skip to Main Content
Share This Post

  • Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD – Inventor of Email, Systems Scientist, engineer, educator – presents an analysis of mail-in ballots for Pima County, Arizona with state representative, Mark Fincham. 
  • Dr.SHIVA shows what Pima County reported as their results, then showed a comparative analysis, then did an analysis on the performance of each candidate, Trump and Biden in that county versus the mail-in return rates.
  • In 2020 Pima County total mail-in ballots requested were 525,645 and according to the county’s report, 459,406 were actually received. Out of those, 454,633 were the total unique mail-in ballots received and counted but they didn’t report any duplicates.
  • The data given to Dr.SHIVA shows 516,099 as a total mail-in ballots requested. Where he found 13,543 duplicates. Making the total mail-in ballots requested 502,556. Comparative analysis we still have a higher number.
  • Pima County’s Mail-in ballot return rates were 15.6% higher than the national return rates, significantly different. When looking at all the counties in Arizona the mail-in ballot return rates were 67.6% and Pima county was 86.7%.

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai: Hello everyone, good evening. This is Dr.Shiva again, we had a pretty long day, we went from 12 to 4pm. On the Maricopa Audit, we had myself, Phil Evans, we have various guests with 3000 callers on queue to call in. We had close to 4000 people concurrently which would have translated around 90,000 views on Facebook, but I noticed Facebook is only reporting 9000 views. What an unfortunate bunch of you know what, okay.

But anyway, what we’re doing right now is we’re going to be talking about another county in Arizona. That myself, Phil, and with data for Mark Fincham was the state representative there. And we did this analysis. Pima County is very different. I hope Mark is able to join us. I wonder if we can get Mark on the phone here. Perhaps we can get Mark on the phone. We’re going to wait for people to join but we’re going to be sharing with you the analysis that we did on Pima County. Pima County is obviously different in Maricopa just Hey Mark on I have you live. I don’t know if you’re clicking in but I can put you on the phone – if you want to talk.

Mark Finchem: I just got him into my car.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, we have Mark Fincham, everyone we have people joining. We’re both on YouTube, as well as Facebook and Twitch, Mark. Mark is the state rep. We did this video earlier, but it didn’t come out that well. I think it’s gonna be a lot better now. Because we’re going live directly. Mark, we’re on live on YouTube and Facebook. I just shared with people Mark. We did a 4 hour marathon from 12 to 4 sharing Maricopa County where we invited the Maricopa County officials. President Trump actually put it out there too.

Mark Finchmen: Wow.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. We teed it up for Pima now. We had some people joining us. So as I was saying, Pima County. Mark, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, and then like, Where’s Pima County related to Maricopa County, you know, physically where they’re located. And then go ahead and I haven’t started the slides yet, Mark, but go ahead. If you can just share with people and then I’ll then we’ll talk about the data, etc. Go ahead, Mark. So we have Mark. Go ahead, Mark.

Mark Finchmen: I’m a representative and legislative district 11. I am the only member of the legislature from Pima County who is a Republican. All other seats are held by Democrats. The legislative district that I am in is held the 11th which just covers a very small portion of Northern, Pima County and most of Pinellas County, Pima County is home to Tucson the second most populated city in the state of Arizona. And about the time of the election, a little bit afterwards.

There were rumors that in Pima County there will be a significant number of fictitious voters inserted into the system. And then we received an anonymous email that was directed to the US Department of Justice, obviously from a burner email. Gentleman went by the, well lady, went by the pseudonym of Brian Watson, and, in doing so, started off an investigation by my office over the last seven months. That included the pulling of public records and records where there had been a requisition by the county recorder’s office to a company known as Runbeck, which services many of the elections in the state of Arizona and across the country – particularly with mail-in ballots.

We had requested the list of people who the county had ordered mail-in ballots for. One of the reasons for that is that I had received a report from one of my neighbors in Oro Valley, which is a community just to the north of Tucson that he had actually received for ballots. He had not purchased a vehicle, so it couldn’t be the fault of the motor voter. He had not purchased a new property or even sold a property. So we can’t tie it to a real estate record or a change in real estate records.

To his knowledge, there was no particular reason why he would have received four ballots. Now granted, it’s an anecdotal story. But one of the things that we wanted to look for in the ballot requisition order that was sent to Runbeck is did this individual show up four times. Now, I have not seen the report. I don’t know if that’s a yay or nay. But it reads the larger question and that is of the ballots that were not returned. Is it possible that they might have been returned by somebody else to feed this idea that there are fictitious voters in the system and they would have a paper ballot to go along with that.

