86
posted ago by HocusLocus ago by HocusLocus +88 / -2

See UPDATE at bottom.


Here is the video that was downloaded and processed,
https://lindelltv.com/mike-lindell-presents-absolutely-90/

Three batches were extracted of video frames of hex data were captured, processed and OCRed. Then blocks of the data stream were decoded from hex. My dumps represent almost 640,000 characters captured from screen.

It is just a database query with names and addresses in the Philadelphia PA area. It is not a 'pcap' dump or even a network data capture. It is not encrypted as they claim or even of forensic value. Nothing about this implicates bad actors or foreign addresses. It is a fake stream put on 'for show'.

And they deliberately hid the right side of the hex dump off the screen because it probably contained a displayable ASCII representation of the data, that may have uncovered the ruse.

*THIS*, in Mike latest and boldest Supreme Court Video with its highest stakes. To think Mike would deliberately consent to have fake data shown in his video presentation is unlikely, This is a wrong they are doing to him. To hear them so casually LIE and MISREPRESENT the data to Mike, who is convinced that he is looking at the objective of his months of Herculean effort, is ALARMING. Is Mike being grifted by these people? Are they even in possession of what they claim?

Batch B01 starting at 2:26

Lindell 9-0 video @2:26 data on screen B01-03-hexdump.txt
https://pastebin.com/rJQFpRCe

Lindell 9-0 video @2:26 data on screen B01-04-strings.txt
https://pastebin.com/NVbhhrGJ

(Batch B02 was abandoned)

Batch B03 starting at 4:25

Lindell 9-0 video @4:25 data on screen B03-03-hexdump.txt
https://pastebin.com/nMxW89Sw

Lindell 9-0 video @4:25 data on screen B03-04-strings.txt
https://pastebin.com/2Nmz7bq9

Batch B04 starting at 6:05

Lindell 9-0 video @6:05 data on screen B04-03-hexdump-480k.txt
https://pastebin.com/jzuy6mmn

Lindell 9-0 video @6:05 data on screen B04-04-strings.txt
https://pastebin.com/ezQRggyQ

Don't know what to say. I'll just leave this here.


UPDATE: Mike Lindell is a wash. It seems while I was doing all this work and giving Mike the benefit of a doubt by planting the suspicion on the cyber-punks as grifters, Mike has emerged as the actual grifter who knowingly lied to YOU and I about what was on the screen. He has compounded the lie with what I call a grifter's counteroffer, a lame excuse for withholding the information giving another promise that blatantly deceiving you was 'just' In an email to these people he wrote on June 7,

"I have the actual election pcaps but for security we did not put them in the video.... we are doing a complete cyber event for all cyber experts and cyber companies to come to see for themselves and everyone will 100% validate the election crimes .... It has all been validated by many white hat hackers and other cyber companies but I want to get everyone on board before the Supreme Court..."

Comments (89)
sorted by:
25
Dtom 25 points ago +28 / -3

I agree - being a long-time network guy, I've analyzed my share of PCAP data. The conclusions and connections they make are sketchy at best. And to call the results 'unfakeable' is flat out wrong.

14
tyuah8 14 points ago +15 / -1

Anyone going to email Mike Lindell and let him know this?

The guy in the video claims it is the "raw encrypted data", but if you do OCR and put it into a HEX editor, it is clearly ASCII.

13
Fuck_The_NWO 13 points ago +14 / -1

Deepstate fucking with him or just grifting scumbags. They want to make not onlhy him look bad but the whole movement look like retards.

We have much better evidence than this shit that fraud occurred.

2
glasses2020 2 points ago +4 / -2

This community needs to step up calling out the boomer bait. This is so embarrassing.

11
BoogieNight 11 points ago +12 / -1

The way the data was collected from its orgin had a batched checksum, if they changed even 1 byte of the batch it wouldn't have matched the checksum at the end. That's their proof that the data batch of pcaps hasn't been modified since origin. Now it can be attempted to argue that their data pull is original but the chinese based IP's were spoofed. But it doesn't matter if the IP was spoofed or not, there aren't supposed to be ANY fucking connections being made to these machines unless during a sanctioned patch by the parent company, and they're supposed to have controls on how they conduct those. This proves fuckery, no matter where it came from, no matter if the perpetrator spoofed their origin IP, and the batch of PCAPS was original with matching checksums.

7
pepecofefe 7 points ago +9 / -2

How do you know how the data was collected? They didn't go into any detail in the video (unless I missed it). In any case, I assumed the data was cryptographically signed in some way. Checksums are much weaker than that.

6
TippyTop1987 6 points ago +6 / -0

This was reported on in the beginning. It was a 5013c that specializes in cyber security for elections. They know there is machine fraud and have been capturing data for years. They suspected that this election cycle would likely be rife with fraud so they setup to collect data before, during, and after the election.

