Hi again!
I'm Justin Mealey, and I testified at the Georgia Senate hearing today. Our team provided hard evidence of voter fraud, using the same data the Georgia certified the state with.
Here's a copy of the testimony: https://rumble.com/vcay7j-data-scientists-shocking-election-testimony.html
I wanted to do an AMA so that people can ask more questions related to our data methodology, clarify items about the voting process which we painstakingly investigated across multiple states, and hear your ideas about we could better get the word out about the fact that we seem to be one of the only groups operating off of hard, irrefutable conclusions based off of data.
EDIT: Thanks so much for the questions (heading to bed) -- hope I was able to clarify a few things for you guys. We'll ask Dave (the head data scientist who also testified from my group) to come do any AMA tomorrow as well.
EDIT 2: I'm sort of back right now (9AM EST) so will be periodically checking for new questions as I refresh tdw looking for spicy memes to repost on facebook.
EDIT 3: (10:32AM EST) I'm going to post a reply to a MrCaveman (which, thank you for the question) that I really want everyone to read:
https://thedonald.win/p/11RO7PRc9Q/x/c/4Drwoe2gIJ7?d=50
When doing work that you deem is important, the most vital thing you can have is focus. A lot of the times that means putting to the side all of the noise that surrounds a certain path. The poll pads are the noise when it comes to the actual ability to commit fraud during this election.
If you were creating a system to enact a fraud, how many points of contact would you design for that system to interface with in the voting process? How many confederates would you need to enable in that system? One way we've discovered only requires one true confederate to enact in a county, and we've actually identified some of these actual confederates. Depending on how things go, we might have to just release that in a video in the future.
My point being, that while your intentions are good (as most everyone's on this site's are), they distract from the actual fraud. By distracting from the actual fraud, parts of which we've proved through hard data analysis, it actually detracts from the ability for us to bring that fraud to light and abolish it.
Please, for the love of God, stop talking about poll pads.
While I appreciate all who testified, it is unfortunate that Jovan's second portion where he was talking about the poll pads is completely false, as the poll pads' only job is to check people in at the Secretary of State's site, and are therefore connected to the internet.
It sounded more like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that all they did was get onto the same network (WPA protected which is easily crackable vs. WPA2?). Actually cracking the poll pad is another matter entirely -- it's basically an iPad created by Knowink Inc., and has no affiliation with dominion. Nothing can be changed vote-wise, and the most that you could do through a poll pad is search through the Secretary of State voter registration data and check people in. If a voter were marked as having already voted and went to a precinct to vote, they would be given a provisional ballot to fill out, so you'd still be able to vote and have that counted in the election.
We thought your graphic presentation was AWESOME. We LOVE Bobby Pitton, but he’s too smart for the regular human - those legislators were tuning him out because he’s just too smart for simple folk. We thought your presentation was PERFECT because it made the complex EASY TO DIGEST. I hope you all heard the ‘Wows’ from at least one legislator at the end! You all KILLED IT!
Thanks! And thank you for your support, patriot!
Second this! Thanks for driving home the point about the negative votes and all that you are doing. You might be interested in Matt Braynard's data. Look him up on Twatter.
I like Bobby too. But he is not too smart for regular humans; there is no such thing. He could communicate better if he decided to say a few key things, one at a time, in a meaningful sequence. But maybe it's better to assign him a translator, and let him do what he does best.
I will say this about Bobby -- I spoke with him on a call a couple days ago and he's an absolute patriot and a very sweet guy.
That being said, the data approach he's taking isn't a convincing one from the perspective of having to convince legislators to jump over a cliff politically. I think the only way we can do that is to pressure them with discrete, irrefutable datapoints that give them no corner to back into.
Thank you for sharing that strategy tip. Backing people into a corner is the absolute need here.
I hope you document as much as you can, if need be in future elections we need to create infrastructure quicker.
There is an incredible amount of resources out here that wasn't tapped.
Good luck as this comes down to the wire.
I agree...he needs a translator.
Maybe we need a translator.
I get Bobby. He reminds me of my brother. He just needs an interpreter? Or someone to give him analogies beforehand.