So, I turned to Dr.Shiva’s group and said, Hey, I know you guys are experts at this. You want to take a look at it. The email that was sent to the Department of Justice by Brian Watson was also sent to every legislator in the Arizona House and Senate. That means every democrat received it. In the house, every senator received it over in the Senate. And because it’s, I guess, my home district, or at least part of my home district, it appeared that if there was going to be any investigation into this, I would be the only one that would take it up.

Now we arrive at the point where as we look at the language in the email, there was a notation made that these fictitious voters would be smoothed across multiple precincts, so that they could never be found. And even if one or two precincts were called into question, they could simply stand behind the excuse “oh, that must have been an error”. Well, now we’ve got the work that Dr. Shiva and his team have revealed that it’s more than just an error, a significant anomaly that is worthy of, at the very least, I believe, a canvass of select precincts where it appears that we have an excessive amount of return.

And quite possibly a forensic audit of Pima County. Now, that’s obviously going to take a significant amount of probable cause to convince either the House or the Senate to take that up, especially given what we’ve seen with Maricopa County. So with that, Dr.Shiva I will turn it over to you. And maybe you’d like to explain for the folks that are tuning in, what you folks found.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so Mark, thank you. By the way, we’ve been working on this, I think it’s been almost like 4 months, right Mark in the middle of the Arizona audit

Mark Finchmen: Something like that.

Dr.Shiva: Yeah, we did a version of this, we’ve been looking at. So we’ve spent a lot of time making sure the analysis we give you here is accurate. We’re not making any claims we can’t substantiate. Mark knows this, Mark has been very, very patient waiting for this. So we appreciate that, Mark.

Today, we’re going to walk through all the data that we got from Mark, our analysis of it, but it shows a very interesting anomaly in Pima County. I’m going to walk you through it. I’m going to bring up the presentation Mark that we went over earlier. The title of this talk today that we see is called Pima’s fishtail. And you’ll understand why we call it the fishtail. And it’s an analysis of the 2020 mail-in ballots in Pima County.

Mark Finchmen: Not to be confused with peschatology,

Dr.SHIVA: Right. Yeah, exactly. But we are going to post some questions and some conjectures, and some future research. One of the things we want to make everyone aware of is we are not laying blame on anyone. As we explained in our four hour marathon talk, this is about taking an engineering Systems Approach. It’s about all of us uniting, to recognize when you see the anomaly, we’re going to share, everyone should be concerned. And we should want to dig further, we should want to ask questions.

And by the way, 52 USC 20701, which seems like a lot of the democrat lawmakers in Washington forgot what that law was. It’s about encouraging audits, which was passed by Democrats 50 years ago by a democrat majority, which basically says we want to conduct audits, you shouldn’t be beating people up and calling them unAmerican. If they want to do an audit, it is encouraged. That’s 52 USC 20701. I was really displeased with this guy Ro Khanna for grilling, you know, I think it was Ken Bennett right, Mark, and saying, Oh, you know, you’re unAmerican and this kind of stuff, because you want an audit. But

Mark Finchem: Dr.Shiva, I would add to that the platform of the democrat party for 2020, specifically says that in order to support voter confidence, and I’m gonna paraphrase it, but the point of it was that robust, meaningful audits should be done.

Dr.Shiva: Right.

Mark Finchmen: Even they, before the election laid that case out.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, the important thing is Mark, this is the law. The law 50 years ago was passed to support audits and encourage audits, all of you listening out there. You should be happy that you find issues and anomalies and ask questions, that is called an engaged and enlightened electorate. Okay. So Let’s just jump into that.

I’m going right into the first slide Mark, I know Marks on the road. First of all, anyone who wants to go to Everything we do here takes a Systems Approach and to understand what that is, but go to, go to I’ll play a video for you guys later on that. But let’s go into this.

The title is Mathematical Analysis of Mail-in Ballot Requests. And that was the data that Mark was able to get, he was able to get this very, very good data. Which is really about the mail-in ballot requests, which means the who, by precinct by pressing who those people requested mail-in ballots, and then we have the return rates, okay by those precincts. So just to be clear on this, what we mean by this is you request a mail-in ballot. And let’s say in your neighborhood, including you, 10 people requested a mail-in ballot, but then five of the people returned it. So, that would be a 50% return rate.