9
pepecofefe 9 points ago +11 / -2

But how did they tap into voting location networks to create the pcap? And how did they decrypt the data?

2
BoogieNight 2 points ago +3 / -1

They mentioned this early in the long-form 9-0 video when his expert is talking

8
pepecofefe 8 points ago +11 / -3

Did they describe how they decrypted the data and the technical details about how the packets were captured, and so on? Typically, you'd need to do the capture either on the voting machine LAN or somehow tap into the ISP WAN/backbone. Even on a LAN, you can't capture packets from from different switch segments. You'd need a tap at the network gateway to capture packets between the LAN and WAN. They claim to be doing this for several geographical locations. For people familiar with the technical considerations, it does indeed smell very fishy.

3
maleitch 3 points ago +3 / -0

A million times this. We have some truly well meaning, but technically ignorant people on here that are going to sink the entire premise of voter fraud by pushing this sort of garbage "evidence".

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm curious to know how they managed to capture the packets and decrypt the data.

Either Lindell is on to something big, or he's getting hoodwinked by money grabbers and a scapegoat for the whole movement.

0
BoogieNight 0 points ago +1 / -1

I have no idea how they arrived at the data he's holding. I don't know if they even discussed this publicly yet.

0
glasses2020 0 points ago +3 / -3

It doesn’t just smell fishy, it looks fishy and sounds fishy too.

You don’t just pull that kind of data out of a Pcap lmao 😂

11
pepecofefe 11 points ago +12 / -1

I completely agree. I'd also like to know how they decrypted the encrypted data (if there is indeed any encrypted voting machine data). Did they do some hacking themselves to get the private keys for the encrypted data (for each voting machine or location)?

6
BoogieNight 6 points ago +7 / -1

One doubt I had when he started posting these videos is if he has bulletproof evidence he should shut his fucking mouth and not tell the world so the defense has months of time to discredit his evidence. When you have the killer proof, you shut up and pull their pants down when it counts, you don't wave it around to the whole fucking world to analyze for months ahead of the case to find holes.

10
pepecofefe 10 points ago +11 / -1

For this kind of data, you'd want cybersecurity experts to confirm it's legitimate. It gives you significantly more credibility for any legal action. The original data and the collection method should be made public, in my opinion.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Although I generally agree with you on rhetoric (court arguments designed to make gotchas), there's a chance Mike is getting hoodwinked by people with bad intentions, but there's also a chance the court could refuse to hear the evidence at all. This makes putting information like this out publicly, and having it be rigorously debated is the next best thing.

0
glasses2020 0 points ago +3 / -3

PCAP data in and out of any of the networked machines would be encrypted, how are they breaking the encryption and how are they able to tell specific numbers of votes changed in proprietary software? You simply don’t get that information from a PCAP unless you have the decryption keys and very in depth knowledge of how the software communicates in order to reverse engineer the network traffic from the software and tell specifically what’s happening. Best you can get is in and outgoing connections from external public IP addresses to internal local addresses.

Also why would the PCAP show the public external IPs on the election machines? The pcap would have been taken from within the same network that the machines were on, so all of the voting system IPs should have been local IPs assigned by the the router.

None of this makes any sense and the Cyber security guy is sketchy at best.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope Mike has the right people looking at this, because otherwise Mike is being set up as the fall guy to shut this whole thing down, even the election audits.

0
glasses2020 0 points ago +2 / -2

You hope he has the right people looking at this? Did you watch the video? They validated the validation that was validated!

14
cryptoa 14 points ago +19 / -5

Yes, he is being grifted.

I think his hear is in the right place but he is allowing bad actors to make him a fool.

15
RustyJShackleford 15 points ago +16 / -1

Absolutely agree. It is just technical enough that most people don't notice. He's being setup. He is sincere, but they are grifting him for sure. Probably to further discredit any possibility of actual fraud. I think the whole hammer scorecard thing is the same disinfo.

8
BuyPepe 8 points ago +10 / -2

Mike Lindell saw absolute evidence that the election was stolen and has a sadly mistaken ideal of how it will be handled.

What Mike Lindell doesn’t understand is that for the evidence to mean anything, someone of power and moral conviction needs to litigate it. To bad it will be ignored by everyone other than the common citizen. Which we all know doesn’t do jack shit about it when they are treaded upon.

-1
glasses2020 -1 points ago +2 / -3

Mike Lindell saw absolute evidence

He doesn't know what he saw.

9
NormalCitizen 9 points ago +9 / -0

I've had my doubts too.

Maybe this is just the portion of the fix where they push poll-book data?

7
HocusLocus [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

It is names and addresses that could be Philadelphia PA polling places, but it is not at all what they allege. The pixelated idiot goes on about encryption which resembles random data. He also says it is network traffic. Even if this 'mailing list' data was traveling over a network and they were dumping packets it wouldn't look like this. There would be timestamps and packet headers embedded in the data. I cannot say more except, why don't you build a linux box and play around with networks and see what these things really look like. It's fun!

