The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law
This is a continuation from "The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages 🔎"
We wanted to clarify:
The election results for a county or state that violate the law of large numbers should immediately be decertified. A violation of this law clearly demonstrates the results were manipulated.
However, if a county or state does NOT violate the law of large numbers, it doe not mean their is no manipulation. It just means more investigation needs to be done.
The good news is, most fraudulent counties and states will violate this law because it takes a lot of coordination to get all the voting methods for all candidates within a race to agree with the law.
The beautiful thing about this law is that fair and free elections (that are normally random) naturally obey this law. That is why it is a law!
# Analogy
The law of large numbers is as true, repeatable and verifiable as the law of gravity.
If someone was to tell you that they can jump off a plane and safely land on the ground, using only their arms (no parachute or other equipment), you would know that it is absurd. It would violate the law of gravity. No human can survive jumping off a plane, without any assistance and safely land on solid ground.
We know this assertion is absurd.
⚠️ The law of large numbers can equally be used with as much certainty to verify election results claims.
If election results do not respect the law of large numbers they must be immediately decertified. It really is as simple as that. It is a law for a reason!
———
Some people may not fully grasp why this is so clear cut, but they can easily check these assertions for themselves by analyzing historical election results for their state or county.
Most election cycles will have results that conform with the law. Those that don't were manipulated (including 2020).
# Assumptions
There is one critical assumption that applies to this law. It is:
- The pool of voters for each election method must be reasonably large and random
In most counties and states this assumption holds true, despite the media's best efforts of convincing the masses that Republicans are more likely to vote in person, on election day than Democrats, which is not true.
It actually begs the question: How did they know which lies to perpetrate ahead of time to discredit the law of large numbers? 🤔
# Summary
County Commissioners can rely on the law of large numbers to check the 2020 election results and decertify them if they violate the law.
They can also do this for the 2022 primary results and every future election.
It really is that simple.
If you jump off a plane with no safety equipment, you will die on impact (if you weren't already dead before then.)
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
This is a continuation from "The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages 🔎"
We wanted to clarify:
The election results for a county or state that violate the law of large numbers should immediately be decertified. A violation of this law clearly demonstrates the results were manipulated.
However, if a county or state does NOT violate the law of large numbers, it doe not mean their is no manipulation. It just means more investigation needs to be done.
The good news is, most fraudulent counties and states will violate this law because it takes a lot of coordination to get all the voting methods for all candidates within a race to agree with the law.
The beautiful thing about this law is that fair and free elections (that are normally random) naturally obey this law. That is why it is a law!
# Analogy
The law of large numbers is as true, repeatable and verifiable as the law of gravity.
If someone was to tell you that they can jump off a plane and safely land on the ground, using only their arms (no parachute or other equipment), you would know that it is absurd. It would violate the law of gravity. No human can survive jumping off a plane, without any assistance and safely land on solid ground.
We know this assertion is absurd.
⚠️ The law of large numbers can equally be used with as much certainty to verify election results claims.
If election results do not respect the law of large numbers they must be immediately decertified. It really is as simple as that. It is a law for a reason!
———
Some people may not fully grasp why this is so clear cut, but they can easily check these assertions for themselves by analyzing historical election results for their state or county.
Most election cycles will have results that conform with the law. Those that don't were manipulated (including 2020).
# Assumptions
There is one critical assumption that applies to this law. It is:
- The pool of voters for each election method must be reasonably large and random
In most counties and states this assumption holds true, despite the media's best efforts of convincing the masses that Republicans are more likely to vote in person, on election day than Democrats, which is not true.
It actually begs the question: How did they know which lies to perpetrate ahead of time to discredit the law of large numbers? 🤔
# Summary
County Commissioners can rely on the law of large numbers to check the 2020 election results and decertify them if they violate the law.
They can also do this for the 2022 primary results and every future election.
It really is that simple.
If you jump off a plane with no safety equipment, you will die on impact (if you weren't already dead before then.)
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
👍11🔥4
Forwarded from David Clements
Hold the line.
On the Otero County Commission’s decision to withhold certification.
“[Commissioner] Griffin said “his position hasn’t changed since Monday.”
“Whenever I call in my vote, it is going to remain the same and that is going to be a ‘No’ on the certification,” he said.
“[Commissioner] Marquardt, who during the June 13 meeting said she does not trust the machines, said her opposition to certification had nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election, but with if irregularities occurred in last week’s primaries. She cites a race for a then-District 2 seat on the commission where two candidates in the Republican primary are separated by only 11 votes and that three of those votes came from places where there once were homes but are now vacant lots.”