We have the by precinct, we got data that Mark provided of people who requested mail-in ballots in those precincts, and what were the return rates, okay. That’s we’re gonna, that’s the analysis that was done. And the return rates give you an idea of people’s engagement, right. So, if one precinct returned a lot of their, let’s say, 100% return rate of their mail-in ballots, that means they’re obviously potentially more engaged voters than someone who had only a 20% return rate. Okay. That gives us an idea of the engagement of voters.

We’re going to do an executive summary, we’re going to do a quick background, we’re gonna look at what Pima County reported as their results, then we’re going to do a comparative analysis, then we’re going to do an analysis that we did a performance of each candidate, Trump and Biden in that county versus the mail-in return rates. And you’ll see that’s a very nice analysis. And that’s where you’ll see this fishtail. And then we’re going to go over some of the key findings, and then questions and hypotheses that we have of those findings. And then we’re going to conclude in future research.

The executive summary is this – first of all, a mathematical analysis of Pima County’s mail-in ballot request and return rates were done. To give you an idea, 87% over 87% 87.4% of all ballots cast in Pima were by mail-in. If you notice, when we looked at Maricopa it was close to 92% – was by mail-in. I think we need to understand as the citizens that more and more votes are occurring by mail. Now Pima votes, all the votes cast in Pima represent 15% of the votes cast in the state of Arizona. That’s giving you a high level view.

Pima has mail-in return rates you’re going to find out are quite fascinating the return rates which means they sent out 100 ballots, mail-in ballots, and let’s say the return rates were 50 people returning over a 50% return rate we’re going to see shortly that Pimas’ return rates are higher not only than the US average mail-in return rates, but also all other counties put together in Arizona. And the key is here, the data in summary is 15% higher than all US return rates and 19% higher than all other counties in Arizona.

So the third point is we detected this anomaly we’re going to share with you in Trump and Biden performance relative to mail-in return rates. What we noticed was Trump and Biden’s performance. Whatever they were doing, the numbers you’re gonna see were pretty much steady. But when you get to greater than 87%, mail-in ballot return rates, suddenly you see this flip, Biden rates increase, and Trump rates go down. Typically, you will see some of the slope because of Republican Democrats, but the phenomenon here is quite drastic and quite impressive, actually. The next thing is we have some questions and hypotheses. And we think, and we’ve spoken to Mark about this. Mark is a big proponent of this, we think there’s an opportunity to really validate the anomalies we’re finding with canvassing in the high return rate precincts and all of this has become clear.

Quick background, as many of you know who are joining us new. as those of you just joined, we just had another 300 people join concurrently. Mark Finchmen is a state rep in Pima County, the only republican state rep. This is Dr.Shiva. My background is in the field of pattern recognition, computational analysis for over 40 years. And you can see my background here. But fundamentally, I’m a System Scientist and have a bunch of degrees from MIT. But I’ve spent most of my life looking at all different kinds of patterns, in handwriting analysis, all different fields I’ll walk you through.

For example, in this field of pattern, you have the reality of some event that took place, for example, the election Pima County, and then you get data from that, like the Mail-in ballot return numbers are the return rates. And we’re trying to use that signal to reflect on what actually took place, you have a signal, a model, and reality.

For example, if some of you know I’ve done this in the field of sleep data analysis, right, we get sleep signals, and you’re trying to figure out what’s going on inside the baby, or looking at speech signals and looking at what’s the way deaf blind people communicate, or looking at a radar signals from bridge decks deteriorating, and you’re trying to predict what’s going on inside that bridge. Okay, without having to blow up the bridge, by the way, 50,000 bridges in the United States are falling apart.

It’s very important to do this kind of analysis, aircraft wings, we don’t want to open up a billion dollar aircraft wing, you can send an ultrasonic signature through, wave through and you get a signal. And then based on that signal, again, you’re trying to reflect on the reality of that wing, or for many years, I did bank checks analysis, looking at the handwriting signature on bank checks, and doing neural net analysis and trying to figure out what’s actually written there.

Or with email analysis, right, we used to be able to look at signals from an email and try to predict, initially did it for the White House on when Bill Clinton was there, trying to figure out if this is the death threat or not, and I won one of the contests To do this, we grew this to our company, EchoMail. And more recently, with the technology we have called CytoSolve, looking at signals, and trying to understand how combinations of foods or supplements can affect particular biomolecular functions.

You have again, the reality of the model, you can look at the heart, right, and you can figure out from the heart, here’s a normal signal, and here’s a signal that’s abnormal. Alright, again, this is background.

