I read the thread but didn't analyze the data.
It's very difficult to answer this question in any conclusive way: assuming the graphs are correct, interpreting them is a highly risky/subjective game because there's so many hidden factors: the way votes are collected at different times, in different places which have different population density, under different state laws and procedures...
I would simply emphasize that in statistics the word "anomaly" only describes data points which deviate from the norm (regular pattern). Note that this is a quite vague notion (how far from the norm is an anomaly?), and more importantly that statistical analysis by itself does not explain the reason why anomalies happen, it can only detect them. The explanation must rely on what is usually called "expert knowledge", i.e. indications which are not present in the data itself, obtained by human analysis of how the data was obtained.
The linked analysis is quite interpretative and possibly biased:
- The "slight drift from D to R" in almost all states is "likely due to outlying rural areas having more R votes. These outlying areas take longer to ship their ballots to the polling centers." This explanation is based on expert knowledge, with no way for a non-expert to check its validity.
- The Wisconsin shift is explained by "Around 3am Wisconsin time, a fresh batch of 169k new absentee ballots arrived. They were supposed to stop accepting new ballots, but eh, whatever I guess." One may note again the use of external knowledge (and a suggestion that some illegal stuff happened)
- The explanation for this case looks like forensics analysis: "quite possibly bc additional ballots were added to the batch, either through backdating or ballot manufacturing or software tampering. This of this being kind of analogous to carbon-14 dating, but for ballot batch authenticity." Yet all of this is hypothetical, there could be other explanations.
- About the Pennsylvania shift: "But then as counting continues, the D to R ratio in mail-in ballots inexplicably begin "increasing". Again, this should not happen, and it is observed almost nowhere else in the country, because all of the ballots are randomly shuffled..." Saying that this shift is "inexplicable" is interpretative: one just doesn't have an explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one. "the ballots are randomly shuffled": not as far as I know: the ballots are collected by county and different counties can have a different distribution.
My point is: there's no way to know if this analysis is correct just from the data, most of the author's conclusion are based on external explanations.