Why is it do you think , that these people think this is somehow credible evidence when you say its not?
Because they want to believe it is true. They are emotionally invested in thinking trump won. So when they see, for example, a video of a guy burning a stack of paper and he says they are trump votes, even though there's no evidence they actually are, they just choose to believe it.
Why is it that you have managed in just matter of minutes and with just a simple sweep of the hand have been able to debunk and dismiss these allegation as false yet somehow these people can take their false allegations all the way to a supreme court?
because I actually went through them looking critically for evidence to actually back up their claims. and when the claims had some sort of concrete information (hard numbers or some sort of proof) I went and double checked the story in other sources. And in each case there was a simple, straight forward explanation that had nothing to do with fraud.
What would you call credible evidence of election fraud worthy of close inspection in the supreme court?
Anything that has actual tangible evidence is worth investigating. If there are numbers that don't add up, ballots that "disappeared" or "appeared" in a manner that is unusual etc. It is worth investigating. But so far, no one has been able to provide any actual evidence that any of that happened. It is all hearsay (people claiming they saw something without any actual proof), conspiracy theory, or the odd case of human error which was quickly caught and corrected.
Would you consider a sworn affidavit under oath carrying a sentence of up to 5- 15 years imprisonment(?) credible evidence ?
on it's own? absolutely not. That is hearsay. If it is supporting other physical evidence, then it could be included as evidence as well.
Do you happen to work for a law firm?