Brazilian mathematics PhD, Marcelo Trindade says he took the official voting data from 472 ballot boxes on a government website and he noticed a pattern in the data stream of votes coming in for Flávio Bolsonaro.
He noticed a pattern that deviated from a random transmission of data packets. The trendline was consistently going up and consistently getting beaten down – meaning that it wasn’t random.
He calculates that Flávio was winning with between 60%-65% of the votes but his results were being algorithmically squashed.
He says:
“[This] is where the coup becomes clear…The visible trend from here to here is a trend going upwards. The algorithm then, knowing this, activates some command somewhere, which causes the candidate to be linearly penalized.
“My point is that a partial linear trend cannot exist within a vote-counting process where the submission of results is random.”
Dr Trindade shows several instances of this deviant pattern, saying:
“The algorithm, once again, detects and starts to make the candidate fall. Once again, trending upwards: penalty. Trending upwards: penalty.
“I want you to tell me, what is the mathematical probability of, from time to time, here, the candidate only being penalized?..
“Taking this here, I estimate that Bolsonaro would have won the elections with 60% to 65% of the votes. I repeat, from 60% to 65% of the votes. I want this live to reach 1,000 people.”
I am Professor Marcelo Trindade, I did my PhD in Mathematics in 2017. I have absolute certainty that we are dealing with fraud.
To those of you who are now arriving, look at this curiosity. To those of you who are arriving now, pay close attention to what I’m going to say now.
A candidate who lost with 49% to another who won with 51%, how can it have only one inversion? This event is probabilistically low, very low.
When Professor Marcelo took these same 472 polls – I downloaded all of them from the official website – and simulated other sending commands – I didn’t change any data, I just simulated other sending commands – all of them had alterations.
Here, what to expect when the dispute is very tight, the size of the hole that we’re in.
This region here is where the coup becomes clear.
Tell me if it’s possible to have standards like the ones I’m presenting to you.
Candidate Bolsonaro begins at this point, here. He’s trying to go up, he falls, he goes up, he falls, he goes up, he falls, he goes up.
What this is called here, in this zone here is a “Random Data Sending Pattern”. It falls as much as it goes up.
However, the visible trend from here to here is a trend going upwards. The algorithm then, knowing this, activates some command somewhere, which causes the candidate to be linearly penalized.
My point is that a partial linear trend cannot exist within a vote-counting process where the submission of results is random.
The algorithm detects the trend and it starts to fall.
Look what happens in the subsequent instances.
Here, the algorithm is disconnected. It starts to go up, it falls, it goes up, it falls, it goes up. However, the trend from here to here is a trend going upwards.
The algorithm, once again, detects and starts to make the candidate fall. Once again, trending upwards: penalty. Trending upwards: penalty.
I want you to tell me, what is the mathematical probability of, from time to time, here, the candidate only being penalized?
If this hadn’t happened here, it was as if you could take this part here, this part here, and plug it into this part here. Take this part here, and plug it into this part here. Take this part here, and plug it into this part here.
Taking this here, I estimate that Bolsonaro would have won the elections with 60% to 65% of the votes. I repeat, from 60% to 65% of the votes. I want this live to reach 1,000 people.