Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution. It's all based on external public information when what we need are the internals.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase. Stock count or the books won't balance.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicate and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Every support ticket I've ever handled and had to investigate someone noticed something didn't look right. Sometimes it's fine and just something they don't understand like a low frequency event they saw first time. Many other times something is wrong. In virtually all cases they don't actually know why it is wrong just that it is. The same as if you get a phone bill for five hundred dollars then you know something went wrong but you don't know what straight away. That's what you have to investigate to find out. In nearly every case the person comes up with a theory and solution both of which are wrong. Things don't take their real shape until you can look at everything involved.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. With the UFO craze there were so many fake accounts never any real evidence that if aliens did just pop down, walk around then go on their way you'd never be about to tell the real account from the fakes. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to find out. This is the situation we're in. That action alone is sufficient to cry foul and invalidates the election result.

The same as if you're working for the book of records. If someone comes to you and says they jumped 100 feet so you have to put them in the book and then you try to verify this and they say you're not allowed to look at the footage of the sports centre for example then you don't put it in the book.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution. It's all based on external public information when what we need are the internals.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase. Stock count or the books won't balance.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicate and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Every support ticket I've ever handled and had to investigate someone noticed something didn't look right. Sometimes it's fine and just something they don't understand like a low frequency event they saw first time. Many other times something is wrong. In virtually all cases they don't actually know why it is wrong just that it is. The same as if you get a phone bill for five hundred dollars then you know something went wrong. That's what you have to investigate to find out. In nearly every case the person comes up with a theory and solution both of which are wrong. Things don't take their real shape until you can look at everything involved.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. With the UFO craze there were so many fake accounts never any real evidence that if aliens did just pop down, walk around then go on their way you'd never be about to tell the real account from the fakes. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to find out. This is the situation we're in. That action alone is sufficient to cry foul and invalidates the election result.

The same as if you're working for the book of records. If someone comes to you and says they jumped 100 feet so you have to put them in the book and then you try to verify this and they say you're not allowed to look at the footage of the sports centre for example then you don't put it in the book.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution. It's all based on external public information when what we need are the internals.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase. Stock count or the books won't balance.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Every support ticket I've ever handled and had to investigate someone noticed something didn't look right. Sometimes it's fine and just something they don't understand like a low frequency event they saw first time. Many other times something is wrong. In virtually all cases they don't actually know why it is wrong just that it is. That's what you have to investigate to find out. In nearly every case the person comes up with a theory and solution both of which are wrong. Things don't take their real shape until you can look at everything involved.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. With the UFO craze there were so many fake accounts never any real evidence that if aliens did just pop down, walk around then go on their way you'd never be about to tell the real account from the fakes. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to find out. This is the situation we're in. That action alone is sufficient to cry foul and invalidates the election result.

The same as if you're working for the book of records. If someone comes to you and says they jumped 100 feet so you have to put them in the book and then you try to verify this and they say you're not allowed to look at the footage of the sports centre for example then you don't put it in the book.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution. It's all based on external public information when what we need are the internals.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase. Stock count or the books won't balance.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Every support ticket I've ever handled and had to investigate someone noticed something didn't look right. Sometimes it's fine and just something they don't understand like a low frequency event they saw first time. Many other times something is wrong. In virtually all cases they don't actually know why it is wrong just that it is. That's what you have to investigate to find out. In nearly every case the person comes up with a theory and solution both of which are wrong. Things don't take their real shape until you can look at everything involved.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to find out. This is the situation we're in. That action alone is sufficient to cry foul and invalidates the election result.

The same as if you're working for the book of records. If someone comes to you and says they jumped 100 feet so you have to put them in the book and then you try to verify this and they say you're not allowed to look at the footage of the sports centre for example then you don't put it in the book.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase. Stock count or the books won't balance.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to find out. This is the situation we're in. That action alone is sufficient to cry foul and invalidates the election result.

The same as if you're working for the book of records. If someone comes to you and says they jumped 100 feet so you have to put them in the book and then you try to verify this and they say you're not allowed to look at the footage of the sports centre for example then you don't put it in the book.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to find out. This is the situation we're in. That action alone is sufficient to cry foul and invalidates the election result.

The same as if you're working for the book of records. If someone comes to you and says they jumped 100 feet so you have to put them in the book and then you try to verify this and they say you're not allowed to look at the footage of the sports centre for example then you don't put it in the book.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle. We don't know exactly what happened. We want to find out what happened or what could have happened. They're making it impossible to do that. This is the situation we're in.

Arguably it's on of a lack of transparency among other things.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data. In my view if I can't audit the system then the system fails so they have failed themselves or self declared.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already. In this case a very serious concern is being turned into a spectacle.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.

Their refusal to do this seals the deal. They keep you in the dark on purpose and wont let you know how it went down. Then you go crazy with your imagination making excessive use of insufficient data.

We saw this psychological craze with the UFO fad already.

Half the people who work in IT and security are morons who argue from naivety and really only know things they don't understand like to keep the machine patched or look in the installed programs list and to follow procedure. Like all the idiots complaining that the NHS isn't using Windows 10 yet don't understand security and are just bossing people around with an MS sales pitch.

You're being socialed right now making nonsense arguments purely on his background or making a fallacy appealing to reputation. There's absolutely nothing substantial to back up his claims and the affidavit doesn't read as credible. It has multiple signs of being dishonest.

I've also hacked and that includes SQL injection. It's relatively trivial. There's no real evidence of anything in this sequence of images. It's garbage. It's information pollution.

When I make a self service machine someone can in theory hack it though it might be prohibitive but it gets picked up when things like stock count is done or we check how much money we actually have. A good system design will raise the detection threshold after prevention has reached it's limit.

The proper way to investigate this is to challenge the system itself, the election and voting system. It should not be possible to simply hack in and fiddle the numbers without detection. If I manage to work out how to hack the self service machine and skip having to pay it'll eventually picked up that there was no money transaction for that purchase.

You only need to check a few thousand random ballots to detect any gross miscount. This is what you're not getting. You're arguing from ignorance.

What we need to do is get back on the trail. When you work a system you check everything as standard and make sure things all line up.

If the way the system is designed makes it impossible to know if there was fraud or not then that's part of discovery. For example the ability to adjudicated and backfill the record.

I've seen huge irregularity and invalidations of the election system including tell tale suspicious signs but that doesn't mean this particular account of how it went down is true. When things look right people spin all kinds of tales and come up with all kinds of theories but the only thing that really gets to the bottom of it is a thorough investigation of the system. How it works, what happened, the records, etc.