posted ago by keeponwinning
+151 / -0
Page 35
"I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot."
edit: doh! I accidentally her name /shame
Page 35
https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf
"I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot."
edit: doh! I accidentally her name /shame
Look what Donald Trump magically Tweeted** way back in JUNE 2020:**
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275024974579982336
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES! 6:16 AM · Jun 22, 2020·Twitter for iPhone 91.4K Retweets 31.5K Quote Tweets 286.9K Likes
I love people that do their homework. Did tou notice the part of the hearing when rudy asked if the paper and/or the ink has been examined? Ill try to find it and post back asap
No, that would be silly (I know you were being a bit hyperbolic there). But one method of fraud would be to stop the counting in the night, print up your own emergency set of ballots, and then dump them. Your own set may not be likely transparent/embossed watermarks or use the identical paper that the ballots use if you hadn't been prepared for this emergency. It could still have a legitimate explanation of course, something wrong with the printer etc etc.
A lot of people missed that part of the hearing. When rudy asked about the ink and the paper. Forensic spectrography.
I believe that was in reference to checking the ink on the user-filled portion of the ballots in order to see if all of the suspect ones could be batched together. It was said that you could analyze the composition of the ink as a "fingerprint". This was less about "watermark" and more about forensic analysis of the duplicate hand-written ballots.
This might be used to narrow down how many people were in on it and possibly area of origin.
Water marks are not from the printer. They are from the manufacturing of the paper.
Those aren't the same type as what was originally going around with emvedded hashes and whatnot. Just some hatchmarks that get aliased when you copy it. Still helpful though.