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/otero-county-commissioners-schedule-second-vote-on-election-certification/
On the Otero County Commission’s decision to withhold certification.
“[Commissioner] Griffin said “his position hasn’t changed since Monday.”
“Whenever I call in my vote, it is going to remain the same and that is going to be a ‘No’ on the certification,” he said.
“[Commissioner] Marquardt, who during the June 13 meeting said she does not trust the machines, said her opposition to certification had nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election, but with if irregularities occurred in last week’s primaries. She cites a race for a then-District 2 seat on the commission where two candidates in the Republican primary are separated by only 11 votes and that three of those votes came from places where there once were homes but are now vacant lots.”
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/otero-county-commissioners-schedule-second-vote-on-election-certification/
KOB.com
Otero County commissioners schedule second vote on election certification
ALAMOGORDO N.M. — The week began with a vote Monday by the Otero County Commission not to certify the local results of last week’s primary election. Now, the commissioners have scheduled an emergency meeting for Friday afternoon to take up certification of…
👍21🔥2
Forwarded from The Lone Raccoon (Lone Raccoon)
IMPORTANT POLARIS UPDATE: If you have applied and not gotten an email, or have forgotten your username or password, use the new "Forgot Password" link under the login information. You will be emailed a link to fix you up. If you don't see the email PLEASE CHECK YOUR SPAM/JUNK FOLDER!
👍9
Forwarded from The Lone Raccoon (Lone Raccoon)
A REMINDER - if you have received or will request a CVR from a county using ES&S PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make another public records request for the "Batch Manifest Report" report which might be called the "Tabulator Batch Report". We have less than 3 months to grab this data before it becomes cosmic confetti. But every bit we get will live forever.
👍21
The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1)
This is a continuation from:
- The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages
- The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law
Some people have correctly pointed out that applying the law of large numbers to "voting method percentages" will not result in all percentages being roughly the same for a given candidate if one party is more likely to favor a voting method than another.
Concretely, we have been repeatedly told (cough ... lied to) by the legacy media that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail than in person, on election day. (Most people accept this at face value.)
Our contention is that this is an absurdity.
This post is dedicated to debunking this absurdity, but bear in mind this absurdity has been so effectively used for decades that it comes with its fair share of cognitive dissonance.
- First we need to understand that mail-in voting has been the preferred method for rigging elections for decades. (Please make sure to read the full NYP Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots article.)
- Secondly, the argument that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail is a logical "circular reasoning" fallacy.
It is SO convenient that Democrats prefer voting by mail, when it also happens to be the easiest way to rig an election.
A bad actor could inflate the voter rolls with fake registrants that are affiliated with the Democrat party and manipulate the data to show they voted by mail. (Seriously, how else are they going to vote? 🤷♂️)
The same lie will keep being perpetrated over and over again, and no one would know any different.
The fact that it violates the law of large numbers doesn't matter. People have been conditioned to believe this is true and they will never challenge it.
We want to break this vicious cycle and challenge it.
# Counter Arguments
- Does a Democrat who decides to switch affiliation to the Republican party all of a sudden stop voting by mail?
- What about a Republican who switches affiliation and always voted in-person. Do they now decide to vote by mail?
At a physiological level, what are the scientific reasons a Democrat is more likely to vote by mail? (We need better answers than "the media told us so", or "the voter rolls tell us so").
———
The following post will look at some concrete examples.
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
This is a continuation from:
- The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages
- The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law
Some people have correctly pointed out that applying the law of large numbers to "voting method percentages" will not result in all percentages being roughly the same for a given candidate if one party is more likely to favor a voting method than another.
Concretely, we have been repeatedly told (cough ... lied to) by the legacy media that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail than in person, on election day. (Most people accept this at face value.)
Our contention is that this is an absurdity.
This post is dedicated to debunking this absurdity, but bear in mind this absurdity has been so effectively used for decades that it comes with its fair share of cognitive dissonance.
- First we need to understand that mail-in voting has been the preferred method for rigging elections for decades. (Please make sure to read the full NYP Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots article.)
- Secondly, the argument that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail is a logical "circular reasoning" fallacy.
It is SO convenient that Democrats prefer voting by mail, when it also happens to be the easiest way to rig an election.
A bad actor could inflate the voter rolls with fake registrants that are affiliated with the Democrat party and manipulate the data to show they voted by mail. (Seriously, how else are they going to vote? 🤷♂️)
The same lie will keep being perpetrated over and over again, and no one would know any different.
