Remember the description from Melissa Carone about the process of scanning ballot, and what is done when the machines stop (jamming, rejects, etc.).? You put the ballots back and the pile, and rescan the entire pile. On the screen, the user needs to click "delete" or "rescan all" or whatever the term. There's also that video out there where the woman shows the actual process of scanning and adjudicating ballots that confirms this. Point is...we don't know if that person on video is clicking the correct or incorrect button?
However, I believe that the desks along the back wall were all signed in with admin access. They didn't need to halt the scanning process in order to trick the machine into adding extra ballots. They just kept scanning the same ballots through even in broad daylight and told the computer to accept them on the touch screen.
Thanks for clearing me up on the Accept and Discard options. What you say about being logged in as admin, I seem to remember hearing somewhere that everyone was using a generic admin account to login across the board, might have been in the forensic report? Not only does that support what you said...it also eliminates any audit trail accountability.
I believe that someone had tried to do an inspection and found USB drives and sticky notes with login/passwords just lying around on the desks. I would bet money that everyone at those desks had the same login privileges. If it was just one login being shared with everyone, I don't think it would matter much in terms of convicting these people. We know 3 of their names and I'm sure law enforcement knows the name of every single person that went in that room on the 3rd.
Don't get me wrong..I'm not sticking up for these people. I totally agree. Just pointing out something that is a variable that would certainly be used in attempts to deny the fraud.
If a ballot has a problem, it's very likely it's going to have a problem every single time.
While there were plenty of machine errors, which could be resolved by simply rerunning and simply avoiding being unlucky the second time, if you encountered an unreadable ballot, it would always be unreadable.
The operator of course, does not and in many cases can not know one from the other. If they suspect the machine, or feel the ballots might just need fluffing, they might vary well rerun them x amount of times.
These machines are garbage and this problem is widely reported to have plagued the day. Moreover, the possibility of purposefully misprinted ballots to create this vary problem was raised in testimony yesterday.
In totality, while there are plenty of reasons to conclude (not just suspect) fraud, watching a woman deal with a bad ballot as per protocol is not evidence of such.
From my seven years as a print tech who headed everything from commercial copiers to docutechs to web fed presses, yes. From daily resolution of feed issues, scan issues, alignment issues, each mechanical and electronic, yes. From the testimony asserting the exact same, yes.
92.2GBs of video, all watched. My contribution to the endeavor has been to review and archive everything. I'm as close to a subject matter expert in this one niche area as one could reasonably find short of running a dominion machine myself.
The fact that what I wrote isn't immediately credible on it's face tells me your experience begins and ends with your office copier, home printer, those few times you've been in a Kinkos, and the fact that you clearly don't actually watch the testimony videos that are posted here and merely go to the comments, read "Treason!" and consider that sufficient to arrive at a conclusion.
I'm not here to shit down your throat, I'm here to give you an informed grounding to plant your foundation when reviewing this video in the larger context of the massive amount of fraud that's been documented.
We don't know they clicked that button, but if I had to put my money on it, I'd say they are definitely rescanning. Otherwise they wouldn't be objecting to audits, cleaning the paper trail up as they go/ect. If there was no fraud in this election, I'd side with her doing the right thing, however, Fulton Co. reeks, so it's most likely she was a part of the fraud.
Remember the description from Melissa Carone about the process of scanning ballot, and what is done when the machines stop (jamming, rejects, etc.).? You put the ballots back and the pile, and rescan the entire pile. On the screen, the user needs to click "delete" or "rescan all" or whatever the term. There's also that video out there where the woman shows the actual process of scanning and adjudicating ballots that confirms this. Point is...we don't know if that person on video is clicking the correct or incorrect button?
They have a 'Accept' or 'Discard' option.
However, I believe that the desks along the back wall were all signed in with admin access. They didn't need to halt the scanning process in order to trick the machine into adding extra ballots. They just kept scanning the same ballots through even in broad daylight and told the computer to accept them on the touch screen.
I’d assume an audit would take care of that. Oh shit that’s right, they destroyed all of them
Their audits audited all the ballot images, after rescans, after "corrections" and adjudications. Total sham.
Thanks for clearing me up on the Accept and Discard options. What you say about being logged in as admin, I seem to remember hearing somewhere that everyone was using a generic admin account to login across the board, might have been in the forensic report? Not only does that support what you said...it also eliminates any audit trail accountability.
I believe that someone had tried to do an inspection and found USB drives and sticky notes with login/passwords just lying around on the desks. I would bet money that everyone at those desks had the same login privileges. If it was just one login being shared with everyone, I don't think it would matter much in terms of convicting these people. We know 3 of their names and I'm sure law enforcement knows the name of every single person that went in that room on the 3rd.
Yes - so bring them in for questioning.
Charge them with treason AND bring them in. Fuck em at this point, put the max penalty on them and get them to provide the truth... for once.
Wouldn't you call a supervisor after round 2 or 3 of a bad feed? THIS IS WRONG!
Considering this lady scanned the same thing 5 times means either the machines are seriously incompetent OR she's cheating.
Don't get me wrong..I'm not sticking up for these people. I totally agree. Just pointing out something that is a variable that would certainly be used in attempts to deny the fraud.
If a ballot has a problem, it's very likely it's going to have a problem every single time.
While there were plenty of machine errors, which could be resolved by simply rerunning and simply avoiding being unlucky the second time, if you encountered an unreadable ballot, it would always be unreadable.
The operator of course, does not and in many cases can not know one from the other. If they suspect the machine, or feel the ballots might just need fluffing, they might vary well rerun them x amount of times.
These machines are garbage and this problem is widely reported to have plagued the day. Moreover, the possibility of purposefully misprinted ballots to create this vary problem was raised in testimony yesterday.
In totality, while there are plenty of reasons to conclude (not just suspect) fraud, watching a woman deal with a bad ballot as per protocol is not evidence of such.
Is this from your expert experience? I'm willing to bet you've never touched a Dominion machine in your life.
From my seven years as a print tech who headed everything from commercial copiers to docutechs to web fed presses, yes. From daily resolution of feed issues, scan issues, alignment issues, each mechanical and electronic, yes. From the testimony asserting the exact same, yes.
92.2GBs of video, all watched. My contribution to the endeavor has been to review and archive everything. I'm as close to a subject matter expert in this one niche area as one could reasonably find short of running a dominion machine myself.
The fact that what I wrote isn't immediately credible on it's face tells me your experience begins and ends with your office copier, home printer, those few times you've been in a Kinkos, and the fact that you clearly don't actually watch the testimony videos that are posted here and merely go to the comments, read "Treason!" and consider that sufficient to arrive at a conclusion.
I'm not here to shit down your throat, I'm here to give you an informed grounding to plant your foundation when reviewing this video in the larger context of the massive amount of fraud that's been documented.
We don't know they clicked that button, but if I had to put my money on it, I'd say they are definitely rescanning. Otherwise they wouldn't be objecting to audits, cleaning the paper trail up as they go/ect. If there was no fraud in this election, I'd side with her doing the right thing, however, Fulton Co. reeks, so it's most likely she was a part of the fraud.