ETA NEW DATA YOU MUST SEE

Summary

Highlights

• This is not a political argument; it's about data transparency in elections. 📊
• 2020's data shows manipulation, not partisan bias, at the core of these concerns. 🔄
• Pennsylvania precincts exhibit alarming manipulation signs, echoing global fraud cases. 🚨
• Dr. Mebban, a UN election expert, lends credibility to forensic analyses indicating discrepancies. 👨‍🔬
• Calls to action for deeper audits and investigations into flagged votes to ensure democratic integrity. 🔦

Key Takeaways

• Data-driven, not partisan - The presentation emphasizes the importance of evidence-based discussions in ensuring election integrity. 📊
• International standards applied - Trusted global methods indicate irregularities in Pennsylvania's vote count. 🌍
• Election Truth Alliance involvement - A specialized team is analyzing voting data across swing states. 🔍
• Historical voting shifts vs. current anomalies - Election result patterns are contrasting significantly with historical data, hinting at deeper issues. 📉
• Call for community action - Encourages audience participation to amplify transparency and accountability. 📢

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction and Purpose The chapter titled 'Introduction and Purpose' sets the stage for the discussion by thanking the attendees for their presence. It reflects on the disorienting nature of the 2020 election, emphasizing that the current focus is on data science rather than political spin. The chapter highlights the importance of recognizing patterns rather than assigning blame, and stresses that protecting democracy is not a partisan issue.
• 00:30 - 01:00: Data Transparency and Challenges The chapter focuses on the importance of data transparency in elections, emphasizing that ensuring elections are transparent and secure is paramount. It challenges the reader to critically evaluate the data and encourages open dialogue and scrutiny, rather than blindly accepting claims or narratives about election security.
• 01:00 - 01:30: 2024 Election Data Insights This chapter focuses on the 2024 election data analysis. The discussion centers around alleged manipulation in the election process. A special emphasis is placed on approaching the subject from a data-driven perspective rather than a partisan standpoint. The aim is to scrutinize the data thoroughly to challenge or support claims, and the session is framed to remain neutral, acknowledging the contentious nature of the term 'election integrity.'
• 01:30 - 02:00: Forensic Analysis and Allegations The chapter titled 'Forensic Analysis and Allegations' centers on the importance of data-driven discussions in the context of forensic analysis. The dialogue emphasizes cutting through biases and noise to focus on reliable data backed by international standards and methods. It underscores the apolitical nature of data transparency aimed at protecting a system accessible to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The discussion encourages openness to evidence and active participation, whether through dialogue or writing.
• 02:00 - 02:30: Expert Insights and Pennsylvania Case Study The chapter titled 'Expert Insights and Pennsylvania Case Study' discusses the importance of creating engaging content and improving questioning techniques. It begins with an emphasis on handling objections, particularly from skeptics concerning the Dominion lawsuit. The lawsuit became a focal point in discussions, highlighted by Fox's settlement for defamation, rather than fraud, illustrating the complexities ignored even after legal resolutions. The chapter implies ongoing challenges in media narratives and the importance of understanding the deeper issues beyond surface-level settlements.
• 02:30 - 03:00: Election Anomalies and Patterns The chapter discusses election anomalies and patterns, focusing on the 2020 election. It highlights that while Dominion was cleared of manipulating election results, there wasn't an investigation into whether election fraud occurred overall. Intriguingly, forensic data suggests that if any fraud took place, it would have favored Trump instead of Biden. This contradicts the common narrative and points toward deeper, unexplored aspects of the election results.
• 03:00 - 03:30: Scope of Analysis and Data Integrity The chapter titled 'Scope of Analysis and Data Integrity' discusses the enduring presence of infrastructure that facilitates manipulation, despite the media's brief focus on security and PR containment issues. It highlights the ongoing dismantling of democracy through executive orders, the erosion of checks and balances, rampant gerrymandering, and targeted attacks on voters' rights. The discussion underscores the need to address these persistent threats to democratic integrity.
• 03:30 - 04:00: Call to Action and Conclusion The chapter emphasizes that the 2024 election is not just an endpoint but rather the beginning of a new era. It challenges the fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist by presenting factual and expert-backed data on election forensics. The key takeaway is to focus on truth rather than getting distracted by louder narratives.

