The Hidden Truth Behind 2000 and 2004 Elections

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Hidden engagements. Deals for the people's identity.

This is going to be a two part update. The first part of the update will be to illustrate the precise relationship that the head programmers of PeopleAggregator had with the U.S. government.

The next part of the update will include screenshots and additional sources that, in fact document their connection with this to provide widespread networking arrays that collect people's personal information.

Note that I can not vouch enough for the danger that is presented here. However, I do not claim these as my own words and further, do not present them all as the official truth. Only the facts as far as one website and several documented statisticians have viewed them.

"I really suggest you check the site out. The theory driving PeopleAggregator is what they call social network software or what a statistican would call data mining. Collecting people with similar interest. He has mountains of info, he discusses the issue of privacy and to tell you the truth, it is very luke warm, he knows it is affecting it. What I finding interesting this is similar to the spider web searches. Here is some text on his front page. "

"In my post about the Dunbar Number I offered some evidence on the levels of satisfaction of various group sizes based on some empirical data from online games. There I was able to show that even though the Dunbar Number might predict a mean group size of 150 for humans, that in fact for non-survival oriented groups the mean wassignificantly less, probably between 60 to 90.

I also offered a second hypothesis, that there is a dip insatisfaction level of groups at around the size of 15. Unfortunately, I could only offer anecdotal evidence that this threshold existed. My personal belief was that this dip was caused by not enough "attention" being given to everyone and that group gatherings of this size risk becoming too noisy, too boring, too long, or some combination thereof.

Yet groups of this size are not large enough to allow for different perspectives (i.e. insufficientrequisite variety) or for other group processes to come into play.Dunbar Triage: Too Many Connections. As someone who now has over 171 professional "connections" in myLinkedIn Profile, 198 "friends" on Orkut, many more non-intersecting friends and acquaintances on Tribe.Net, LiveJournal, and othersocial networking services, as well as a plethora of correspondentsthat I only interact with via email, I am trying reconcile amismatch between my connections and my own Dunbar Number.How do I maintain meaningful relationships with over 300 people?

Venture Capitalist Jeff Nolan relates similar concerns:"It strikes me that the social networking theory holds that the more volume you have, the bigger your network will become by introducing degrees of separation roughly along the lines of Metcalfe's Law. I disagree, human networks do not grow in value by multiplying, but rather by reduction.

For me, it's the quality of relationships that enhances my professional and personal life, not the sheer numbers."Ultimately social networking services -- be it LinkedIn, Tribe.Net,Orkut, or LiveJournal -- are making the problem worse, not solving it. Any engineer or information theorist can tell you that a system that only has amplifiers will be out of balance, and that you need attenuators in the system as well.

Our current breed of social networking services have focused on amplifying our contacts not only because it serves us, but because it serves them. The more contacts that you make, the more people they potentially have in their service. However, in the long run this is unsustainable -- a social networking service also has to be useful -- merely amplifying your contacts isn't enough.

Thus the problem becomes not just one unique to me, where my friends network is overextended, but rather one that's endemic to the current generation of social networking services. In order to solve it we need to look at the traditional cultural answers to the problem, compare them to technical solutions, both current and to-be-invented, and then see how a new generation of social networking services can be designed that molds the two ideas together into amore cohesive whole.

I offer here the beginning of that discussion.The Cultural Strategies. The problem of overextended social networks are not new with the Internet generation. Many professions require maintaining a large base of relationships and have done so for hundreds of years, among them: politicians, salespeople, public company CEOs, and even professions that you might not think of requiring these skills such as family doctors.

The Dunbar Number of 150 may be a kind of species-wide average limit, it is not an individual limit -- thus my guessis that people with an innate talent for maintaining more relationships are attracted to these professions.

But even with innate talent those who follow these professions can be overwhelmed,and each have found different cultural strategies for managing larger numbers of relationships.

Cultural Strategy - Spending More Time: Some people just spend a lot more time keeping up with their connections. Politicians and salespeople are classic examples of professions that requiresignificant schmoozing time in order to keep trusted connections together.