When we look at the reality model, here, we’re looking at the mail-in ballot system in Pima County, and we have the Mail-in ballot returned data that Mark Finchmen got us and we’re looking at it to see if we can identify anomalous behavior. Now before you can talk about anomalous behavior, you need to know what normal behavior is.

Phil was not able to join us, Phil was here for four hours with us. But Phil Evans and I did research back in November of 2020, looking at races republican races in, for example, in Michigan, and what we find is, in fact, other other previous races, you will find out that when something is normal, again, pattern analysis is not just for mathematicians, typically mathematicians have a huge blind spot in pattern analysis, they just crunched numbers, they don’t understand the need for domain knowledge or, you know, subject matter expertise.

But what you’ll see here is this is a this classic parabolic arc as you go from on the x axis 0% republican precincts, 100% republican precincts, and then as you look on the y axis performance, where performance is a function of the percent vote, that this case, we’re looking at Jeff Sessions elections from 2008, minus the republican straight party vote.

You’ll typically get this curve when you do this kind of metric. Okay. That’s 2008 Jefferson County, you’ll see the same curve and McCain in the presidential election of 2008. Again, you see this parabolic arc, same here, in the Trump election in Saginaw County, Michigan, this was where our view is, there was no anomaly. This is a normal behavior, you see this parabolic arc and the reason you see this is because again, you’re going from low republican districts, which means high Democrats, to middle of the curve would be Democrats, Independent Republicans mix, and all the way the right would be Republican.

Based on the math of this, you will get this kind of curve. And this curve really has three parts to it, a sloping line up, a horizontal line here, if you want to break it up into three functions. This is a normal state composed of f of x, g of x and h of x, three functions. You would always expect this parabolic arc. Now if you just got a line, you’d say, hey, something’s wrong, you know, line sloping up, if you just got a flat line, you’d say something’s wrong, you get a sloping line down Okay. All right.

So again, signal detection says parabolic arc, normal state, non parabolic arc, these will be abnormal states. So Michigan County, for example, you can see we see this straight line. This is what alerted us to something was off here. Same here, straight line over here. On election day in early voting. McComb County, same thing, pretty hard, straight line, and in Kent County, this sloping line so this is why we alerted people. And this started people wanting to explore Michigan, because you see this anomaly. It’s not normal.

So again, normal state parabolic arc and the line. I used to sort of jokingly say, and Kent county and McComb and Oakland County, Michigan, Mark, that a parabola went into the voting booth and out came out came a line. That’s what we’re seeing here. So now, in Pima Mail-in ballot reported results. Mark, I’m showing them the Pima results. Okay, the reported results in Pima. And what you see here, the total, this is by the way it was recorded in the final vote counts in Pima the total mail-in ballots requested according to the Pima County was 525,645. In 2020.

The duplicate analysis, they didn’t report any duplicates. Again, it’s unfortunate that they don’t report duplicates. This is in my view, a process error. And they didn’t really report how many total unique mail-in ballots were requested, because we don’t know the duplicates. We do know that. So you know, 525,645 were requested. And you notice according to the county’s report, 459,406 were actually received. And the total unique ones that they reported were 454,633, because I guess these are the ones that they received and counted, so they must remove some bad signature ones, etc. Like we talked about Maricopa. So, 454,633 were the total unique mail-in ballots, received and counted. All right.

Now in Pima mail-in ballot, the return rate data, so this is what we have. This one is what came from Mark’s data. For Mark’s data we have 516,099 as a total mail-in ballots requested. We actually found 13,543 duplicates. The total mail-in ballots requested we have is 502,556. Comparative analysis, you can see here, we have a higher number. Mark, are you still there? Maybe we lost Mark, but.

Mark Finchem: I am, Yeah, I just had my sound on mute. So I,

Dr.SHIVA: No worries, but this is one of the questions Mark will obviously want to ask the county, this discrepancy. But anyway, we’re working off this 502,556 number. Okay. Now before we go into all the details of this, we want to put this in perspective. We want to look at national and all counties in Arizona to really get an understanding of what the mail-in ballot return rates, okay, like what do we consider, quote unquote, normal. And the only way to understand that is to look at some averages.

What you see here is a mail-in ballot return rate in 2008, for example, in the presidential election was at 1.1%. That’s nationally, in 2012. It was again at 1.8%. Nationally, in 2016. It was 80%. Went down a little bit. And when you look at 2020, it was 71% obviously had more people requesting mail-in ballots 92 million, but you can see the return rates went down to 71%. We’re talking about the percentage, not the overall absolute number. Okay, so that’s nationally.