The fact that it violates the law of large numbers doesn't matter. People have been conditioned to believe this is true and they will never challenge it.
We want to break this vicious cycle and challenge it.
# Counter Arguments
- Does a Democrat who decides to switch affiliation to the Republican party all of a sudden stop voting by mail?
- What about a Republican who switches affiliation and always voted in-person. Do they now decide to vote by mail?
At a physiological level, what are the scientific reasons a Democrat is more likely to vote by mail? (We need better answers than "the media told us so", or "the voter rolls tell us so").
———
The following post will look at some concrete examples.
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
👍6🔥1
The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 2 - Examples)
(This is a continuation from The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1))
# Examples
## Hawaii 2016 Presidential Race Results
Here are the percentages for Trump and Clinton for each voting method (Absentee Mail, Absentee Walk-in, Election-Day):
Clinton: 71% | 68% | 64%
Trump: 29% | 32% | 36%
Yes it appears the absentee mail percentage vote for the Democrat candidate is higher than the election dat percentage vote.
However:
1 - How do we know for sure that there were no fake mail-in absentee votes?
2 - The gap is relatively small (7%)
3- There were actually more Democrat "walk-in" votes than "mail-ins." (145,710 compared to 121,181 respectively.) That kind of debunks the whole notion that Democrats overwhelmingly prefer voting by mail.
If we compare these percentages to the 2020 Results. A Republican who voted in person in 2016 was 4 times more likely to vote by mail in 2020, but a Democrat was 19 times more likely (!?). This doesn't make any sense. This does not even take into account the extra 100,000 Democrat mail-in votes in 2020. (😳)
## Collier County, FL
The results for the 2020 elections can be found on this webpage. (Please make sure to click on the "detailed" view, to see the votes by voting method for each candidate.)
The results are (By Mail, Early Vote, Election Day)
Trump: 52% | 72% | 74%
Biden: 48% | 28% | 26%
The gap between mail-in and election day percentages for the Democrat candidate is 22%.
We saw that the gap between mail-in and election day percentage for the Democrat candidate in Hawaii during the 2016 elections was 7%. Why is there such a big difference when, arguably the Hawaiian population was even more Democrat in 2016 than the Collier population in 2020?
Let's look at this from another angle.
What if we applied the law of large numbers to Collier County and assume the mail-in votes for Biden amounted to 29% (which is still more than the other voting methods. This will keep the legacy media happy.)
So the mail-in percentage for Biden is still greater than the other voting methods, but when you do the maths, the Democrats potentially have 27,000 extra votes. (😱)
———
There is a lot more we can write about this topic but the post is already too long so will leave it at that for now. Feel free to comment and challenge in the comments.
# References:
- The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages
- The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law
- The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1)
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
(This is a continuation from The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1))
# Examples
## Hawaii 2016 Presidential Race Results
Here are the percentages for Trump and Clinton for each voting method (Absentee Mail, Absentee Walk-in, Election-Day):
Clinton: 71% | 68% | 64%
Trump: 29% | 32% | 36%
Yes it appears the absentee mail percentage vote for the Democrat candidate is higher than the election dat percentage vote.
However:
1 - How do we know for sure that there were no fake mail-in absentee votes?
2 - The gap is relatively small (7%)
3- There were actually more Democrat "walk-in" votes than "mail-ins." (145,710 compared to 121,181 respectively.) That kind of debunks the whole notion that Democrats overwhelmingly prefer voting by mail.
If we compare these percentages to the 2020 Results. A Republican who voted in person in 2016 was 4 times more likely to vote by mail in 2020, but a Democrat was 19 times more likely (!?). This doesn't make any sense. This does not even take into account the extra 100,000 Democrat mail-in votes in 2020. (😳)
## Collier County, FL
The results for the 2020 elections can be found on this webpage. (Please make sure to click on the "detailed" view, to see the votes by voting method for each candidate.)
The results are (By Mail, Early Vote, Election Day)
Trump: 52% | 72% | 74%
Biden: 48% | 28% | 26%
The gap between mail-in and election day percentages for the Democrat candidate is 22%.
We saw that the gap between mail-in and election day percentage for the Democrat candidate in Hawaii during the 2016 elections was 7%. Why is there such a big difference when, arguably the Hawaiian population was even more Democrat in 2016 than the Collier population in 2020?
Let's look at this from another angle.
What if we applied the law of large numbers to Collier County and assume the mail-in votes for Biden amounted to 29% (which is still more than the other voting methods. This will keep the legacy media happy.)