So if.. Say.. At the end of the day could you use this as a source of finding voters who have not voted? Maybe put together a list of registered voters who did not vote?
While it's perfectly fine that people are approaching things from that perspective, like I mentioned in the beginning of the testimony, it's just not our approach. We only care about things which can prove where, for instance, votes move from Trump to Biden. Those are the hard facts that are irrefutable as long as your dataset is correct, and our dataset is literally the same data that the secretary of state uses.
Thank you for your participation on this site and willingness to interact.
The weakest part of your team’s testimony: there was NO demonstration of a change in the ground situation.
Historically, were there ever negative votes or “switches” in the Edison data feed or similar sources? Was this particularly evident in 2020 in areas of notorious fraud? Or were there comparable events in 2018, 2016, etc? I am looking for a delta.
Not sure if you think this observation is on point, but some mention of this in your presentation would make the conclusion considerably stronger, in my opinion. Thanks again!
The Edison dataset was only a starting point. The dataset we're using mainly is the SCYTL data, which is 1-for-1 the secretary of state's data.
What level of negative votes would be okay? Would it matter that votes go negative previously, even if a single instance of it points towards a systems issue?
From a public support perspective, does it help to educate people on the vulnerabilities of the system like gaining access to data that otherwise shouldn’t be accessible?
I led a technical support team for years and we had processes in place to protect our apps users data and even a small gap would be plugged immediately.
I think the answer is yes, and that's why everything related to handling ballots needs to be observed by Republican and Democrat observers, and all ballots need to have a secure and unbroken chain of custody.
I'm glad you're being honest about this. After he made the announcement. My first question was what is a poll pad and what does it do? He made a vague statement about being able to connect to everything but he didn't say it with confidence. already tons of ppl are saying he hacked into the voting machine themselves and that really sucks. MSM will be able to debunk this while other more accurate claims are ignored.
That's my perspective. Things like that suck all of the oxygen out of the room, so that a true irrefutable data analysis such as the one we presented gets overshadowed by people thinking they hacked the Gibson mainframe.
So you talked about vote switching. The biggest criticism I hear to this is that a manual recount would have caught this. So whats your theory on how the vote switching happened and why its so hard to pin down? Also, who's testimony did you think was the most damning at the hearing? I really enjoyed the first woman.
A manual recount doesn't mean what you think it means.
What a manual recount sounds like is that you take original ballots and verify them. What a manual recount in georgia terms means is that you print out the ballot images, and verify the totals of the ballot images.
As you might have heard us testify about, whenever a ballot is adjudicated, a completely new ballot image is created and no record is maintained of the previous ballot image. Therefore, a manual recount will always add up to about the same total of whatever the tabulated numbers are (derived from ballot images), because you're just counting the same ballot images manually.
Anytime anyone mentions Gibson, I think of the movie HACKERS! Hahaha
Yes and if a person followed all the hearings wifi internet connects are not suppose to happen or be allowed and the tabulators seemed to have wifi capabilities. When I heard him say it I was shocked!! Add this to Bobby's name theory and you got your fake ballots.
While that's true, if the real person shows up later, they'd be given a provisional ballot and then go through the ballot cancellation process, so as far as I'm concerned it's a bit of a moot point that doesn't have a widespread systemic effect that centralizing the voting system does, as it does in Georgia. Since data is transferred and centralized in Georgia in a lot of ways that it is not in other states, you have an avenue for exploitation where you'd only need one confederate vs. multiple confederates operating.
Doesn't this become less of a moot point when you consider that Georgia voter turnout jumped from 55% in 2016 to around 70% in 2020? Couldn't a well planned course of action be to register a ton of people who are unlikely to show up and then use access to the poll pad and a voter roll to turn them all into Biden voters?
Or simply wait until the polls close, see which registered voters didn’t show and then cast ballots in their names. That’s why the counting stopped.
Perhaps a register a bunch of fake unique last names that no one else in Georgia has? Exactly what Bobby found in his analysis.
Correct. A centralized system is more cost effective to exploit as the threat is likely to produce results on a greater scale (e.g. hundreds of thousands of votes in a single instance)