How does someone like a member of the US House of Representatives manage their relationships? In no way can they even come close to having a relationship with all the 645,952 people they represent. They would, however, at least have to keep up at some level with the other 435 House members, their own staff, key members of the staff of other House members, as well as key politicians and contacts backhome.

From what I've read, successful politicians spend most oftheir days just meeting with people, and have staff dedicated to "tickling" -- keeping track of constituents, schedules, issues,etc. and reminding the politician before each meeting of theessentials they need to know.

The cost of this strategy is twofold -- the time spent managing relationships can't be spent elsewhere, and the quantity of relationships lowers the quality of those relationships. Forinstance, my experience with most politicians and many salesperson is that I will be forgotten as soon as I leave the room.

Cultural Strategy - Changing the Standard: There are different cultural standards in each profession as to what is an acceptable relationship. Thus some people chooose a profession that manages relationships in different ways. Doctors are a good example of socializers who fit into this category.

Your family doctor has a similar problem to that of politicians -- too many people to keep track of. Yet a good family practitioner can see you and look beyond just today's symptoms. Thus because of an ongoing relationship with you he can be a better doctor.

The way the doctor does this is through cultural and professional limits. Because of the authority, status and title granted to doctors, patients tend to defer to them. There is not an expectation that the relationship is equal. This allows the doctor to have a 'shallower' relationship with the patient that is still acceptable.

Still, even this level of serial, shallow socialization can be excessive for many people. A Radiologist acquaintance of mine told me the reason why she ended up in her specialty was that she just couldn't handle the ongoing patient relationships required by other specialities -- instead, she now looks at one set of images at a time, performs a diagnosis, and doesn't have to retain any relationship to move on to the next patient.

There are also problems with changing your socialization standards. Unless it is culturally understood, or your standard is reciprocated by others, it can make you appear shallow and not trustworthy.

I've seen this when someone moves from one profession to another, say a salesperson to a manager -- styles of relationships that were acceptable among salesperson and between salespeople and customers are not quite as acceptable as those between managers and their staff.

Another example is when someone moves from the East Coast to the West Coast, where the usefulness of casual alumni connections is significantly less valued, but those casual connections are unable to understand the change in standards. "

The Author, Chris Allen is one of the principal programmers for the PeopleAggregator.

"Nick is not named, but I guess this is his partner, Marc Canter. So how do you like that, a Venture Capitalist with PeopleAggregator.

"The next thing is to add pointers to any other FOAF files that you might have on other services, for instance, I have a profile on MarcCanter's People Aggregator service. You should also list the place where you plan on making your FOAF file available -- you might think that this is a circular reference, but it is OK. My convention is to put the most "authoritative" FOAF file last, so that if there is a conflict the last one might override earlier ones. However, in practice I've not found that any FOAF tool I've used supports this convention. Put these right above the closing <./foaf:Person> tag. "

Chris Allen owns Alacrity Ventures.

"Alacrity Ventures is an angel capital investment firm. Its main purpose is to fund and guide start-up companies through initial stages of development, offering seed financing and mentorship. Alacrity is primarily oriented toward working with Internet and technological companies with new and innovative ideas. Alacrity's goal is to identify people with a passion to create ground-breaking high-tech firms and to help them achieve success in building those businesses.---------------------

It looks harmless, here are the owners: Christopher Allen - We know about this guy - the data miner Founder, Alacrity Ventures

Gifford Pinchot: is an author, speaker and consultant on innovation management. His best-selling book, INTRAPRENEURING: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur (Harper &Row, 1985) defined the ground rules for an emerging field of enterprise: the courageous pursuit of new ideas in established organizations.

Pinchot & Company, the firm he leads, "helps companies reduce bureaucratic obstacles." It audits and helps improve the environment for innovation, trains intrapreneurial teams to succeed, helps managers to be better sponsors of innovation, facilitates strategic and business planning meetings and designs reward systems more favorable to innovation andwise long-term management.