Now, when we compare Pima County’s mail-in ballot return rates over the last let’s say, since almost the last 20-25 years, we get some interesting understanding here. So for example, 2008 Pima County’s return rates were 10% higher than the national 0% in 2012. They’re about the same 3% higher than the national 2016. But in 2020, Pima County’s Mail-in ballot return rates were 16% higher than the national return rates, so quite significantly different.

Again, you notice that difference, right? So national was 71.1 Pima was 86.7. To be specific 15.6% difference. Now we look at all of the other Arizona counties combined. We found out that the mail-in ballot return rates were 67.6% and Pima’s was 86.7%. And Mark, I think you were pretty surprised yourself right? When we calculated these numbers, because it was,

Mark Finchmen: I was surprised – is not the word. I was stunned. Actually.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. I’m highlighting those and we can see here that Pima County’s mail-in ballot return rates were 20%, close to 20% higher than all of the other Arizona counties combined. That’s a pretty good average there. Which, and they were at 67% and 15%, higher than national averages. So that’s an interesting phenomenon, an anomaly. Now, what we’re going to do, and I want to understand this week, then pattern analysis, we typically build what we call a feature, a metric. We had a very foolish mathematician, and I did this in Michigan, a guy who calls himself the Math Guy in England, who doesn’t understand pattern analysis.

They say, Oh, you can’t subtract two percentages. Well, frankly, in pattern analysis, you create metrics. Okay, you create features. So this unfortunate lad didn’t understand the difference between a feature and math. It’s not simply looking at percentages, okay? In face analysis, for example, people used to spend all this time doing high end pixel analysis, well, you find out you could analyze people’s faces by looking at certain distance measurements or certain percentages of, you know, the distance between the nose in the eyes anyway, in pattern analysis, we call these features.

And mathematicians need to sort of learn their chops on this. They need to, frankly, get educated before they sort of critique something they don’t know what they’re talking about, but fundamentally, in Pima, what we’re looking at is the x axis, we’re looking at the percent Mail-in return, right? Okay, so we’re going to plot on the x axis by the precincts what the mail-in and return rates were. But on the y axis, we’re going to calculate a candidate’s performance. And the candidate’s performance is this feature, which is going to be what percentage did that candidate get relative to the party’s Mail-in Ballot return rate, okay.

For example if Joe Biden got, you know, 70% instead of precincts, but you know, the mail-in ballot return rate in those precincts among the democrats is 74% 70 minus 74, he’d get a minus four. That’s basically saying he was underperforming, relative to his party participation. It’s a very interesting measure to see how you’re performing relative to your party’s your party’s participation. Let’s get to this is where it gets interesting now. Mark, I’m starting to show the signal now Mark on the graph.

Mark Fincham: Thank you very much.

Dr.SHIVA: What you see here is on the x axis, we have precincts, some of them which had 70%, mail-in ballot rates all the way, interesting, some of them had 100%, we’ll talk about this. But first, we see this line here. This line right here, the red dot denotes the performance rate. And this looks like it’s about 73%. These are precincts that had 73% mail-in return rates, it’s called and then we here we see Trump, whose performance is 3% higher relative to the republican share mail-in ballots. So he’s doing higher than Biden and Biden’s actually minus 3%.

Biden is doing 3% lower. So as we go across, now we go to the next set of precincts which are 75% return rates, and again, you can see Trump is 3%. Higher, Biden’s actually goes down a little bit, he’s a little bit less than 3%, close to -4%. And again, you can see there’s about the same when we get to the precincts that are 77%. Again, we can see when we get to precincts that are 80% mail-in return rates, they’re converging a little bit, and then at around 83%, you know, they diverged a little bit, but you know, you can see they’re between that, you know, three in that 3% vicinity, okay. And then when we get to precincts with 85%, return rates, they converge a little bit.

And this is what the interesting point is, remember, Pima County’s mail-in ballot return rates are at 86.7%. Okay, that’s what their mail-in ballot return rates are across Pima. So when we hit that, what I call that sort of interesting wall, we start seeing Trump’s performance come down, and Biden’s performance go up. And in fact, at 90% of these precincts which are the 90% return rate, you see them near the same, which means they’re both there’s no difference.

This is what gets interesting. At around 92%. We’re going at 93%, you start seeing Biden starts overtaking Trump in these precincts which have greater than 90% mail-in return rates and they start growing in fact, and they start growing and growing. As you go up to 95%. You start seeing between around 93%, you start seeing this very interesting slope, it almost looks like for every 1% increase in mail-in ballot return rates, Trump is losing 1% and Biden is gaining 1%. That’s the slope of that line. And this is what I call this fishtail.