0
glasses2020 0 points ago +3 / -3

Nobody with a background in Networking thinks any of this is even remotely legit. Seriously this is a laughing stock and embarrassing.

9
Chuj 9 points ago +9 / -0

I cannot assess the data shown, but the number was odd. Mike sampled 20 data points of millions and it encoded 4K votes being switched. If true, then all the data would encode too many vote flips. It confused me

4
HocusLocus [S] 4 points ago +6 / -2

I don't know what you are alluding to or the source of data these cyber-grifters are using on the right side of the sheet for 'vote switches', but a great deal of this vote switching hysteria, including video screen captures from election night, were just the TV networks doing bad and improper math.

The votes (such as you see 'flipped' on TV screens from Nov 3) were only 'flipped' at the TV networks. TV networks were using Edison Research data which expresses votes between Trump and Biden as a ONLY! A THREE PLACE fractional decimal (.xxx) which makes Edison data an inferior product in the world that does not demand good products because people are stupid too. Only three things are necessary to make this a disaster,

  • Edison data has (contemptible, stupid) three decimal 'vote_shares" not actual vote counts.
  • Edison update data only does not reliably include all candidates, only Trump and Biden (and perhaps one or two others). This means the available shares do not even add up to 1.0 so you cannot even interpolate to discover extra precision.
  • the FUCKING WORST. TV networks displayed numbers fudged from these decimal vote_shares. Not actual numbers of votes per-candidate. When rounding of the (secret, unknown) shares bumped up to the next decimal whole digit, these fudge numbers based on them would seem to 'flip'.

No actual per-candidate vote counts were in the data transmissions of the updates to the TV networks. That means the data was only fit for bar graphs and pie charts, Actual per-candidate vote numbers were unknown and there was insufficient precision to calculate them. So the TV networks displayed bogus numbers.

Build stupid systems, win stupid prizes. What an abominable fail of leading edge technology it was. All that was missing was for responsible people to realize what was happening, draw the line and say "your product is bullshit. Improve it or we won't use it." By the time Election night began Idiocracy had already arrived.

Ironically, if they had shown NO VOTE NUMBERS AT ALL on the screen due to the inability to calculate them accurately, people would have noticed right away they were missing and demanded accurate numbers. But they put up fudged bullshit numbers and nobody noticed or challenged them.

Until people started declaring these rounding error 'flips' on TV as evidence of fraud.

7
TippyTop1987 7 points ago +7 / -0

Edison received its data directly from the company who manages the election data. It does from their servers to the SoS of each State and Edison. This is their explanation not mine.

5
Chuj 5 points ago +6 / -1

https://ibb.co/2FRqffz

Mike says these vote flips represent only 20 attacks out of thousands

These 20 alone win the election. Why are more needed?

5
HocusLocus [S] 5 points ago +6 / -1

It is not generally known that faulty Edison Research data and the faulty TV network math at Decision Desk and other places -- as shown on TV -- created the vote flip hysteria by displaying per-candidate vote numbers that were bogus.

That is because the few people who have come out about it had their posts downvoted and other centipedes who might have independently dived in and confirmed the news, which is bad, didn't. Someone else's job becomes nobody's job. And some who had been diving into the Edison data and trying to calculate accurate per-candidate vote totals just suddenly fell silent, because their debt to society doesn't include publicly admitting they were led astray for awhile (and why should they if bad news is not rewarded around here?) So,

  • cyber-punks' willingness to deceive Mike (this post) strongly implies they are grifting him and do not have the capture data they claim.
  • and if that is so, of course they would claim also independent (non Edison Research data) that confirms these flips, data no one else has seen.
  • they might be so stupid as to show actual Edison data before it's over, in which case they're riding the hysteria and peoples' ignorance of the data precision problem
2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

I was with you initially, until you started talking about the decimal votes. Take a look at the videeo below (with timestamps for easy reference) on the decimal votes AND vote counts reverting. Maybe it might have been a network error, but your explanation doesn't hold water if the Edison data vote counts retracts:

4 seconds in: Pennsylvania: Trump: 56.6% - 1,690,589 Biden: 42.0% - 1,252,537

40 seconds: Pennsylvania: Trump: 56.0% - 1,670,631 Biden: 42.6% - 1,272,495

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NbwXiH3k05M9/

1
HocusLocus [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks fren. What was transmitted to the networks in real time were small bits of information. I have the whole Edison data dump which was originally 'leaked' from the New York Times website when clever persons discovered they could construct URLs that gathered the complete set from all the states.

Here is a piece of actual Edison data for PA that was received by the network in the time interval between 4 and 40 seconds on that video. The timestamp is Z which is UTC so with time difference this would be after 11pmEST or "Tue Nov 3 23:08:51 EST 2020 ",

{  
  'eevp' => 42  
  'eevp_source' => 'edison',  
  'timestamp' => '2020-11-04T04:08:51Z',  
  'votes' => 2984522,  
  'vote_shares' => {  
          'bidenj' => '0.426',  
          'trumpd' => '0.56'  
        },  
},  

Actual per-candidate numbers are craved by forensic investigators but what is here is only the single total 'votes'. That is the only actual number and is the cumulative sum of all the votes cast for Trump and Biden and others, whose fractions are NOT identified here with vote_shares at all.

Notice also the (cursed, stupid) short decimal fractions 0.426 and 0.560. If you multiply a seven digit number (2984522) by a fraction of 3 decimals (eg, 0.426) you will not get a whole number or any accurate number. That decimal value 0.426 transmitted on the network could have been the result of rounding any number in the range (0.4255 through 0.4264999999…). If you just multiply and take the whole number and chop the fraction this is in the range of (1269914 through 1272898) actual votes. An error uncertainty encompassing 2984 votes in this case.

The actual number shown on the screen at 40 seconds for Biden was 1272495 which is within this error range, closer to the top (403 less than 2984). How did they arrive at that number? My shakiest assumption here is I am looking at the actual stream of Edison data that was transmitted to the networks.

To my knowledge this has not been refuted and no more complete (or better conceived) source of data has become available. I do not mean figures published by the various Secretaries of State on their websites. I mean the actual transaction stream with timestamps that was shared around to produce the updating network displays on Nov 3.

The actual percentages on the screen at 40 seconds on the video for Trump and Biden, 56.0% and 42.6% exactly matches the Edison record shown above. It is sandwiched between two other transactions , this one 68 seconds BEFORE,

{
  'eevp' => 42,
  'votes' => 2984468,
  'vote_shares' => {
          'trumpd' => '0.566',
          'bidenj' => '0.42'
        },
  'eevp_source' => 'edison',
  'timestamp' => '2020-11-04T04:07:43Z'
},

and this one 101 seconds AFTER,

{
  'votes' => 3003186,
  'eevp' => 42,
  'timestamp' => '2020-11-04T04:10:32Z',
  'eevp_source' => 'edison',
  'vote_shares' => {
          'bidenj' => '0.425',
          'trumpd' => '0.561'
        }
},

Various methods I know have been tried to put lipstick on this pig and 'guess' the missing decimal places by finding interpolation solutions that happen to produce whole numbers when multiplied by 'votes'. But in the end it is like the people who have been building mechanical 'perpetual motion machines' for centuries. You are staring down an unsolvable problem and the best you could hope for is a best-fit among many almost-fit solutions, which does not provide the assurance or admissibility we need.

8
Pepbrandt 8 points ago +8 / -0

I have a feeling you’re on to something but I’ll offer an excuse... looking at it from a video production angle. Is it possible the video production team used some stock footage as placeholders bc they can’t show the real evidence?

Contact the mods and see if they can get this to Lindell, Don Jr., or Bongino.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Why is everyone getting worked up over stuff that really shouldn't be shown outside of the courtroom until the day of session?

If Lindell is getting yanked around, we'll know it by the expert testimony in court. If not, then we'll see the actual evidence when it's presented.

1
rshackleford 1 point ago +2 / -1

This, when someone says they recorded the data it doesn't actually mean they're recording video footage of the data.

No doubt it's stock footage for video production purposes.

2
2
rshackleford 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly, someone taking a couple of hours to look through stock videos and they could probably get the exact referenced stock video.

Here's another https://www.shutterstock.com/en/video/clip-1038630965

https://www.shutterstock.com/en/video/clip-1008660541

-2
glasses2020 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Lmao it’s all stock footage, it was so cheesy.

These cyber grifters created a spreadsheet with some plausible sounding numbers and took mike to the cleaners.

1
rshackleford 1 point ago +1 / -0

We've got our man, they're closing in, nothing to lose https://www.woofnews.com/cyber-hacker-identified

7
TearofLys 7 points ago +7 / -0

Makes no sense that his experts would intentionally mislead him. Wasn't one a cyberwarfare expert from the DoD?

8
HocusLocus [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Setting aside for the moment that this is one op Biden's deep State would gladly bankroll for takedown potential... there is also, has Mike already paid the grifters enough money to leave the country and 'disappear' when this is through? The grift of a lifetime? I feel Mike is not skimpy with money when he places his trust.

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Deep State misleads anyone not in the know. Being from the DoD or DoJ or FBI, or CIA doesn't make you credible.

7
RandoBudster 7 points ago +8 / -1

Wouldn't be the 1st time for Mike to get fooled. MacDonald? Poor Mike doesn't even know what IP means but undeniably a heart of gold guy.

11
HocusLocus [S] 11 points ago +11 / -0

That's why this is heartbreaking for me, to do this analysis. And the implications are so clear. When you watch the whole video it is obvious when you hear Mike shout "WOW!" in his usual way.

If cyber-punk had a moral bone in his body ... the moment Mike asked clarification that it was the Holy Grail pcap data he would have stopped the presentation and admitted that it was not (for what ever lame excuse).

If Mike became aware that it was fake data he would have restarted the production saying "put on the real data."

No good scenarios here.

6
ChelseaHubbell 6 points ago +6 / -0

Should try to reach out to him on social media

6
HocusLocus [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

I don't do social media. Have sent two emails with details to two addresses @mypillow.com. Hopefully the scum are not managing his infrastructure.

6
RandoBudster 6 points ago +6 / -0

Jovan has a Gab accnt. @JovanHuttonPulitzer. Try to reply to one of his posts.

-1
glasses2020 -1 points ago +1 / -2

It doesn’t matter dude. He’s working with “cyber security professionals who work with the government”

You think he’s going to take your word for it?

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Unless, they wanted to publicly show fake data and make the defense believe they were full of it, and then in court present the real data. But, it still makes me scared if they're so confident about fake-looking data. And I really hope they're not stringing Mike along, which could be more likely given the issue at hand. Mike is in way over his head on this, and needs at a few credible experts to look at this.

6
Liberty49220 6 points ago +6 / -0

Agree the images look like a fake stream put on 'for show'. But the underlying data being discussed could be real. No explanation of how they decrypted the data, however. Seems like Mike would need public and private keys, plus the encryption algorithm.>

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

No explanation of how they decrypted the data

I think this is the heart of the question with this data. If Mike Lindell was getting pushed around by grifters, then we'll know it by the end of court.

The rest of it could be to avoid showing their hand.

6
ChikfilaFan 6 points ago +7 / -1

While this is sad- because I was fairly persuaded(confirmation bias at work), I appreciate that you shared the info

Even if it were legit though, I'm not sure why Lindell is convinced the court would do anything. After seeing all the election cases they rejected for lack of standing I think it's clear the courts lack cajones to do anything.

I think the audits and voter integrity laws being passed or pushed are great news though.

& Trump still won. Yuge.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't think we can completely dismiss evidence that hasn't been presented (and scrutinized) in court.

I say wait for the court to hear it (especially seeing how this is a lawsuit between two private parties, so the chances of the court refusing to hear it is very slim if non-existent).

I have yet to hear a single case where a court refused to hear a civil lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous it was, but maybe I could be wrong.

1
HocusLocus [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes but with the Supreme they seem to have privileges like the "no standing" we all know, but also if dismissed by a circuit court they can refuse a petition for certiorari without giving any reason.

There was another Supreme Court Dereliction of Constitutional Duty on October 9, 2012 when they refused to hear the arguments of Heptig vs AT&T -- actually Heptig vs NSA, a landmark case whose failure may have been the tipping point of the Republic and the first victory for Orwell's Ministry of Surveillance. Mark Klein was a courageous AT&T technician who documented a special 'Secure SG3 room' in San Francisco now known as Room 641A in which NSA fiber taps -- and unlawful spying on Americans -- was taking place. One facility of many. His lawyers decided on the clever angle to go after AT&T itself, for their technicians were colluding with NSA to commit a crime.

The NSA's ass puckering and ass grabbing was so severe as this case ascended through the courts, that a clause indemnifying AT&T for this activity 'retroactively' was tossed into Federal legislation while the case was in progress, and a 'corrupt' judge cited this legislation though it had been enacted after the lawsuit was filed. And in the final travesty the Supreme Court refused the appeal.

And warrantless wiretapping got the stamp of approval. Your voice on the phone is now in their pocket. End to end encryption is now our last personal defense of privacy and free association.

6
generated_name 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is a very underated post and needs much more visibility

6
novymir 6 points ago +6 / -0

Some of the "longitudes" in the target slides in the video are wrong. They are missing a - (negative) prefix for some numbers. Also I looked at some (verified using a GeoIP database to confirm correct entries) and they don't appear to be election system locations.

Video says cannot change a PCAP. Of course you can create a fake PCAP for back in time and you can change a PCAP. Hash doesn't matter if you don't have the original hash and can prove that hash was from then. (Packet transfers like these don't even have hashes.)

The video again doesn't show anything useful. Says "any cyberperson" could explain this. Well these videos don't even explain anything. I have created, researched, wrote about, and developed with PCAPs for 20+ years. Give us the real data.

Get me in communication.

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the real data is waiting to see light in the court room, or it doesn't exist this way.

Why show your full hand before going to court?

0
glasses2020 0 points ago +2 / -2
  1. There would have to be a separate pcap for every election location.
  2. The pcap would have to have been recorded from a device on the same network as the election machiens
  3. pcap wouldn't show external public IPs for devices on the network, these would all have local addresses IE 10.0.0.x or 192.168.1.x
  4. Whoever is analyzing the pcap would need the dominion / smartmatic / voter machine encryption keys in order to reconstruct the traffic in and out of each of the machines. this fact alone is enough to completely discredit this. There's really no debate or discussion here. I'm not a lawyer but even I could completely destroy this presentation in court.
2
novymir 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is it documented that only private addressing is used? Is it documented that these devices only use encryption?

-1
glasses2020 -1 points ago +2 / -3

Private addressing is always used on a local area network because every device on the network has the same public IP. Requests to and from devices inside the network will show up in a PCAP as a local address with a source port and the router tracks that using NAT tables.

Also yes it's well documented that the scanners, tabulators and precinct systems all connect to each other over secure connections, regardless of if the network has an internet connection. All internal network traffic to and from the different machines requires a cert that's baked into the software. PCAP would not reveal these certs at all, only that packets are going to and from a local IP address and a source port.

Dominion released this info publicly back in November after people claimed in affidavits that they were able to connect to hidden unsecured wireless networks in the vicinity of the voting centers and detected traffic coming from all over the globe from these networks. It was later revealed that these were IoT devices and the networks were completely unrelated to the voting machines. Modern printers, lights, thermostats, TVs and kitchen appliances all have the ability to broadcast these types of WAN networks and usually ship with them enabled by default, to help the owners setup and configure the devices with an app. Yes it's ridiculous, but that's the world we live in today. My washer, dryer and dishwasher send push notifications to my phone.

5
generated_name 5 points ago +5 / -0

So, when does this post get stickied?

It's kind of an important discussion to have.

5
Bonami 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't know anything about data, but it is possible the moderators of Patriots.win may have access to Mike and could bring this info to his attention.

An email won't work for if he is being duped they would control his access to info that gave him a heads up.

4
EIEIO 4 points ago +4 / -0

My questions started when they said they someone "recorded this data on the election night" So someone flipped a switch and recorded all the traffic on the entire internet? How? Lindel's original videos were plausible. Maybe someone is trying to discredit him by providing this "absolute" proof.

2
Weallseethetruth 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's why a pillow salesman shouldn't be the one trying to save the world... I want to know why have there not been protestors outside old rubsters house day and night telling "tell us what you know" ..... Noriega only lasted a week when we blasted the same song into his compound over and over and over.... We know of AT LEAST 3 people who actually cheated ON CAMERA and got away with it and we haven't done SHIT about it... Nothing is going to happen accept the crumbling of this once great country because the good people refuse to do anything

2
jimmajamma 2 points ago +2 / -0

When I saw all of those hex 27s flying by I knew something was fishy. A hex 27 is a single quote. Encrypted data would be much more random looking.

Good work. I'm impressed you were able to take those captures and OCR them in such large quantities so quickly. If you wouldn't mind sharing your technique I'd love to learn how you did that. Seems very useful.

Poor Mike.

2
HocusLocus [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Mostly command line open source software under Debian linux and cygwin, and scripts in bash shell and perl. For the OCR I tried "tesseract" at first but it was very difficult to get up to speed on it. So I tried the OCR function that was built into Acrobat for Windows and that worked ok if you feed it with PDFs with many (but not over 500) image pages.

For extracting frames from the video: "ffmpeg" (over 2,000 images)

For cropping out hex frame, inverting to black-on-white and contrast enhancement with one command: the "convert" command supplied as part of the "Image Magick" tools.

Adobe Acrobat to gather each batch of images, sometimes over 1000, into one massive PDF file.

The "qpdf" tool package because Acrobat choked trying to OCR a 1000 page PDF. So with the qpdf tool you can split a PDF into several PDFs if 'x' pages each.

For each split PDF with (only) 500 pages where each page is a screen image, do the OCR and save raw text.

Perl script to take the OCR'd text and do an initial cleanup, do predictable corrections for common OCR errors (like S instead of 5). Because only hex was on the screens these were uniform.

Perl script to output do the final hexdump and string files for corrected OCR'd batch text file. Because there were many duplicate/identical video frames I delayed dup detection and dropping until this point.

For each line of 15 hex pairs (the video's hexdump had the 16th column hidden) I processed the entire line of hex only if it had not been seen before, by building a hash array in perl memory and counting.

So what you see in these dumps/strings is only the unique first occurrence of each block of 15 character data.

2
jimmajamma 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wow, that's pretty amazing. I've used ffmpeg for video to image conversion but the rest is new to me. Very impressive on the frame duplication issue. That's what I was most curious about and writing a program to dedup was smart. Very impressed.

I'm also impressed that you did all this on a hunch. We need more people like you. I hope someone can get to Mike to help save his reputation and money. What a joke that scammers would work so hard on an elaborate ruse like that.

Thank you so much for your effort and for explaining how you did it. I'll try to pay it forward if I have the opportunity in the future. I knew something was fishy with that video.

2
HocusLocus [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you ever have to dedup a long series of video images there is a way to do it at the image level in batches.

Say you have two successive frame images A and B and need to know if B contains the same general picture as A. Now in modern progressive video encoding A,B will never be exactly the same, B will be invisibly different and color pixels off by slight amounts everywhere. So you can never just do a precise compare.

What you do is use the 'difference' calculation to make composite C=A-B, then apply a low threshold operation to C (say 2%, where anything below 2% brightness goes to black) and then test to see if C is now a black rectangle.

The calculation and threshold can be done in one command with Image Magic's 'convert':

convert A.png B.png -compose difference -composite -black-threshold 2% C.png

Now if C.png is precisely a black rectangle you know that B is a dup of A.

That's the idea, Comparing to see if an image is a black rectangle from the command line in a shell script is tricky, but I'll go into it if you are interested.

2
jimmajamma 2 points ago +2 / -0

I see what you mean. If you've got the time I'm all eyes and will archive this info for future reference. Thank you so much for sharing your time and this valuable information!

2
HocusLocus [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Without a utility written that compares images and returns a value, file content hashes such as simple 'md5sum' command can be used once you solve the problem of omitting unwanted and ever-changing tags embedded in the image files.

Image Magic allows the use of an all-caps format specifier preceding the output filename to force the type. Especially useful when you wish to output the image to a pipe by using output filename '-'. The output is then piped to md5sum which will simply print a hash of content.

Say A.png is one of your video frames. If you run this silly command to turn it into a black rectangle tthen print the hash of it, *three times,

convert A.png -black-threshold 101% PNG:- | md5sum

It puts out different hashes like this,

245e9348dea22fa5967f23ab2e8f0d5c *-
617fb2d4ad6d033464055adac2e89bb7 *-
706824201b8b0a6080d5dc2140f7f2dc *-

It's the same black rectangle, why are they different? PNG and JPG and TIFF allow embedded metatags. In this case it is the timestamp placed into the PNG file itself which changes. You didn't ask it to do this. People are always doing this, writing programs that add tags to media formats that shouldn't always be there. If the image program knew your bank account number it would probably embed that too, just to be helpful.

There happens to be an option to convert '-strip' that removes tags but I won't use it, I'll do the grumpier thing and choose a format that has no tags and never will have any because everybody hates it, Windows BMP format. Running it three times again,

convert A.png -black-threshold 101% BMP:- | md5sum

182142664125660965c5854a57ab17c5 *-
182142664125660965c5854a57ab17c5 *-
182142664125660965c5854a57ab17c5 *-

Same image, same hash. What more could you ever want?

Now we have the foundation to make a few user defined functions in bash shell script and can use them in the script that does the batch. Now that we are working with hashes, even the temporary composite image used for testing never need be written to disk. To use these functions results in statements you must `run` them using the backtick character, for example


function ImgHash { convert "$1" BMP:- | md5sum | tr -cd 'a-fA-F0-9'; }

function ImgBlackHash { convert "$1" -black-threshold 101% BMP:- | md5sum | tr -cd 'a-fA-F0-9'; }

function imgDiffHash { convert "$1" "$2" -compose difference -composite -black-threshold 2% BMP:- | md5sum | tr -cd 'a-fA-F0-9'; }

## at beginning of program since all images have same dimensions.
## store the black hash value for later use. A.png is any sample image.

BlackHashValue=`ImgBlackHash A.png`

## now to test any two images A.png and B.png to see if they are
## equal with a 'fuzzy match', you compare the Diff to Black

if [ `ImgDiffHash "A.png" "B.png"` == "$BlackHashValue" ]; then
echo YES same
else
echo NO different
fi


If the video quality is very bad even adjacent frames that look exactly the same may have too many visible artifacts in the diff to match. You might have to increase '-black-threshold 2%' to some larger value to make it even fuzzier.

Batch methods are useful for specific analysis like this video capture. But bear in mind we are writing the world's slowest motion detection algorithm!

2
jimmajamma 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is great info. Thank you for sharing your experience.

2
HocusLocus [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's what I was most curious about and writing a program to dedup

Haha, you don't know the half of it. When I was stepping through the video I originally noticed that the same data might be only one frame, or 2,3 even 4 frames. Fortunately they placed direct screen output into the video so the screen hexdump was perfectly straight, didn't move at all not even by a pixel, and whole screens are cleanly replaced. What was thankfully missing was the flickering blur or half-screen replacements that plague you when you point even a professional tripod camera at a scrolling display.

So in for example B04, from 1886 images, roughly 1/2 to 3/4 were dups even though the image files would never match identically. Originally I was going to use the dimmer addresses down the left side to 'spot' identical screens but the dimmer addresses OCR'd horribly and inconsistently because there was less contrast. So for B04 I cropped them out entirely to save the OCR some grief. To dedup I did it by line and just used the clear 15 data hex pairs, and presented each group only if that exact sequence (within a batch) had not been encountered before.

This is easy using perl hash arrays because if you have a string $s that is the line of hex you can do it in one statement,

if (++$seen{$s}==1) {
##
## this executes for first unique occurrence of $s
##
}

A hash array %seen is populated with keys of the $s strings, and the data is the incrementing count. The prefix increment ++ increments before the test (==1) so it only matches on the first.

It would not work for replicating a database (16th dump column missing anyway) but did work for representing to people the nature of what was displayed.

2
jimmajamma 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's very interesting about trying to use the left side addresses and the low contrast. Very cool stuff.

I'm not sure when I'd have occasion to use these techniques, but it's really interesting to learn how you did it and hopefully even just knowing this is possible will unlock some utility in the future.

I'm also thinking about other places that a similar sort of technology might be useful. Like scanning the text from scrolling chyrons on CNN for indexing video for later debunking... I suppose you could get similar information from closed captioning data...

Thank you again for sharing your knowledge. That was very generous.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Powdered_Sugar 2 points ago +2 / -0

Help me out here. Is this stuff from Mike related to the AZ audit, or is he looking at other data?

2
HocusLocus [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

No relation to AZ, it is pretty much a Kraken affair where a single massive steal is alleged that would rely upon 'dreamland' cyber techniques, some of which (as sketchily described) exceed the realm of the believable to those of us who feel we have a grasp on what is possible today.

  • TLS encryption ciphers and the PKI+hashes they rely upon for key exchange, as implemented today have NOT been broken.
  • Certificate chains at the CA level may have been compromised (by being cutouts or having bad actors infiltrating the organizations, making man-in-the-middle more possible) but have NOT been broken.
  • It may be true that someone was running a complete capture at some jurisdiction in a swing state.
  • But the only entity that could conceivably do this in multiple states, with proper filtering of unwanted traffic, is NSA with their network of fiber split taps at major interconnection points... the domestic nature of which will hopefully trigger a future scandal. EVEN if this was so, there is no credible universe in which the NSA would deliberately choose this issue to break cover and trigger the scandal.
  • At this stage in Lindell's case it is unlikely that anyone involved would shy away from publicly posting actual 'pcap' data briefly if their possession of the data was true and the effort is genuine. In fact, they should be excited to show the world a bit of what independent experts would be unanimous was real and relevant. We're not.

You have to descend to hypothetical absurdities to make this idea work. You have to assume TLS is broken, or the NSA is our friend, or Dominion's private keys and Amazon gateway certificates have been compromised, and what is biggest of all, some private entity could even position itself on the network to capture this data. And I mean this EVEN IF transactions associated with the steal is there to be captured.

So many 'dreamland' assumptions. If you start to ascend a a stepladder without a moment's thought and suddenly realize you are 50 feet in the air, it's not time to examine the ladder with awe and wonder. It's time to start down.

2
warlock666 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've pointed out a few times on here that many of the IP addresses listed as "Target" voting precincts and stuff don't match up doing a reverse DNS lookup. Not even close to the target being claimed.

It's all bull, he's being completely duped.

2
Salt_Cartoonist 2 points ago +5 / -3

Makes a lot of sense if he is. Also, has Flynn gone Q-tard? I've seen a few things lately that mention him and Q in the same breath. I've noticed I don't see him around Trump, or is Trump keeping him away for good reason.

1
twoscoopspatriot 1 point ago +3 / -2

You dumb shill, his proof doesn't resolve only on those screens but on this exhibit: https://www.docdroid.net/oArk9hm/lindel-complaint-ex-12-pdf

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
twoscoopspatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I doubt you can conclude that from the exhibit alone. My guess is that they will back up exhibit 12 in court when the time comes.

-2
-jjjjjjjjjj- -2 points ago +6 / -8

Lindell is a nutcase. His heart is in the right place, but people need to realize that no matter what he uncovers it will never lead to anything because he's a former crack addict pillow salesman with a bunch of nobodies he hired to do this analysis. His work has no credibility and wouldn't even be allowed in a court room if there was a legal case.

1
HocusLocus [S] 1 point ago +4 / -3

Even if you're right, you're still an asshole. How'd you manage that?

2
-jjjjjjjjjj- 2 points ago +4 / -2

Learned it from Trump. We're not out here having a popularity contest. Anyone that isn't advancing the movement to take our country back is a hindrance and Lindell is not advancing the movement, which you said yourself. Call a spade a spade.

-1
glasses2020 -1 points ago +2 / -3

Anyone defending this hopium is a useful idiot to the left.