Reply #14: Edison-Mitofsky reminds me of the Ptolemaic astronomers in the Middle...

[Peace Patriot]

...Ages who kept building more and more elaborate machines to try to account for the eccentric orbits of the planets in a earth-centered system in which the orbits had to be perfect circles (because God wouldn't make imperfect orbits, nor would He place the earth anywhere other than at the center of all Creation), and the more detail they added, the more elaborate, complicated and bizarre the models became...until, one day, someone said, "Hey, wait a minute! This is too weird. What if we put the sun in the center and...".

I was thinking about their weighting the model by eliminating many women's votes late in the day in the final adjustment (to make it fit the official tally), and then making up this story about women voting early and fewer women voting later in the day, and all of this elaborate B.S. they had to use to make it that Bush won.

I mean, how can they DO that? It's just so bizarre. The official tally is not a fixed star. It is not the speed of light. And when you look closely at it (at the source of official tally data), it actually has no validity at all as the only constant in a world of variables. (Prove Bush won. You can't.) What they have done here is so BOGUS! It's as if a forensic scientist, convinced that a certain person is guilty of murder, were to keep splicing in other strands of DNA into a scene-of-the-crime DNA sample in order to come up with a DNA sample that matches the suspect and insures conviction.

Absurd, in other words. Wrong. Bogus. Tobacco science.

I repeat, HOW can they do this? How can this be valid? And just how far would they take this before they entered the realm of complete absurdity? Only Republicans voted after 6 p.m.--and no Democrats--because Republicans pick their kids up after school and take them to Little League practice, and everybody knows that Democrats don't do this?

What conceivable support could they put forward for a theory that less women voted late in the day? Or that more Republicans--including some dead ones--voted late, while Democrats voted early?

I've heard all the standard explanations, and, I'm sorry, but I'm a common sense person, and I don't give a crap for all this "polling expert" voodoo, all done behind the curtain (just like the election) to come up with a given answer. If this is standard practice (and it is NOT so in other countries), then U.S. exit polling has to be placed in the category of Ouija board "science" and Vatican astronomy.

THAT they did it this way--the fact that they fit the data to a predetermined outcome--IS the problem. We had an election that badly needed verification--because of the previous stolen election, and experts crying foul on electronic voting, and Bush buddies owning the secret source code, and Blackwell requiring voter registrations on 80 lb. paper, and RNC operatives shredding Democratic voter registrations in several western states--AND YET DELIBERATELY CHOSE *NOT* to verify, but rather to CONFIRM.

They being Edison-Mitofsky and those who hired them--all the news monopolies. This was a journalistic crime, in my opinion--and one of the first magnitude. It stopped cold any official protest or investigation. It was possibly even the deciding factor in Kerry's concession. It fooled millions of people--and possibly even some DNCers and others who should have known better.

It stunk. It stunk BIG TIME.

All this controversy, and mathematicians duking it out over this formula and that formula, and the creation of doubts and shadows and fanciful theories was UNNECESSARY and, I think, deliberate obfuscation--just like the election itself.

WHY ISN'T IT VERIFIABLE?
WHY ISN'T IT CLEAR?
WHO MADE THE DECISIONS *NOT* TO VERIFY?
WHO MADE THE DECISIONS THAT PLACED BOTH THE EXIT POLLS AND THE OFFICIAL TALLY BEHIND A "WIZARD OF OZ" CURTAIN?

One thing that IS clear: TIA and Freeman and Baiman and others have successfully exposed this election for the fraud that it was, and have done so in extraordinarily difficult circumstances--and despite every effort to thwart them by the Bushites, the pollsters and the news monopolies--through patient attention to THE FACTS, and courageous persistence.

But I think we should keep ever before our minds the fact that this SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE. And every time Mitofsky opens his mouth, he should be immediately asked: Why DIDN'T you seek to verify this highly compromised election system and check for fraud? Why DID you seek to confirm it?

And every time Bush opens his mouth, he ought to get a raspberry.

42% approval rating. Explain THAT away, Mitofsky!