What stands out to me in this user manual example is the scanned ballot shows "Charles Lindbergh" selected for Governor, but the tabulator receipt shows "Amelia Earhart" as the selection. 🤔 Red flag? That is clearly NOT who the voter voted for. 🤷♀️ Just an error in the manual? Weird.
A "glitch" you say? 😉 Wonder how many of those there are? 1...2...3...30k??? 🤦♀️ Ha! I just noticed my little handshake. Mostly just try to stay out of the way of professionals. I made my way here because I love God, America, and DJT and was intrigued with the analysis of switched votes. (I'm an "older" Math chic never reaching my potential, but have a keen sense of detail.) I was like "Yes"!!! Finally. I don't really know the lingo here, but I support the Patriots 🐸 and I continue to battle my household with the TRUTH!!! 🇺🇲 💪 ❤🤍💙
The entire database and image set must be printed out and laid out on soccer fields and tabulated by hand - and is the envelope even connected to the ballot any longer.? Seems they are creating decisions and image results internally then they only display forty at a time in there audit trail. Plenty of room for monkey business beyond the list of forty.
go look at the report's "Dual Threshold" section. it explains how you could set the pixel counts to various levels, meaning you could require a bubble @ 150% for trump and a bubble of 0% for Biden. simply by switching some settings. which they list as a feature
I agree that's in there and I don't trust the software but it doesn't say it can be adjusted different for any one particular candidate, just an overall setting
But you have to acknowledge that you don't need special certification to become a vote counter. They could pick any random monkey to do it as long as it stuff the ballots into certain boxes.
They say that the image of each ballot is saved. But, in a recent video posted by Dr. Shiva, he said that he sued (FOIA) for copies of the images in the race that he lost in MA, and it was revealed by the MA Secretary of State that they do not retain these images; which, as a matter of fact, is a violation of federal law.
FOIA has been a national disgrace. A failure to meet a FOIA request can be defended by the fact that you ignorantly cannot match the description to any document.
We do not know if Ballot-Images were manipulated systematically, it is unlikely that they programmed that however as the engineering time would be a little bit bigger.
We can test if Ballot-Images were manipulated once we get them by taking a random sample of voters, calling them up and asking them who they voted for.
Are you implying that even the best machines succumb to HUMAN FRAUD? Oh my god, what a shocker! And how shocking that some people think other machines could do a better job!
What stands out to me in this user manual example is the scanned ballot shows "Charles Lindbergh" selected for Governor, but the tabulator receipt shows "Amelia Earhart" as the selection. 🤔 Red flag? That is clearly NOT who the voter voted for. 🤷♀️ Just an error in the manual? Weird.
wow
It’s a feature, not a bug
Even in their manual, they commit voter fraud. Hmmm . . .
yea its weird, the X being unread as a vote makes sense for "human error" but the misreading of governor seems like a "glitch"?
A "glitch" you say? 😉 Wonder how many of those there are? 1...2...3...30k??? 🤦♀️ Ha! I just noticed my little handshake. Mostly just try to stay out of the way of professionals. I made my way here because I love God, America, and DJT and was intrigued with the analysis of switched votes. (I'm an "older" Math chic never reaching my potential, but have a keen sense of detail.) I was like "Yes"!!! Finally. I don't really know the lingo here, but I support the Patriots 🐸 and I continue to battle my household with the TRUTH!!! 🇺🇲 💪 ❤🤍💙
No, there giving an example of how it WORKS
This is called a "feature" and it costs extra
"They install that "feature" at the factory, there's nothing we can do."
it doesn't save the envelope though so the point is moot.
If it records votes out of nowhere, does it create fake ballot images as well?
hand recount and ballot image comparison would be informative.
The entire database and image set must be printed out and laid out on soccer fields and tabulated by hand - and is the envelope even connected to the ballot any longer.? Seems they are creating decisions and image results internally then they only display forty at a time in there audit trail. Plenty of room for monkey business beyond the list of forty.
source https://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/Dominion%20RFI_No%20Redactions.pdf
go look at the report's "Dual Threshold" section. it explains how you could set the pixel counts to various levels, meaning you could require a bubble @ 150% for trump and a bubble of 0% for Biden. simply by switching some settings. which they list as a feature
That’s really telling to me. Thanks
I agree that's in there and I don't trust the software but it doesn't say it can be adjusted different for any one particular candidate, just an overall setting
But you have to acknowledge that you don't need special certification to become a vote counter. They could pick any random monkey to do it as long as it stuff the ballots into certain boxes.
Yes this is true but it is not relevant to my point
All these features each represent an unequal treatment of the vote.
They say that the image of each ballot is saved. But, in a recent video posted by Dr. Shiva, he said that he sued (FOIA) for copies of the images in the race that he lost in MA, and it was revealed by the MA Secretary of State that they do not retain these images; which, as a matter of fact, is a violation of federal law.
FOIA has been a national disgrace. A failure to meet a FOIA request can be defended by the fact that you ignorantly cannot match the description to any document.
We do not know if Ballot-Images were manipulated systematically, it is unlikely that they programmed that however as the engineering time would be a little bit bigger.
We can test if Ballot-Images were manipulated once we get them by taking a random sample of voters, calling them up and asking them who they voted for.
Are you implying that even the best machines succumb to HUMAN FRAUD? Oh my god, what a shocker! And how shocking that some people think other machines could do a better job!
if you want to see a better system go look at some so-called 3rd world countries.