ETA NEW DATA YOU MUST SEE Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 But we really do want to thank you guys for everyone for attending today. Um, we're so glad that you are here and I want to start off by recognizing that we all remember how dangerous and disorienting the 2020 election was. This is not that. This is not political spin. It's data science. It doesn't point fingers. It points to patterns. Protecting democracy isn't partisan. It's
• 00:30 - 01:00 foundational. This isn't about relegating 2020 or validating stolen stolen election narratives. It's about ensuring that our elections are as transparent and as secure as we assume they are. We're not asking you to believe anything upfront. We're asking you to look, to sit with the data, and to consider what it would mean if what we're saying is actually true. In fact, we welcome you to challenge us. We're
• 01:00 - 01:30 certain that this data tells the story of manipulation in the 2024 election and we've invited you as one of the brightest minds to challenge the data so that we can magaproof the message. So, let's get into it. Um, I want everyone to understand this is a datadriven conversation. It's not a partisan conversation. We're not here to push narratives. We're here to look at the evidence. We know election integrity has become a loaded phrase, which is why I think there's a lot of animosity towards
• 01:30 - 02:00 this subject in general. Um, that's why this conversation matters. We're cutting through the noise to focus on what the data shows, backed by international standards and methods used all around the world. It's not about politics. It's about data transparency and protecting a system that should belong to all of us, no matter who we vote for. The goal here is simple. To open your mind to the evidence and if it moves you to speak. Whether that means writing a
• 02:00 - 02:30 story, creating content, or simply asking better questions. Oh, somebody's coming in. There's Kate. We're here to support you and we'll make sure you leave with everything you need to take this forward. So, we wanted to start with objection handling in mind. People that I've talked to who are skeptics say, "Well, what about the Dominion lawsuit?" Well, the Dominion lawsuit shut down the conversation, but not the problem. Fox settled for defamation, not for fraud.
• 02:30 - 03:00 They lied about who was responsible, not whether or not manipulation occurred. Dominion cleared their own name, but no one ever investigated whether fraud occurred, whether fraud fraud occurred at all. And here's the part no one wants to touch. The independent forensic data that we have, it shows that if fraud happened in 2020, it helped Trump, not Biden. This case wasn't about election
• 03:00 - 03:30 security, it was about PR containment. And while the media moved on in the shock and a news cycle that we seem to be unable to escape, um the infrastructure that allows the manipulation is still in place. And what's worse is that democracy is already being dismantled. You guys have seen it in the news through executive orders, the collapse of checks and balances, rampant gerrymandering, and targeted attacks on voters rights. This
• 03:30 - 04:00 isn't a theory. It's happening right now. So, if you thought the 2024 election is the ending, it was just the first chapter. And we get it. No one wants to sound like a conspiracy theorist. That's exactly why we're sharing this data with you today. Um, it's not speculation. It's not political spin. It's backed by one of the world's foremost experts in election forensics. So, the truth doesn't get drowned out by the loudest
• 04:00 - 04:30 or the most extreme voices in the room. Dr. Mebban isn't some partisan watchdog. This is the guy the UN sends to contest elections all over the world. So if he says Pennsylvania deserves scrutiny, we need to listen no matter who it helps or who it hurts. So let's talk about P. Then he journeyed to Pennsylvania where he spent like a month and a half campaigning for me in Pennsylvania and he's a popular
• 04:30 - 05:00 guy and he was very effective and he knows those computers better than anybody. all those computers, those vote counting computers, and we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide. So, it was pretty good. It was pretty good. So, thank you to Elon. Over 8,600 flag votes. One in 50 precincts showed manipulation. And this is in a state decided by
• 05:00 - 05:30 about 120,000 votes. That means that nearly 25% of the state's margin is flagged as distorted. Using the exact same forensic tools used by the DOJ, the UN, and international election monitors to call out corrupt elections abroad. Erie County matched global fraud indicators, non-natural spikes in voter turnout and support. This model has been
• 05:30 - 06:00 used to catch fraud in Turkey, Venezuela, and the Philippines. And the truth is that if these patterns showed up abroad, the US would literally be issuing sanctions. But because it's in Pennsylvania, we call it controversial. Whether we want to admit it or not, when an expert who spent 30 years surgically dissecting dissecting elections says this, every alarm bell
• 06:00 - 06:30 should be going off. So now I'm going to turn it over to Nathan from Election Truth Alliance, one of the few teams in the country actually doing the forensic work the media refuses to touch. What you're about to see isn't spin. It's data. Peer-reviewed, pattern matched, and impossible to ignore. Take it away, Nathan. Yeah. Hello. Thank you so much for uh for having me. A little bit of background if you're not familiar with
• 06:30 - 07:00 the Elect Truth Alliance or who I am. My name is Nathan Taylor. I am one of the three co-founders of the Electruth Alliance. Uh my background specifically is in cyber security and information systems. Um, I was a 25 Bravo computer tech specialist in the Army Reserves. Then I got my degree in network information systems and commissioned as a signal officer in the National Guard. So, um, prior to the election, I was working in real time network monitoring and data analysis. So um me and the