In fact, as you go to one, we’re getting close to 99% it becomes so -s0 this is why I call this the Pima Fishtail. In fact, there were precincts we’ll find we’ll talk about that are close to 100%. In fact, 100% return rates. This is why I call it this fish tail – it sure looks like a fishtail. So this is a Pima fishtail. Now, what we then did was we wanted to understand the phenomenon and we looked at the mail-in ballot return rates by precinct Okay, so that’s what these bar graphs are.

What you see is these are the number of precincts with these particular mail-in return rates. So for example, there are five precincts with 69% mail-in return rates. Over here there are close to 20 precincts with 95% return rate, there are in fact, 20 precincts right here, this red bar with 98% return, right? And they’re interesting. There’s a precinct which has got a 100% return rate. Okay, so you see this graph. And, you know, if you were to do sort of the mode and the median analysis, you find out that the average is this red line here, where Pima County is.

But the average in this histogram has actually shifted over here, which is quite interesting. So if I overlay the fishtail, with the histogram, you see right here at 86 point more than 86.6%. And as we proceed to the right, when you get to the precincts that are about 95%, going all the way to 98%. You see that beautiful 1% slope going up for Biden 1%, meaning for every 1% increase in mail-in ballot return rates, Biden’s gaining 1% and Trump is losing 1%. But the phenomenon has started really occurring at the high mail-in return rate precincts.

When we’ve done these kinds of graphs with high republican you would expect to see this kind of – a little bit of dip. But frankly, there should be no correlation between this and the correlation between return rates and this. In summary, what we have is to give you the sort of the sizing of this, you know, Trump loss in Arizona by 10,457 votes. That’s the difference. Pima County, Trump lost by 97,223 votes, okay.

If you just take even, you know, 1% of Pima County, which would be 5127 voters, and those were flipped, that would be the margin of error, right? right, because if 5000 plus voters went to Biden, that means you’re removing from Trump, you would create the 10,000 margin, but that again, would be you know, about, you know, you know, about 1% there, right.

That’s about I’m sorry, it’s 1% of all of Pima That is right. It’s 1% of all of people’s votes. But it’d be about 5% of the votes Trump lost by okay. Yeah, cuz it’s 1% of 512,739. Okay, that is correct. All right. So again, we have this fishtail phenomenon. And here are the key findings. The key findings are at precincts below average return, right? That 86.7% Trump’s performance was steady at 3% plus, and Biden’s performance is steady at 3% minus as precincts with return rates went above average. What did you see? Trump’s performance begins to decrease, and Biden’s performance begins to increase.

And then at precincts with return rates between 92% to 97%. What do we see? Trump decreases 1% with each 1% increase in return rate, and Biden increases 1% with each 1% increase in return. So that’s what we see, or that’s quite fascinating. Those are the summary of the observations, everything is flat, but the fishtail occurs right during these return rate precincts where they’re between this 92 to 97, actually, after 86%, but you get this 1% slope on these 92% to 97%. Again, that’s what we’re talking about right here. So everything is steady here, and then the fishtail occurs right around here.

Now to give you an analysis, if you look at those precincts, above that 92% return rate to the 100%. That’s 264,000 votes. That would account just to give you an idea if 2% of these votes were flipped, right, which is that margin of 505,000. That would create a 10,000 vote margin. If you wanted to flip an election it could just be done with 2% of the votes in these high turnout precincts. So, here’s our questions and hypotheses. First question to everyone is why to Trump and Biden’s performance stay steady across precincts with return rates from 69 85%. That’s that plus 3% minus 3%. Okay, Why the sudden decrease in votes for Trump increasing with higher mail-in ballot return rates?

And why is there a linear decrease and increase by 1% and Trump and Biden’s votes respectively, as precincts return rates? Each increased by 1%, starting with precincts with the 92% return rates, and why are there true precincts with 100% plus mail-in return rates. And why are there 40 precincts with 97 plus mail-in return rates? That’s quite a number of precincts. Okay. So here’s our hypothesis, and our hypothesis. Our More answered as questions or did in precincts that have higher mail-in ballot return rates above 86.7%. Trump voters start flipping to Biden. Is that what started happening?

Did republicans in those higher mail-in ballot rate precincts vote for Biden that could have happened, right? We don’t understand why. But maybe in high ballot, high mail-in return rate precincts for some reason republicans started flipping or did independence in those higher mail-in ballot rate precincts vote for Biden. The other question if you want to take a more of what someone may call a real hypothesis or something where perhaps who will say we’re being conspiratorial would be we’re mailing ballots for Biden injected into precincts with the higher mail-in ballot rate? precincts okay. 92%.