So the mail-in percentage for Biden is still greater than the other voting methods, but when you do the maths, the Democrats potentially have 27,000 extra votes. (😱)
———
There is a lot more we can write about this topic but the post is already too long so will leave it at that for now. Feel free to comment and challenge in the comments.
# References:
- The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages
- The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law
- The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1)
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
👍16🔥1😢1
Forwarded from Momma Bear 🇺🇲🦅
BREAKING NEWS...Indiana First Action just served Indiana's Secretary of State with 44 Notices of Intent to File Against her Surety bond. First in the Nation SOS to be served. GOOO Hoosiers
👍70❤19🔥13
Forwarded from Election Data Analyzer (M_EDA)
Did you get your ballot adjudicating fix yet? How about looking at 10 ballots today? Do you have 5 minutes to do that? To make the leader board you need 450 now, it was 250 a few days ago. Let's go!
https://polarisrecount.com/
https://polarisrecount.com/
🔥16👍6
Forwarded from Captain Keshel and Co. American Election Integrity HQ
If you want to know where the fraud is, look into massive early voting periods, combined with lengthy mail-in periods.
It is ELECTION DAY, not ELECTION WEEKS or ELECTION MONTH.
Do not vote early.
https://t.iss.one/patriotpolitics/2599
It is ELECTION DAY, not ELECTION WEEKS or ELECTION MONTH.
Do not vote early.
https://t.iss.one/patriotpolitics/2599
Telegram
Patriot Politics 2022 - JBEpp
The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages 🔎
👉 Debunking absurdities.
Remember the "Dekalb County, GA - Hand Recount vs Machine Count" post?
(If you missed it please click on the link above to read it carefully.)
The hand recount in Dekalb…
👉 Debunking absurdities.
Remember the "Dekalb County, GA - Hand Recount vs Machine Count" post?
(If you missed it please click on the link above to read it carefully.)
The hand recount in Dekalb…
👍19🔥5
Forwarded from Captain Keshel and Co. American Election Integrity HQ
Trump won Election Day voting in Hawaii 72/28 considering D and R votes only.
Lost early voting and mail 2 to 1.
It’s pretty simple.
Mail and early voting. Get rid of those, you win.
Lost early voting and mail 2 to 1.
It’s pretty simple.
Mail and early voting. Get rid of those, you win.
👍30🔥9🤯2
Forwarded from Captain Keshel and Co. American Election Integrity HQ
FYI: YUMA
Total votes: 70,594
Election Day: 9,485
Early Votes: 59,895
—> of which 53,779 were mail-ins
Provisional: 1,214
https://t.iss.one/behizy/3311
Total votes: 70,594
Election Day: 9,485
Early Votes: 59,895
—> of which 53,779 were mail-ins
Provisional: 1,214
https://t.iss.one/behizy/3311
Telegram
Behizy
BREAKING: If true, this is going to break the DAM wide open
🔥50👍6🥰2
Forwarded from ElectionFraud20.org
"Mail-ins" = "Fraud". Period.
Reference: FYI: YUMA by Captain K.
———
My shortest post yet 😉
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
Reference: FYI: YUMA by Captain K.
———
My shortest post yet 😉
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
👍36🔥7
Williamson County, Tennessee - EAC Report - Part 1
The report is for the municipal election held on October 26, 2021 and can be found on the EAC website here.
Doug Logan does an excellent job of reviewing this report in this video.
There are striking parallels between this report, Halderman's Antrim County report and what happened in Dekalb County, GA.
Here are quotes from the official EAC report followed by our comments:
> Close poll reports from 7 of the 18 ICP tabulators used during the election did not match the number of ballots scanned
The same thing happened in Dekalb County.
How is it possible that the problem only occurs on some tabulators and not all of them?
Why weren't ALL the tabulators updated with the latest configuration files? This is starting to become a trend, almost as if it is intentional... And it is starting to make a lot of sense:
- Mixing good tabulators with bad tabulators makes discovering the error (cough... manipulation) harder
- Before each election cycle a few more tabulators can be "fixed" to gradually change the voting patterns within a county so no one notices.
- Most importantly, they can always blame "human error" and provide a "possible deniable" explanation.
> The central count tabulation was confirmed via hand count of the paper ballot records
If we keep falling back on hand counting to double check the tabulators, why are we using the tabulators at all?
They keep tacitly confirming that hand counting is the most reliable counting method.
> It was discovered that the system was installed with outdated versions of two configuration files when the system was upgraded from D-Suite 5.5 to D-Suite 5.5-B in January of 2021
The version of the configuration files seems to be a major problem in Antrim and Dekalb as well.
