NEWS: Moonshine Moment (on Election Fraud - MetroTimes, Detroit)

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=7028
<snip>---
A statistical analysis of voting results in three battleground states hit us like a wicked shot of moonshine, the kind of jolt that dazes with potency then disappears as clarity lingers in its wake.

Professor Steven Freeman, a professor of statistical analysis at the University of Pennsylvania with a doctorate from MIT, analyzed election data from Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

In all three states, Bush obtained significantly more votes than the exit polls indicated, with discrepancies ranging from 4.7 percent in Florida to 6.7 percent in Ohio. Freeman wanted to figure out the probability of the statistical anomalies.

He calculated that the odds of such incorrect exit polls in just one state are about 1 million to 1. For it to have happened by chance in all three states? The odds of that, Freeman reports, are 250 million to 1.
---<snip>

Read entire article

It sure is getting a lot of coverage. knowhuddamean?

and predict that you will see more in the next few days!

“You don’t need a statistician to calculate the probability that organized fraud so massive could be pulled off without some evidence of the conspiracy leaking out.”

This is the one passage in the article that struck me. I think it sums up nicely what most of us “get” that the mainstream doesn’t. Which is that massive is not the right word to describe the conspiracy needed to pull this off. To that end I have put together a list of the conspirators you would need to pull this off.

1 experienced hacker/cracker. Based on how long it took me to write a patcher for GEMS I would estimate that it would take this person about a week to complete a hack for each of the tabulators in use. Alternatively you could have one person in a position to ask for this that wouldn’t attract suspicion (e.g. ES&S executive).

1 telco employee. Pulling phone numbers for phone lines ordered by “*.elections” should take a few minutes if the telco has their database setup properly. Alternatively you could have one person in a position to ask for this list without attracting suspicion (e.g. high level NEMA person).

1 financier. Based on my estimate of the number of “interesting” counties (around 500) I expect enough equipment to complete the whole operation in less than ten minutes would cost between $50,000 and $100,000. The final conspirator needs to be able to front this amount of money (in addition to whatever the other two demand to keep quite) and be disappear for 10 minutes on election night.

That’s it. 3 people easily could do it, no “massive” conspiracy required.

As a Detroiter I have been a reader of MetroTimes for years. Many stories over the years have found their way into the mass media from MetroTimes.

Thanks AmyCrat.

another snip from the article -

Why does this seem to be a nonissue among so many, particularly in the mainstream press? Is it that people are concerned about being tagged conspiracy nuts if they seek to find out if fraud has just been committed?

This is a legitimate story. Knowledgeable, highly educated, well-respected people have looked at this election and concluded there are some statistically mind-boggling results. One explanation is widespread fraud. The media should be on this like hungry dogs on fresh meat.

So far, they’ve treated it like a bone to bury.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/23/14248/605/177#177

Every aspect of what is being elucidated, uncovered; 57000+ complaints to the Congress.....and hardly a wimper from msm.

A slight mention of the GAO historical investigation on CNN; then silence. Do a google -- nothing new or major posted since the little blurb from CNN.

Tell me that big bad republican steamroller ain't working overtime.

Without the net and a few brave folk like Olbermann and a the rare 'journalist' and zip, nothing, franchise gone.

Peace.

I guess we need to repeat it often.

You: "Well, maybe bush won. I don't know. I mean, considering the evidence coming out of the statistical improbability of it, don't you think it's rather mind boggling?"

Them: "What do you mean? What evidence?"

You: "Well, for instance ..."

And then you tell them the facts. Don't even need to inflate anything. Just the facts.