So here are various extremes of hypotheses again, in science, you put forward a hypothesis, then you go do the experiment? Well, what would be the experiment here? Well the experiment would be, you would have to go do a different kind of methodology because we’re just hypothesizing you’re This is how science works, right? You see some phenomenon, and then you hypothesize because you want to do more research.

Again, the conclusion and future research overseeing an inverse relationship on the performance of Trump and Biden. And we think further research and information are necessary to elicit greater understanding. What would that kind of research be? Well, we need new research methods, one starting point, maybe the survey, Canvass individuals who voted in those precincts with the higher mail-in ballot rates, which are the 92% plus to validate mail-in ballot votes. So that’s about 264,000. People obviously are not going to survey all of them. If you use standard statistical analysis, sampling analysis, if you could survey 2500 people, that would give you a margin of error of plus or minus 2%, at a 95% confidence rate, okay. So that’s one way you could do it.

And if you found, you know, 75, or more of those people are found to be invalid, that would be a significant finding, okay. Now, or if people didn’t want to do 2500, you could just target those precincts, those 40 precincts that were at 98% plus. And on those precincts, we would go to an analysis. All right. So anyway, I’m going to, people want to go look at the background here. But what we just shared with you is a mathematical analysis, the Mail-in ballot vote requests, and mail-in ballot return rates in Pima County. And one of our recommendations we may want to do door to door canvassing in those 98% plus precincts. There you go. That’s why we call this Pimas fishtail. I hope everyone got it. And Mark, do you have any other thoughts? I can look at some of the questions that I’m seeing online, we have close to 1000 people Mark.

Mark Finchem: Well, the only thing I would offer up is, you’ve just done a great job of explaining something that so many people are scratching their heads about. And there are two points that I would like to make. There are many people who believe that the election, establishing the Regional Transit Authority some number of years ago, was not exactly what it appeared to be.

Now, obviously, we can’t go back and re-litigate that. But now the question is, how reliable is an anonymous report. And for anyone who would like to see the text of that email, I would be happy to send it to them. All they need to do is visit That’s and click on contact. Give me your name, your email address and a comment that you’d like to see the report from Pima County, and I’ll be happy to send you all of that verbiage. So you can see it for yourself.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, Mark. So people go to, So Mark, this entire analysis was motivated by a report that came from an insider who said that he had seen some anomalies. And those of you are joining us new. We’ve, I think we’ve doubled the number of viewers since we’ve,

Mark Finchem: Not that he’d seen anomalies. But he was reporting what the Democrat Party officials were saying in a closed meeting. And the flavor of the email was that they were bragging about it, bragging about what they had done to the system.

Dr.SHIVA: Got it.

Mark Finchem: And that tells me that you have an individual whose moral compass tells him that it’s more important to protect the nation than it is to protect the party. And for that, whoever Brian Watson is, I applaud him for having the courage to send that out.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, Mark, it’s interesting. Earlier today we had Tim Canova, you may know that race in Florida where Tim Canova is a democrat running against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and how they stole that election. We also talked about my own race matches where the Republicans, the Massachusetts GOP swamp, colluded with the democrats against our race.

I think the point here is, this is not about Republicans or Democrats, this is about the fact that we have squishy, election voting systems where there’s enough things there that can be played with. And what again, what we did here this evening, was thanks to Mark, we were able to get access to this data. And we were able to do a scientific mathematical analysis to point out this fishtail. And now following the scientific method, remember, the scientific method is a process that you go through, you find something, you come up with a new hypothesis, you do more experiments, you come up with a new hypothesis.

This is called science. And we want to bring this kind of engineering Systems Approach to this world. We can essentially ask questions, we can make people accountable, and we can also get citizens also more accountable themselves, because this is really up to you. The reason we’re here is because if we sleep on guard, people can do whatever the hell they want. Thanks, Mark.

Mark Finchem: Yeah,it’s kind of like you don’t get a dog and let him run through the neighborhood, unsupervised. And I’ve, you reminded me of a conversation that I’ve had with a couple of Bernie supporters. And they just – they keep scratching their heads, and they believe that Bernie was robbed. And my response to that is, well, I suppose then you would be making the exact same allegation that maybe the election wasn’t really an election, is it possible that it could have been more of a selection that was supervised by somebody? So that’s a question to ask. I’m not making an accusation.

