I have to confess I saw only a small part of Mike Lindell’s symposium. Our vacation was planned same time as the symposium and the wifi was not working where we were staying on vacation. I saw a small part Wednesday Night while packing and getting other things done before leaving.
Making judgements about people is hazardous when you have no training in human behavior. I will only make observations as a consumer. Two things stand out when Mike gets in front of a camera. Mike seems to be hypoactive. While I have no training in human behavior I have taught children who fit the understanding of what a hypoactive child does. The child is unable to focus and spends his time disrupting the class. The child seems to have no concept of what is means to be disruptive or to need to work with others in the learning process. While watching Mike he seems to want to interrupt his guests and ramble on and on. If his programs were court cases I am sure his lawyer would not want him to testify. He does not appear to be a good witness in my opinion.
The second issue is Mike seems to have a need to be the center of attention and rambles on and on which distracts from the message. I have never put together a documentary or presented facts to a nationwide audience to prove my case, but I have a hard time believing whoever worked with Frank on his presentation feels good about the results from a professional standpoint. I also feel that having a program both day and night for three days is an overkill.
Having said all that I think Dr. Frank’s presentation was convincing. It might have been helpful if the symposium had some kind of peer review to present of Dr. Frank’s findings. I looked up Mike Lindell on Google but about all I could find was comments on Lindell from the left wing conspiracy theorists attacking him. It would seem Google is only directing their costumers to people presenting a negative picture of Lindell.
I did take their bait and went to the Dispatch Fact Checker and read an article on Lindell by Khayn Himmeriman. I could find no information on that person which I found surprising. What adult could you Google and not find some information on him? The author said Lindell’s claim that Dominion Machines were hooked to the internet was false. To quote the author, “This is false, Dominion Voting Systems clarified on its website that its own voting technology along with voting systems. more generally, are not connected to the internet”. Did you notice the term more generally? That does not mean never. That means the machines can be and are hooked up to the internet. The “fact check” author claims Mike’s statement is false when Dominions own website admits they can be hooked up to the internet, when and how long they do not say. It is interesting a poll watcher said on national television that he saw Dominion machines hooked up to the internet. He also said he told a poll supervisor the machines were hooked up and the supervisor took no interest in checking.
The author advises that a District Judge in Arizona dismissed allegations of voter fraud because the case was wanting of relevant or reliable evidence. Not being a lawyer I cannot evaluate that information. However we do know that the Democrats are fighting to the point of filing suit to block audits. If they were convinced there was no fraud why not encourage audits to prove those wanting them are conspiracy nuts? The author mentioned Dr. Frank , who has a PhD in chemistry[the author did not mention Dr. Frank teaches math which he may feel is not relevant in understanding algorithms]”claims to uncover an algorithm to control how many elections there are in a county”. What? I watched Dr. Franks presentation and as far as I can determine he was only talking about one election ,the 2020 presidential election.
The author also claims having more voters than living a precinct is common during the canvasing period and cited human error and computer malfunctions. If this be the case why were they not corrected before the election.
If the author thinks Dr. Frank’s claims are not creditable why have not Democrats come up with experts to prove Dr. Frank is a quack? The author did not mention that Dr. Frank found the algorithms were used in several states and found an exact percentage of every age group voted in every county of each state. This would not have been in the realm of probability. Surely experts could prove it if he was wrong in his algorithms. More of us should be fact checking the fact checkers.
This is an opinion blog for conservatives and people of faith.