Reply #16: There might be some, but I don't have them

[Mairead]

I was extrapolating from the worldwide scientific standard: if you believe your results hold water, then you put them and your methodology out for peer review, even if only to a select group under NDA. With all the kerfuffle and questions around it, Mitofsky should have been practically shoving it into people's hands at gunpoint.

The fact that he's done the exact opposite is an enormous hint that there's something going on that can't stand the light of day.

My guess, since Mitofsky's not a dope, is that a peer review would show that his methodology was excellent and produced a very small amount of slop, the pre-'corrected' values (that Freeman used) were correct, and that therefore the only rational conclusion is that the election was stolen outright by a large number of people working independently toward a shared goal, each affecting a few votes.

I would also guess that, since his livelihood depends on him not having effed this up, that he's making it known to selected people who might employ him that his methodology was fine and he's accepting the blame 'for the good of the country' since revealing the truth 'would risk civil war'. Since most of those people are probably GOP, they have no reason to blow the whistle on him.

Just my guess.