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.
I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly just because the network you'd connect to has no gateway to the internet. A network breach is a big deal because devices can access two networks at once. If I had a laptop with a wifi antenna and one with a 4G antenna I could let in and out anyone I wanted to their network.
It’s a lot of ifs. Actual hacking involves root accesses, co-opting api calls or processes for unintended actions, or disabling devices. None of those things occurred here, so as far as I’m concerned, is not hacking.
There are many types of hacking and yes what you describe are some of them but not all of the ways. By definition, "Hacking" is just finding a short-cut or compromising computer systems, personal accounts, computer networks, or digital devices. Another way to define hacking is simply as the use of technology or related knowledge to successfully bypass a challenge.
It's not that many it's. It's one. And only one of many examples.
The point was it shouldn't be dismissed solely because they were on a network with no internet access when the internet can easily brought to that network.
It's the first step. Gain access to the network. From there we get into the other things you mentioned gaining root access etc... But you have to start somewhere and saying
Is not at all the limit of the possible capabilities.