Its client list includes many of the largest and best-run firms in the United States.

How modest his little bio is about his company:

Here is the some interesting US Departments as his clients
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Services
U.S. Dept. of Defense
U.S. Dept. of Labor
U.S. Dept. of the Treasury
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
U.S. National Security Agency "

Alacrity Ventures and Pinchot are located in Berkeley, California the same exact area as Nick Chalko.

"Alacrity Ventures 1563 Solano Avenue, #353 Berkeley, CA 94707-2116 ...Copyright © 1999-2003, Alacrity Ventures. All rights reserved"

Now I certainly don't want to infer anything yet, without seeing all of the evidence. But let us remember that when the vote-rigging software story first broke, Tom Feeney and Jeb Bush were found connected to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Department of Transportation in quite the scandal.

It was discovered that Raymond C Lemme had tracked the corruption all the way to the top through the FDL and FDOT, and he was going to come out with a big story. Then he suddenly was killed in an apparent "suicide". Well, little do people know that about 5 months ago there was a mexican man at the Yahoo group ElectionFraud2004.

He stated repeatedly that the Department of Agriculture was involved in something shady and that people's votes were being purged. No one at the time to anyone's knowledge did anything but contact the state.....The audit of the Department of Agriculture layed little more out than a slap on the wrist.

However, it appears that Marc Canter, Nick Chalko, Pinchot, Chris Allen all share something in common. One of their biggest customers happens to be the US Department of Agriculture, besides just the Department of Defense. One of the Department's main avenues of gathering information via datamining is Accenture, according to the procurement contract they received.

In the next update we will explore more evidence and concrete resolve. Though it appears as though, Lemme may have seen a little too much of Jeb Bush's plan. Jeb Bush runs the Agriculture and Transportation offices, and helped Tom Feeney and the House of Reps. In a scathing audit up to 108,000 dollars apparently went unaccounted for to unknown contracts.

If Karl Rove wanted to steal the entire election, would he resort to such crude tactics as hiring a few people who would surely be caught in each state? Or would he, knowing the power of US government, engage the operation in a much more subtle way. By securing contracts through the Dept of Agriculture to datamine identities, and let a few people running the BOE log in and out corrupting the aggregators.

Each aggregator has a login time, a date timestamp, and goes through a lib file parser thread. When the PA was online, I could actually secure a login name and use a password to view the registrar. Since they took it offline, I can no longer do so. However the lib parser is corrupt. It can easily delete data due to sabatoged XML.

Connecting the dots of this crime goes back to the formula these programmers basically used, Momento-XML, a free form XML with no real parser limits of data delivery. And if you can see the shady deal in action here now, and get a disgruntled feeling....It may be time to rip into the Department of Agriculture's archived contract reports.

I am not a hacker and wouldn't suggest to anyone to hack their database. However, surely a lawyer or someone who wants this resolved could simply log in and just check the contracts. If they have not covered their tracks, the contracts for the aggregators are still intact. And that means hard evidence which could bring down the whole operation if we take the initiative.

In part 2 we will explore more of this and I will also talk about the new Q&A session I am opening up, with viewers to discuss the seriousness of it and raise new topical points.

Rodney N. has seen alot of people lose their jobs due to lies and coverup. Winning back jobs and civil rights is what he does best.


  • Rodney, aka Andy Sornell, is a leader of a group of freak disinfo artists known as the Fablecrusaders. Since last November, they have been screwing with people’s minds, putting out disinfo at various sites, and disrupting real election fraud research.

    This Kos diary from last year is indicative of what these freaks do:

    And this yahoo group has been formed to capture the tons of evidence on these freaks:

    DO NOT TRUST THESE FREAKS – they only have one goal – disruption. At one point last year, they operated 24/7, 7 days a week, putting out shit all over the place.

    Election fraud did happen…but Rodney/Andy and his team of freaks do not have the answers.


    By Blogger Bozos Rnot4 Bush, at 7:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home