That’s a good point, thanks for the info. I didn’t see them halt either but I’ll watch it again more closely.
Side thought- what if the LAST ballot scanned was the only “faulty” one (intentionally, ofc). I did see some videos of Dominion exploits that said if any errors occurred the entire batch can be adjudicated. What I’m getting at is what if it’s a known exploit to do it that way and they took advantage if it (the top ballot would be the last ballot scanned if not flipped over). In a separate comment I noted how the woman with the braids keeps fiddling with just the top ballot of the stack each time she walks by.
Spitballing crazy ideas here, there’s no way we can enhance some frame of that video to make out the format of any of the ballots right? E.g. discern barcoded ballots from non-barcoded or anything else? The quality seems too poor but figured I’d throw it out there. I can make out the bottom scantron aligner marks but I dont see the barcode in the top right.
First 30s of the video the woman with the braids keeps touching the top sheet of the pile she placed down every time she walks by. It’s nothing right?
This is in Fulton right? Same county that had some ballot template missing barcodes? What do you think the chances are they rescanned exactly the non-barcode ballots as many times as possible since the system wouldn’t detect a duplicate ballot? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/georgia-ballots-gop-dem.jpg
The first counter-argument for rescans is that the system won’t allow counting the same ballot twice. Based on the unredacted Anterim forensic logs it sounds like Dominion scanners do detect the same ballot being scanned again (but still increase the overall ballot count). Whether this increases the overall vote count is unclear. However, if that ballot id detection is based on the barcode, the machines would probably just scan these barcode-less ballots anyway and tag them all with an error, then an admin can adjudicate them to count them all in a few clicks overriding any error. If the adjudication logs are deleted there’s no paper trail of this fraud via physical ballots or logs aside from more votes than physical ballots (but you can’t easily track down where the duplicates came from). Thank God we have this video.
Is it possible the non-barcode ballot is a fake that wasn’t printed by the official printer contractor of the county? Separately from the alignment issue I’m wondering if that template is all counterfeit and all Biden.
He was the former AG of Missouri.
Can someone link me to this SURE data? I only see the 6.931m number (adding everything up) in the county breakdown https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/. Where is the 6.76m number coming from?
Regarding the Fulton suitcase video, has anyone made a rough estimate of the # of ballots in those suitcases, and is that # close to the number of fake reported Biden votes in Fulton? For a concrete example in Fulton, I’m thinking the fake vote updates were reported in precincts over the night, then at the end of the day the election commissioner was told (by someone with Dominion access) the real number of Biden votes, thus telling him the # he had to come up with to balance the books for a paper audit, then he pulled enough suitcases out from under the table to make up that number and had (not necessarily aware) underlings scan them.
Thanks. I ended up finding it on page 58+ on each county’s “Difference Between the Active First and Drop Stases” at the bottom of the page.
How are you deducing the number of votes Trump lost via the Polynomic Sledgehammer? My understanding of your whole theory is that precincts reported real data most of the time (just deltas in each update, e.g. +50Trump +40Biden), except when they were “taken over” by the algorithm and at that point they were reporting fabricated numbers (again, just deltas) that stick out like a sore thumb under analysis. When the precincts were “released”, they went back to reporting true vote increments. So are you simply adding up the difference between the fraud updates what you otherwise assume would have been updated then based on the before/after ratios?
And to be clear, when you say “votes Trump lost”, you mean votes that were stuffed for Biden right? Ultimately on a recount, I assume just about all of the actually-cast Trump physical ballots will be present, unless ballots are being destroyed. Producing fake digital increments during election updates only works if by the end you have stuffed enough fake ballots to back up the Biden total that was intentionally generated by the algorithm, and they need to be stuffed in the correct county.
That works, thanks pede! What’s with Ballot 1105 being processed 3 times and incrementing the total by 3? Is that a unique ballot being erroneously being processed 3x or just the same ballot template being detected? If the former, why on earth would it detect the same unique ballot and yet still increase the count?
Hmm that pdf isn’t loading anything for me on iOS. Will snoop around some more. Finding data these days is very difficult...
My home town is bumper to bumper traffic holiday shopping. I’m not sure anyone is actually listening to the shills in practice, just virtue signaling online.
Yeah the ink too, and in tandem. But have investigators done this? These lawyers seem to always be 2 weeks behind with revealing data that was found on the ground to the public (not throwing shade). I just want to make sure something obvious wasn’t overlooked. Since we’ve had recounts in some places, I imagine it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to also investigate the paper/ink.
This is the video I was thinking about around the 1:20 mark https://youtu.be/Zgs3-_sXPsg