• 07:00 - 07:30 other co-founders of the organization right after the election we started we we got together and we started digging deeper into what was happening in in the 24 election and past elections because there was a lot of data points that came up that just didn't seem normal. And so we're going to briefly talk about a few of those and then I think we have questions at the end. So, one of the I think on the next slide we're going to kind of lay out some of those data points. I don't believe I'm able to
• 07:30 - 08:00 change the slides for some reason. So, it'll have to be you. There we go. You may have heard of this before. This is like just the tip of the iceberg for our concerns. So, on election night, over 200 bomb threats. A majority of those bomb threats were actually focused around um liberal or Democrat counties and a lot of them were in Pennsylvania. And then we had of course all seven swing states um all won by one party just outside of the recount automatic recount margin. Um something
• 08:00 - 08:30 people are not familiar with is 70% of the voting equipment we use the tabulation machines 70% of it is two brands and it spans um the US multiple states the swing states and other states as well and then last and when we get into the data and the statistics we're going to show you a little bit about all the 88 counties that flipped from blue to red in the 24 election and zero counties that flipped from red to blue. And we'll talk about
• 08:30 - 09:00 why is all of this a big deal, what did it lead to, and then where we're at now with our data our data, excuse me, where we are now with our data in our analysis. So on the next slide, we're going to briefly talk about some of these. So here's your bomb threats, as we mentioned, over 200. There was 34 um across Pennsylvania alone, then some in Arizona and some other states as well. We're highlighting why did this happen and and what is the impact. So, these were ultimately attributed to
• 09:00 - 09:30 I believe the FBI claimed that they were from Russian email servers or that's what they look like they originated from. The concern here is they did shut down the polls in these places that received bomb threats. Um, some voters may have went to different voting locations or not been able to vote during that window. But what's really important is in order to pull this off, and we've not seen this in past elections, pull this off. This requires you um you know having some form of targeted campaign and knowing where to
• 09:30 - 10:00 send these emails across multiple states and it it points to a concern of a larger picture. Why is Russia potentially interfering with our elections? If it's not Russia, who would have set this up? And this is just one thing highlighting if there are organized attempts to mess with our elections, could that lead to other concerns? And so the next slide we're going to highlight um just how strange this election was before we got into the actual data that
• 10:00 - 10:30 the ETA has been publishing like statistically speaking. We've published data at this point for Nevada, for Pennsylvania, we're working on North Carolina and then we did um release some highlights for Iowa recently. And what is weird about this election is how the results came in in terms of all seven swing states going for one candidate which could happen. But the issue is the margin of victory was very thin. meaning that to win all seven swing states under
• 10:30 - 11:00 the 50% margin for popular vote, that is very difficult to do and it raises the concerns of you're winning in the places that matter but you're not in other places which just doesn't strike us as as normal human voting behavior. And the last time something like this happened was in 1984, Ronald Reagan, right? Reagan um which is highlighted as one of like the Republican uh party's very um very interesting races. Uh he won 49 out
• 11:00 - 11:30 of 50 states. So to win only 30 states and all seven swing states that's a bit of a disconnect and so we do highlight a bit more of this. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. One interesting point um just my pattern recognition 1984 was him winning that election was right after his assassination attempt. Just just putting that out there. That is very interesting. And then our next slide we cover I think
• 11:30 - 12:00 the um the machine. This is important. If you take nothing else away from kind of this presentation or these talks, the most common question I get and we will continue to get is if we're concerned about our elections, every state runs their own elections differently and every state uses their own systems, right? Well, no. Every state, although they run their own elections, they 70% of the US uses the top two uh voting
• 12:00 - 12:30 tabulator brands. Um, we don't list them here, but they are highlighted as very concerning because if you were to have compromised the top two brands, it spans 70% of the US. It spans a majority of the swing states and it could be a concern with if you wanted to change the results. This would be an avenue to do it and it would change the outcome across multiple states.
• 12:30 - 13:00 And then our next slide, I think uh this one is uh one of my favorites. You may be able to see it. We have the graph on the left. The the counties, the map, the map is showing from 2020 to 24. Biden um in 2020 to Harrison in 24 is blue and then Trump is red. And we're seeing from 2020 to 24 the 88 counties that are changing from one candidate to the other. And you'll notice every single
• 13:00 - 13:30 county that changed has changed from a Democrat to a Republican held county. This is interesting because even in, you know, over I think almost a hundred years ago, even then in 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt won 42 out of 58 states. Um, that was the last time you had like zero counties flipped for the opposing party. And in 1984, Ronald
