Some trolls are pretty subtle. They start out innocuous then later they come out with their agenda and turn out to be a condescending apologist for the 100+ The moment this person said "with all due respect" and followed with some unsolicited advice, I deleted ALL her comments quickly,
One person wrote a rant with some analysis on my wall and AFTER I debunked what they were saying, I deleted their rant and analysis.
The first one said that the 100+ also has access to raw data and has published their analysis and I should take a look at it. If that's true, then why was that not referenced in the GMA story and the basic pdf announcement document that they all signed? Because in both those items, there was not even a HINT that they studied the totality of the RAW DATA. What the troll was saying was just hearsay. She didn't even place a link to any analysis based on raw data! Why make contrary statements and not back it up?
When I say raw data, ALL OF IT, all available RAW DATA. I'm not going to make it my life's work to read their analysis and engage in debate. I already know that their analysis is just ALL ABOUT THE INVERTED V. But that's just one side of a coin, its an incomplete part of the picture! These 100+ are guilty of a logical fallacy. They are making a conclusion based on very incomplete information.
They are also guilty of semantic manipulation because what they said is that the inverted V does not prove fraud. But that's not what Dr. Antonio P. Contreras said! He said that his analysis with David Yap could point to fraud NOT prove fraud. What the 100+ did not say is that NOTHING IN THEIR ANALYSIS DISPROVED FRAUD. Nothing they stated or put forth in the pdf document DISPROVED FRAUD. NOTHING. If all they are saying is that their analysis shows that the inverted V does not prove fraud, then that's called BEING LAZY. Because the real question, which they DID NOT answer was "COULD THERE HAVE BEEN FRAUD"?
ANYONE observing the count at close range and studying every aspect of the TOTAL raw data will know FRAUD is not only possible but PROBABLE. We also take into consideration that SMARTMATIC has done similar documented FRAUD in PAST elections, notably Venezuela 2015. A basic analysis of undervotes in the RAW DATA SET corroborates probable fraud as had been done in the Venezuela 2015 elections, an analysis that has been widely disseminated and seems to be completely disregarded by these 100+
The other troll wrote a rant and even included profanities, referenced an analysis by one of the 100. But he ADMITTED that they didn't look at the raw data!!! He even asked me to furnish him with the raw data because they haven't looked at it!! He also once again mentioned the BAILIWICK issue which has been debunked over and over!!!
Seriously I think the 100+ are VERY IRRESPONSIBLE to en banc make a very strong implication that there is categorically no fraud in this elections. And yet, nothing they have put forth DISPROVES FRAUD. If anyone has done analysis on raw data, but with only a focus on the inverted V, that STILL constitutes an incomplete analysis and still DOES NOT DISPROVE FRAUD. I don't have to look at their numbers to know that!
Once again, this is NOT Rocket Science. Just plain COMMON SENSE.
Ma. Victoria V. Ferro as posted on Facebook:
[Editor Note: Above photo is a publicly-accessible photo uploaded by Reinabelle Reyes ("Data Scientist & Astrophysicist") on her Facebook page. Reyes is one of the signatories to a statement signed by "over 100 data science professionals and academics" denouncing allegations of electoral fraud in the 2016 elections. The PDF file of this statement was first uploaded and made publicly available on Reyes's page.]
Facebook page of Reina Reyes at:
GMA News story reporting names of all 100+ signatories denouncing the work of Antonio Contreras and David Yap: