He did not invent QR code though, Japanese dude did: Masahiro Hara, of Denso car company. I think he based on some other research on alternative bar codes, not at all related to his QR code though. There is a whole documentary on it.
Once they pass the fold test, you can then test to see if the marks on the mail-in ballots were made by hand or machine. If the ballot is marked by machine, they are flawed.
However, I don't buy into the hidden code from the printer. That's maybe true for your desktop printers and office copiers (and the like), however, I don't think your commercial printing press is going to do that. That would have to be designed into the forms and color separated, and of course require that the Y channel [ink] be present, and that the section of printed page containing that mark isn't trimmed away.
Lot codes were only tracked for paper that was OK for food contact or FSC certified. Your run of the mill stock wasn't tracked that way.
But yea, I would hope paper ballots would require a special blend of paper, kind of like how money is printed, so that there are security measures in the paper itself that make it extremely hard to reproduce, and that the paper itself would have a chain-of-custody so that some cheap Chinese or Mexican knock-off would be easy to identify. But again, this would require physical access to the ballots, which is what these politicians are preventing.
well the "method" itself is just checking if a ballot was folded or not... doesn't take a huge brain to do that, and the idea that he does by "analysis", yeah well that works, but.... it's just lame.
it's more subtle than that. people have been talking about "checking for ballot fold" for weeks, by visually checking if ballots were fold-free.
now the guy comes up with a very complicated way to do the same thing that could be done just by eye. take a piece of paper, do you need equipment in order to know whether it has been folded or not?
well the guy is just talking about a multi-million dollar idea to check for ballot folds...
I'm all fine with this. The part where I'm cautious is where guys from our side start to argue everywhere that "but this highly recognized scientist and inventor said that........". instant decredibilisation.
Well first thing I’d say is, just listen to the guy speaking. Then a bit of internet research should be enough to nail the coffin. Two minutes suffice.
I believe in Flynn, Powell, Trump, but not in this guy. Just because someone is advertising “being pro-Trump” doesn’t mean he’s not simply looking for a free publicity stunt.
I had put together a qrcode election encryption idea 6 months ago. Not enough time to try to push out for use or study. But once things are settled thus shoukd be our msin priority. Make election as close as fraud proof as possible. Checks and balances, layers if security between county, state , and federal, and voter.
Now not time to get destracted on what should or could be done. All energy focused on exposing the fraud, taking our republic back and only then do we address new voting protections.
He did not invent QR code though, Japanese dude did: Masahiro Hara, of Denso car company. I think he based on some other research on alternative bar codes, not at all related to his QR code though. There is a whole documentary on it.
Was the 47 page blockchain USPS patent not enough?
Interesting...... <3 MAGA2020
So...... how do we rapidly determine if the mail in ballots are real?
1)Use computers to look for creases in the scanned mail-in ballots. 2)No crease = not mailed, thus fraudulent. 3)Throw out fraudulent ballots.
He mentions other methods as well and says with computers you can check millions of these a day. I think it sounds like a viable option.
Once they pass the fold test, you can then test to see if the marks on the mail-in ballots were made by hand or machine. If the ballot is marked by machine, they are flawed.
However, I don't buy into the hidden code from the printer. That's maybe true for your desktop printers and office copiers (and the like), however, I don't think your commercial printing press is going to do that. That would have to be designed into the forms and color separated, and of course require that the Y channel [ink] be present, and that the section of printed page containing that mark isn't trimmed away.
Commercial office printers it’s there, but yeah wholesale printers aren’t going to bother with it.
It could be embedded in the paper, not legit paper, not legit vote?
Lot codes were only tracked for paper that was OK for food contact or FSC certified. Your run of the mill stock wasn't tracked that way.
But yea, I would hope paper ballots would require a special blend of paper, kind of like how money is printed, so that there are security measures in the paper itself that make it extremely hard to reproduce, and that the paper itself would have a chain-of-custody so that some cheap Chinese or Mexican knock-off would be easy to identify. But again, this would require physical access to the ballots, which is what these politicians are preventing.
DEPORT!!! LARP ALERT
Now comes the part where you provide evidence that the method he advocates in the video is a LARP.
well the "method" itself is just checking if a ballot was folded or not... doesn't take a huge brain to do that, and the idea that he does by "analysis", yeah well that works, but.... it's just lame.
So your argument now is not that it wouldn’t work, your argument is that he’s not smart and that it’s lame? Remind us how this is a LARP again?
it's more subtle than that. people have been talking about "checking for ballot fold" for weeks, by visually checking if ballots were fold-free.
now the guy comes up with a very complicated way to do the same thing that could be done just by eye. take a piece of paper, do you need equipment in order to know whether it has been folded or not?
well the guy is just talking about a multi-million dollar idea to check for ballot folds...
I'm all fine with this. The part where I'm cautious is where guys from our side start to argue everywhere that "but this highly recognized scientist and inventor said that........". instant decredibilisation.
Definitely a fair point. Validity of information and viability of solution exceeds credibility of witness every time.
This guy is a pile of shit. Really.
Thanks for your opinion, now please persuade us with evidence of why you think so, or do you expect us to take your word for it?
Video is here: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=UgeqGmvQXKs
And the post for that is here: https://thedonald.win/p/11R4SZ0vCu/breaking-technology-expert-can-d/c/
Well first thing I’d say is, just listen to the guy speaking. Then a bit of internet research should be enough to nail the coffin. Two minutes suffice.
I believe in Flynn, Powell, Trump, but not in this guy. Just because someone is advertising “being pro-Trump” doesn’t mean he’s not simply looking for a free publicity stunt.
Why don’t you just link us to this internet research?
If he can help prove the fraudulently stolen election, I don’t care if he’s wearing a pussy hat while worshipping an idol of 0bama.
I had put together a qrcode election encryption idea 6 months ago. Not enough time to try to push out for use or study. But once things are settled thus shoukd be our msin priority. Make election as close as fraud proof as possible. Checks and balances, layers if security between county, state , and federal, and voter.
Now not time to get destracted on what should or could be done. All energy focused on exposing the fraud, taking our republic back and only then do we address new voting protections.