Fraudsters hacking last year’s presidential election may have used data from the 2010 census to estimate the number of extra votes they needed, according to an algorithmic expert who analyzed data in several states.
Dr. Douglas G. Frank teamed up with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in the newly released exposé Scientific Proof.
Frank said those who sought to manipulate the Nov. 3 outcome inadvertently left a trail of “breadcrumbs” behind. But it was only by sheer luck that he happened to uncover it.
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
“Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows,” William Shakespeare’s famous line from The Tempest, refers to an unlikely alliance brought forth out of necessity.
Yet, never did it ring so true as in the 2020 election, which found Lindell, a successful pillow inventor and entrepreneur, teaming up with Frank, a former atomic physicist, to expose the algorithms that robbed an ex-Manhattan hotel mogul of millions of presidential votes.
“It was like divine appointment here,” said Lindell, a devout Christian and outspoken ally of President Donald Trump, about his chance discovery of Frank.
In February, Lindell self-produced another election video, Absolute Proof, which revealed that many of the voting machines used in last year’s presidential contest not only were connected to the world-wide web, but were subjected to a massive cyber-attack.
He and Frank were subsequently united by a former Republican candidate in a district just outside Philadelphia who had been investigating the suspicious circumstances of her loss.
“She basically went door to door and she did her own investigation,” Lindell said.
After realizing that something seemed amiss, the Pennsylvania candidate solicited help from Frank, who had left the scientific community to become a math teacher at a gifted school in Ohio.
Meanwhile, Lindell continued to speak out in media appearances, resulting in an onslaught of cancel-culture attacks to censor him, as well as a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems to intimidate him into silence.
That left him with no choice but to push forward in his efforts to continue exposing the truth behind the vote fraud or else face personal and financial ruination for himself and his thousands of employees.
“It’s easy to be brave when there’s only one option,” he said.
A ‘KEY’ DISCOVERY
Frank said he happened to be using the 2010 census data in a recent classroom lesson, which helped him make a serendipitous discovery about the actual election results.
“Just by a quirk, I had been teaching my advanced math students how to do differential calculus on census data,” he said.”
He noticed a few anomalies in population dips and spikes in the census that, when adjusted for certain factors, aligned perfectly with the voter data that he also had been examining.
“This was the clue that told me that they’re using population to control registrations, and I never even would have thought of that, but I was teaching my kids,” he said.
Those programming the vote-stealing computer functions relied on a sixth-order polynomial equation to create a sort of algorithmic key that would calculate the number of phony ballot requests needed in a particular location while, theoretically, preventing them from exceeding the number of eligible voters.
“I just need six numbers and I can predict every county in Ohio,” Frank said.
Although the patterns wound up being uniform throughout a given state, he noted that they were slightly different in each state.
That made it more difficult to detect a pattern when examining all the national data in aggregate, but it helped Frank to confirm his theory by revealing consistent statewide patterns that applied to every race, including down-ballot local contests.
“I ran 14 counties, took the average key and then never changed it again, and it works in all 88,” Frank said of his analysis in his home state of Ohio.
CHASING PHANTOMS
Frank’s analysis follows earlier data analyses by experts that had proven the presence of algorithmic manipulation and showed the formula used to flip votes from then-President Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden proportionally based on how conservative a given county was.
In some cases, however, simply flipping the votes may have been too impractical. Thus election-meddlers also used publicly available voter-registration databases to register, request ballots and vote on behalf of eligible but inactive voters.
“If you don’t clean up the registration rolls then over the years you can build up a nice credit line of phantom voters,” Frank said.
To confirm his suspicions, Frank said that after using his model to predict a 30% phantom-voter rate in a locality, he went out knocking on doors.
What he found, in fact, was a 32% rate where the person who requested the ballot—and later used it to vote—was no longer physically present at the address.
After decoding the pattern, Frank was able to predict voting outcomes in many cases with a certainty approaching 100%.
He found a nearly identical correlation between requested ballots and actual voter participation, with both appearing to be modeled after the decade-old population data.
That alone would seem scientifically improbable, suggesting that everyone who requested a ballot also participated in the election, despite evidence that there were many discarded and undeliverable ballots in some states.
“For me to get 1.00 and I’m a physicist—that ain’t natural, buddy,” Frank said of the correlation coefficient showing an exact match between the two variables in many counties.
Frank also noted that in a few cases, due to the use of outdated data, the vote-manipulators had over-estimated the population, leading to numbers of registered voters that, in some cases, exceeded the total population by up to 150%.
A BATTLE BREWING
More than 10 weeks into the Biden administration, with the country already in shambles, the breakthrough may seem anticlimactic—perhaps even pointless—to dismayed Trump supporters.
However, Lindell said he saw the delayed discovery as a stroke of luck.
“I feel it’s a blessing that it took till now to get all this ready,” he said, indicating that if the outcome had resulted in a Trump victory, the manipulation plot might not have been exposed. “… We would have never known about the algorithms.”
Like many conservatives under the Biden administration, Lindell already has faced more than his share of adversity. But he said he foresaw a happy ending to the surreal scenario.
“It’s like living inside of a movie,” he said. “We were in the bad part of the movie. I am so happy because we have it all.”
Yet, being armed with the knowledge of what likely happened on Nov. 3 remains just a small part of delivering the truth to the American public.
The greater challenge lies in confronting fraud-deniers with the evidence, and gaining widespread public acceptance amid unprecedented media gaslighting.
Lindell called on viewers to do their part in getting the word out.
“This is a crime against every one of us, every person on the planet,” he said.
He and Frank said freedom-loving voters in some counties could even access the voter-registration data and conduct their own door-knocking campaigns to root out “phantom” voters.
For his part, Lindell is preparing to launch a new social-media platform, appropriately named Frank, and he said he plans to unveil a barrage of additional evidence in weeks to come.
“We’re gonna dump so much evidence, it will make Wikileaks look like a TinkerToy,” he said.
His own lawsuit against Dominion could also be a significant factor in laying down the foundation for cases involving vote fraud and freedom of speech.
Lindell said Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz was advising his legal team.
“This lawsuit is gonna be the most important lawsuit for the First Amendment in history,” he said, citing comments by Dershowitz.
In order to win its defamation cases, the burden of proof would be on Dominion to show that the allegations made against it by Lindell and others were false and were made with malicious intent.
Failure to do so might offer further validation for the Trump effort.
Already Trump and his supporters have won roughly two-thirds of the election cases that were decided on merit. Nonetheless, many courts—including the US Supreme Court—refused to adjudicate them, instead citing procedural technicalities as grounds for dismissal.
But judges in Wisconsin, Michigan and Virginia recently dealt victories by determining that Democrats violated the law in implementing last-minute changes to election procedures without legislative approval.
And in two other key battleground states—Arizona and Georgia—courts signaled they would force audits of the ballots and voting machines in two of the most populous, Democrat-heavy counties, Maricopa and Fulton, respectively.
“You’ll look back in history what we were a part of—the greatest awakening, the greatest reset ever,” Lindell said.