• 13:30 - 14:00 Reagan, we talk about it again, even though he won 49 out of 50 states, which is a it's it's more than a landslide. Like that's an absolute victory, 30 counties still flipped blue for Mandelle, who was his opposition. So, we just kind of want to highlight how strange it is. And I think someone Angela said um in California, yeah, you do see that change in California as well. And if you look on the other map as we showed, these places are using the top two tabulator brands. So next slide, I think we'll highlight
• 14:00 - 14:30 some of the work we've done in the election truth alliance. So we, as I said before, we published an analysis for Pennsylvania. We looked at their top three counties generally speaking, which is Philadelphia, the largest county in the state for population. We also looked at Alageney and Erie counties, the second and the fifth, and they vote across three different voting types. But what was interesting is as we dug into the data um we were finding concerns um because although they did
• 14:30 - 15:00 audits those audits didn't seem to highlight the same population centers where we're starting to see a lot of the statistical concerns. So um we have published these findings and what is very interesting is Dr. for Walter Mebban. We sent him our findings. We sent him our data and we asked him, you know, his input and he actually ran his own analysis which was highlighted
• 15:00 - 15:30 before. Um he calls it, I believe, e-herensics. And what he does specifically is he's he runs a simulation that could potentially detect the amount of fraudulent or distorted votes. and he came back with a value leading up to, I think, potentially 28,000 distorted or fraudulent votes across the three counties that we gave him. That's 24% of the state margin of victory for Trump. And there's I think there's another 60 plus counties that we've been collecting data from as well.
• 15:30 - 16:00 So, his report is up on our website, electionalliance.org. But what's interesting is this isn't the only place we've done, excuse me, this isn't the only place we've done an analysis for. And our analysis is based off of the work of Sherge Schulen and Peter Clem and and Roman Ud who are notable um election fraud experts in Russian elections, European elections. And we're doing the same thing that they're doing in European elections for like 2012 and 2011, we're doing them in the US.
• 16:00 - 16:30 So that's what is concerning is, you know, we're we're applying tested and somewhat credible um analysis to the US for the 24 election, for the 2020 election, and we are coming up with the same concerns that they were seeing in their elections with potentially manipulated votes. And so I think some of our our follow-up reports are going to continue to highlight that. And you can go to the next slide here.
• 16:30 - 17:00 This is Walter Mebban's findings in his paper. It is dense, but as I said, it it shows that not only does the Election Truth Alliance have concerns based off of other experts work, but we have third parties finding the same concerns in Pennsylvania, and I imagine we'll find the same concerns in North Carolina, in Iowa, in Ohio, and other places that we're going to ultimately look and publish. You can go to the next slide. And and that kind of sums up the the
• 17:00 - 17:30 data portion. As I said, we have reports on our website and we go far more in detail, but what is concerning and what is important is that if there is manipulation in our elections, um we need help in pushing for the audits and the accountability for diving deeper and and and um some collaboration in helping get this out there. So, Christa, this is your, you know, all you. Yeah. So, we want to be
• 17:30 - 18:00 really clear. This work is rooted in truth, not tribalism. Um, the moment we let the fear of optics stop us from questioning irregularities, we risk losing the very democracy we're trying to protect. Trump screamed fraud with no evidence. We are showing you evidence without screaming. So, this is a um somebody who worked for the Harris campaign and she didn't feel
• 18:00 - 18:30 comfort and this is a terrifying thing about our climate today. She didn't feel comfortable showing her face for fear of her children and grandchildren, but she did allow us to um go on the record with her statement. And this is just one person's account and we're sharing it transparently today as part of a larger picture. We're not asking anyone to take it at face value, but it raises questions that deserve an investigation. What does it say about our current political system that a campaign staffer felt so morally
• 18:30 - 19:00 compromised that she resigned the next day after hearing this? You've heard the math. You've seen the data models. Now you're hearing from the people who dared to speak up when staying silent would have been easier. So now we're asking, will you? So let's give a quick recap. 28,000 votes flagged, one in 50 precincts
• 19:00 - 19:30 showed signs of manipulation. Erie matched global fraud indicators and less than 0.5% of Pennsylvania ballots were manually reviewed. Despite certifying over 7 million ballots, Pennsylvania only reviewed a sliver of those ballots thanks to a law from 1980 that limits audits to 2% or 2,000 ballots, whichever is less. So in major counties, that's
• 19:30 - 20:00 just a rounding error. And when election integrity groups tried to conduct a manual audit in Pennsylvania, they were blocked. So when we say these results were certified, we have to ask certified by what? So now with Trump stripping oversightes even further, the window for accountability is closing quickly. So, if that doesn't call for scrutiny, I don't know what
• 20:00 - 20:30 does. So, we've created the tools. We're building the infrastructure. What we need now is your voice. If you're ready to help elevate the signal and protect the truth, we want you with us. The data is real, but the silence is political. So ask yourself, are you going to amplify the signal or protect the narrative? If you're going to join
• 20:30 - 21:00 us, please scan this QR code and fill out the Google form. And now we can open it up for Q&A.