Of course, there are some Democrats who are perfectly happy with the outcome. That would ask the question as well. So is it possible that Bernie Sanders would have been the legitimate Democrat in the race? And I think that that’s an open question. And when we see evidence, like what you and your team have been able to pull together, it’s one of those questions that perhaps it won’t be answered in the immediate future. But I think the more we dig in, the more we supervise elections, because remember, elections belong to the people, they don’t belong to the bureaucrat, the bureaucracy, they don’t belong to a governor or a legislature. They truly do belong to,

Dr.SHIVA: Mark, thank you very much. I’m going to just wrap up with some messaging and some of this stuff that we want to talk about. And thank you, Mark. So I think that was Mark Finchmen, a state rep in Pima County. So what I want to finish up with is we have about close to 800 people here. concurrently. By the way, Facebook is doing some wonderful throttling, quite interesting.

But what I want to finish up with is I want to play you two videos, one video, is to let everyone know the way we are going to win is not through politicians, not through celebrities, not through lawsuits, frankly, not through elections, it’s really going to happen with every one of you, learning that we all need to take a Systems Approach to building a movement. And it goes beyond left or right so I’m gonna play you two videos. So this first video will give you sort of the positioning on how we look at the world at our movement, Truth Freedom Health. Let me play this for you,

Dr.SHIVA: I wanted to play that for you. Because hopefully that will inspire you to understand that when you look at the hit arc of world history, not only US history, you’ll see it’s when working people rise up. And where we’re at right now is over the last 50 years, which we talk about in our training every Monday evening. I run training. We’ve taken sort of 50 years worth of knowledge, and we want to educate people on a Systems Approach. We’ve made it extremely accessible to everyone. You can have 60,000 people, 70,000 people all over the world who’ve signed up.

We’re putting together a leadership program, but it’s all everyday working people. We saw what Southwest Airlines workers did – right. We saw the workers what’s going on in Australia, they defied their own union which wanted them to get jobs. But the reality is we need to build a Bottoms-up movement, but there’s a physics to building that movement. We need infrastructure.

Fortunately, with all of your guys’ support, and the fact that I’ve donated infrastructure to this, we have the course, we have technology and then we also have activism. I want all of you to take time to become part of this. It’s really for you. And every Monday evening I teach a course. This Monday we didn’t because it was Columbus Day but then every Thursday evening at 7pm we actually have our Truth Freedom Health warriors come together and hold an open house.

But I’m going to play you a final video and we’ll wrap it up. I wish everyone well but this video will share with you the wonderful infrastructure that we put together to really build this movement. So, we’re not sitting here and we have no intention of sitting here. We want to actually take action to win Truth Freedom Health, let me play this for you. And this will give you a deeper understanding.


Thank you everyone, be well.

The original research in this video is made possible by generous contributions from supporters of the Dr.SHIVA Truth Freedom Health® movement. Please contribute so we may continue to bring you such original research, valuable education, and innovative solutions.

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD in Biological Engineering, the Inventor of Email, Scientist, Engineer, Educator shares The Fish Tail in Pima County. Analysis of Mail-In Ballots Pima County, Arizona.

It’s time we move beyond the Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s time YOU learn how to apply a systems approach to get the Truth Freedom Health you need and deserve. Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior.

Join the VASHIVA community – an integrated EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNICATIONS – independent of Big Tech -, and LOCAL ACTIVISM platform to empower YOU to actualize Truth Freedom Health in your local communities by employing a SYSTEMS APPROACH.

The platform we are building for Truth Freedom Health® provides the infrastructure to take on Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Academia. Many of you have asked how you can help. You can contribute whatever you can. Based on your level of commitment to get educated, I have also created some wonderful educational gifts to thank you for your contribution.

To get the education you need and deserve, join Dr.SHIVA on his Foundations of Systems course. This course will provide you three pillars of knowledge with the Foundation of Systems Thinking. The three pillars include: 1) The System Dynamics of Truth Freedom Health, 2) The Power of a Bottom’s Up Movement, and 3) The Not So Obvious Establishment. In this course, you will also learn fundamental principles of all systems including your body.

Course registration includes access to his LIVE Monday training, access to the Your Body, Your System tool, four (4) eBooks including the bestselling System and Revolution, access to the Systems Health portal and communications tools – independent of Big Tech – including a forum and social media for you to build community with other Truth Freedom Health Warriors.

This course is available online for you to study at your own pace.

It’s time to Get Educated, or Be Enslaved.

Share This Post
Back To Top
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration