The problem that this illustrates is we need to stop using machine ballots entirely. Because even if we win this one, they will make sure to do it differently next time. They can even for the most part, get around the forensics. We can already put pens in the hands of machines and make them write, so if that's what it takes for them to commit fraud, they'll do it. They'll have a thousand Chinese sitting around in a factory handling printed ballots to make them look like they were naturally handled, then filling them out by hand, if they really wanted. So it's clear we can't even rely on forensics, because if we do, we risk those committing fraud, faking the forensics too. I doubt they went through the trouble this time, the forensics WILL find fake ballots, because we already know that ballots came in that were "pristine" and never folded.

The biggest part he was pointing out besides the paper, is the way ballots were printed in Republican areas, were clearly designed to cause more failures in the ability to read them properly, thus requiring more adjudication. That way they could stuff in more fake ballots, hide what they were doing because everyone's adjudicating left and right so it won't look funny when they're actually running the same ballot through multiple times and having to adjudicate, and so they can run fake ballots through and adjudicate those too.

In essence, they were printing the ballots intentionally faulty as to up the error rate of reading the ballots, by printing in such a way that would confuse the optical systems more often. Those hazy black squares would do exactly that. Sometimes the machine will get an optical "lock", and sometimes it won't be able to. And the fact that these were only present in Republican areas, says a lot. There's also no excuse for it other than intentional fraud, because there's no other reason for it to be like that. This is how they turn Republican areas into Democrat areas nowadays, this is how they make themselves look bigger as a party than they actually are. They steal Republican areas then call them Democrat areas, and even the people living there think they live in a Democrat area, when in reality most people around them that they see everywhere everyday, are actually voting Republicans.

But the forensics he's talking about go deeper than that. He wants to see the irregularities on the structure of the paper that come from handling. That's important, because it's essentially a fingerprint. When ballots get mailed out, just moving through the mail system and getting handled by the mail man will cause some imperfections in the paper's structure.

Then the voter handling it will for example, pick the paper up between their thumb and index finger and press down and hold to look at the paper. That will leave a signature, even if slight, because that damages/bends the paper, and paper is not static, its structure changes all the time because paper, while sturdy, is actually very fragile microscopically and takes damage all the time in even in light usage.

The problem that this illustrates is we need to stop using machine ballots entirely. Because even if we win this one, they will make sure to do it differently next time. They can even for the most part, get around the forensics. We can already put pens in the hands of machines and make them write, so if that's what it takes for them to commit fraud, they'll do it. They'll have a thousand Chinese sitting around in a factory handling printed ballots to make them look like they were naturally handled, then filling them out by hand, if they really wanted. So it's clear we can't even rely on forensics, because if we do, we risk those committing fraud, faking the forensics too. I doubt they went through the trouble this time, the forensics WILL find fake ballots, because we already know that ballots came in that were "pristine" and never folded.

The biggest part he was pointing out besides the paper, is the way ballots were printed in Republican areas, were clearly designed to cause more failures in the ability to read them properly, thus requiring more adjudication, seemingly done intentionally. That way they could stuff in more fake ballots, hide what they were doing because everyone's adjudicating left and right so it won't look funny when they're actually running the same ballot through multiple times and having to adjudicate, and so they can run fake ballots through and adjudicate those too.

In essence, they were printing the ballots intentionally faulty as to up the error rate of reading the ballots, by printing in such a way that would confuse the optical systems more often. Those hazy black squares would do exactly that. Sometimes the machine will get an optical "lock", and sometimes it won't be able to. And the fact that these were only present in Republican areas, says a lot. There's also no excuse for it other than intentional fraud, because there's no other reason for it to be like that. This is how they turn Republican areas into Democrat areas nowadays, this is how they make themselves look bigger as a party than they actually are. They steal Republican areas then call them Democrat areas, and even the people living there think they live in a Democrat area, when in reality most people around them that they see everywhere everyday, are actually voting Republicans.

But the forensics he's talking about go deeper than that. He wants to see the irregularities on the structure of the paper that come from handling. That's important, because it's essentially a fingerprint. When ballots get mailed out, just moving through the mail system and getting handled by the mail man will cause some imperfections in the paper's structure.

Then the voter handling it will for example, pick the paper up between their thumb and index finger and press down and hold to look at the paper. That will leave a signature, even if slight, because that damages/bends the paper, and paper is not static, its structure changes all the time because paper, while sturdy, is actually very fragile microscopically and takes damage all the time in even in light usage.

The problem that this illustrates is we need to stop using machine ballots entirely. Because even if we win this one, they will make sure to do it differently next time. They can even for the most part, get around the forensics. We can already put pens in the hands of machines and make them write, so if that's what it takes for them to commit fraud, they'll do it. They'll have a thousand Chinese sitting around in a factory handling printed ballots to make them look like they were naturally handled, then filling them out by hand, if they really wanted. So it's clear we can't even rely on forensics, because if we do, we risk those committing fraud, faking the forensics too. I doubt they went through the trouble this time, the forensics WILL find fake ballots, because we already know that ballots came in that were "pristine" and never folded.

The biggest part he was pointing out besides the paper, is that the way the ballots were printed in Republican areas, were clearly designed to cause more failures in the ability to read them properly, thus requiring more adjudication, seemingly done intentionally. That way they could stuff in more fake ballots, hide what they were doing because everyone's adjudicating left and right so it won't look funny when they're actually running the same ballot through multiple times and having to adjudicate, and so they can run fake ballots through and adjudicate those too.

In essence, they were printing the ballots intentionally faulty as to up the error rate of reading the ballots, by printing in such a way that would confuse the optical systems more often. Those hazy black squares would do exactly that. Sometimes the machine will get an optical "lock", and sometimes it won't be able to. And the fact that these were only present in Republican areas, says a lot. There's also no excuse for it other than intentional fraud, because there's no other reason for it to be like that. This is how they turn Republican areas into Democrat areas nowadays, this is how they make themselves look bigger as a party than they actually are. They steal Republican areas then call them Democrat areas, and even the people living there think they live in a Democrat area, when in reality most people around them that they see everywhere everyday, are actually voting Republicans.

But the forensics he's talking about go deeper than that. He wants to see the irregularities on the structure of the paper that come from handling. That's important, because it's essentially a fingerprint. When ballots get mailed out, just moving through the mail system and getting handled by the mail man will cause some imperfections in the paper's structure.

Then the voter handling it will for example, pick the paper up between their thumb and index finger and press down and hold to look at the paper. That will leave a signature, even if slight, because that damages/bends the paper, and paper is not static, its structure changes all the time because paper, while sturdy, is actually very fragile microscopically and takes damage all the time in even in light usage.