is different than how a scientist or mathematician does.

For example, evidence presented in court that is determined likely to be correct is considered to be proven factual. The legal is standard is "better than 50/50."

In real science, we acknowledge that we can never know anything for sure until we know everything.

And in Geometry, we insist that a "proof" must connect every dot, detailing every step of logic. Otherwise a theorem is not proven.

In real life, we make decisions all the time based upon our gut and intuition. We almost never require rigorous thinking before we make our decisions. It simply isn't feasible.

And all these modes of thinking can become confused in casual conversation, because we tend to use technical terms imprecisely.

Communication is tricky business.

"Eighty Dots"

..........,..........,..........,..........,..........,..........,..........,..........

I've listed eighty dots for you, with commas separating sets of ten.

Imagine that each dot represents one year of your life... how are you doing?

The first twenty years you are essentially growing up.
During the next twenty you typically pursue a career and raise a family.
The next twenty you collect wealth and plan for retirement.
The last twenty you need to give back. To your God, your family, and your country.
(If you happen to get twenty more extra dots, then you are luckier than most.)

I turn 61 tomorrow. Most of my dots were enjoyed in a country where I could live fairly free. And America has been very good to me. Instead of serving in the military, I was blessed to go to college and university on scholarships and to pursue a career in science. So now it's my turn to serve my country.

Especially because the last few dots have been devastating to individual liberty; America is in crisis.

Sounds rewarding and exciting! My next twenty dots spent serving my God and my country, fighting evil and to restore liberty for my children.

God willing.

Reminder to self…

Note to self…

"Arizona, Part I"

YouTube deleted so many of my early videos...

Since I am going to be in Arizona on Sunday, I uploaded these slides from my first Arizona analysis in 2021.

A new, updated report is imminent!

https://rumble.com/v14mhk1-arizona-report-slides-april-2021-dgf.html

"Computer Algorithms"

Because I grew up with them, I understand modern computers intimately. I've built them at the transistor level, programmed the earliest chips in machine and assembly code, and learned dozens of computer languages and programs over the years.

So when I was asked to investigate the massive election fraud that took place during the 2020 General Election, it should come as no surprise that I recognized several computer algorithms at work. And because I am a physicist and enjoy 'swimming' in massive sets of data, it is also not surprising that I was able to recognize several patterns that enabled me to work backwards, figuring out several of the computer algorithms that were manipulating our elections.

But early on, I learned that most people could not understand my methodology and mathematics, and so I migrated toward the simpler equations and explanations.

One of my favorite legislators in Pennsylvania taught me, "Dr Frank, we went into law, because we can't do math. You have to explain it with crayons. Talk to us like we are ten years old."

He is wise. In order to effect change, the people have to understand what has happened, and they need simple ways to understand and explain it to each other in order for the grassroots movement to flourish.

Pictures of people stuffing dozens of ballots into drop-boxes is about as simple as it gets.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

I'm endorsing Kim Georgeton for Ohio District 28, State Representative!

"Coins"

I was noticing that all the coins in my pocket had something common on their faces...

"LIBERTY"

and

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Maybe our forbears were trying to remind us that these things are really important?

FrankSocial.com is growing. Join us!