⚠️The ballot paper should clearly display (and encode) the version of the configuration files. The tabulator would then check the version on the ballot matches its own internal version before analyzing the ballot image.
The CVR files should also contain the configuration version used by the tabulator, so that when the data is uploaded to the EMS, a check can be made to ensure the version of the configuration files used in the tabulator match the version used in the EMS. (This would have completely prevented the Antrim County miscount).
This is really basic "checks" that are trivial to implement. The fact that Dominion does not perform these checks borders on professional negligence (to put it mildly).
It's pretty obvious why these checks are not performed. We will let you guess why.
> This election definition was imported into the D-Suite 5.5-B system from a definition originally created on the D-Suite 5.5 system.
Think about this for second in terms of timeline. The county is right in the middle of preparing for an election.
Do you really think it makes sense that a county would upgrade their election software when they are right in the middle of preparing for an election?
Regardless, why doesn't Dominion make election definition files produced by an older version of the software incompatible with a newer version, if that is truly the case? Again, that would be trivial to implement.
> Results showed that the anomaly was recreated on each of
the ICP scanners.
This clearly indicates some tabulators were updated with the new configuration files and others were NOT. Why?
How is it possible to miss some tabulators? (i.e. 11 were missed out of 18).
You only have ONE job to do... and you still can't get it right? ... Or is it intentional?
> indicating a QR code misread occurred.
Doug goes into this in great detail in his video. You can't misread a QR code. Either you can read it in full or you can not read it at all. There is no middle ground.
(Cont'd in part 2)
The report is for the municipal election held on October 26, 2021 and can be found on the EAC website here.
Doug Logan does an excellent job of reviewing this report in this video.
There are striking parallels between this report, Halderman's Antrim County report and what happened in Dekalb County, GA.
Here are quotes from the official EAC report followed by our comments:
> Close poll reports from 7 of the 18 ICP tabulators used during the election did not match the number of ballots scanned
The same thing happened in Dekalb County.
How is it possible that the problem only occurs on some tabulators and not all of them?
Why weren't ALL the tabulators updated with the latest configuration files? This is starting to become a trend, almost as if it is intentional... And it is starting to make a lot of sense:
- Mixing good tabulators with bad tabulators makes discovering the error (cough... manipulation) harder
- Before each election cycle a few more tabulators can be "fixed" to gradually change the voting patterns within a county so no one notices.
- Most importantly, they can always blame "human error" and provide a "possible deniable" explanation.
> The central count tabulation was confirmed via hand count of the paper ballot records
If we keep falling back on hand counting to double check the tabulators, why are we using the tabulators at all?
They keep tacitly confirming that hand counting is the most reliable counting method.
> It was discovered that the system was installed with outdated versions of two configuration files when the system was upgraded from D-Suite 5.5 to D-Suite 5.5-B in January of 2021
The version of the configuration files seems to be a major problem in Antrim and Dekalb as well.
⚠️The ballot paper should clearly display (and encode) the version of the configuration files. The tabulator would then check the version on the ballot matches its own internal version before analyzing the ballot image.
The CVR files should also contain the configuration version used by the tabulator, so that when the data is uploaded to the EMS, a check can be made to ensure the version of the configuration files used in the tabulator match the version used in the EMS. (This would have completely prevented the Antrim County miscount).
This is really basic "checks" that are trivial to implement. The fact that Dominion does not perform these checks borders on professional negligence (to put it mildly).
It's pretty obvious why these checks are not performed. We will let you guess why.
> This election definition was imported into the D-Suite 5.5-B system from a definition originally created on the D-Suite 5.5 system.
Think about this for second in terms of timeline. The county is right in the middle of preparing for an election.
Do you really think it makes sense that a county would upgrade their election software when they are right in the middle of preparing for an election?
Regardless, why doesn't Dominion make election definition files produced by an older version of the software incompatible with a newer version, if that is truly the case? Again, that would be trivial to implement.
> Results showed that the anomaly was recreated on each of
the ICP scanners.
This clearly indicates some tabulators were updated with the new configuration files and others were NOT. Why?
How is it possible to miss some tabulators? (i.e. 11 were missed out of 18).
You only have ONE job to do... and you still can't get it right? ... Or is it intentional?
> indicating a QR code misread occurred.
Doug goes into this in great detail in his video. You can't misread a QR code. Either you can read it in full or you can not read it at all. There is no middle ground.
(Cont'd in part 2)
👍19🔥5🤬1
Williamson County, Tennessee - EAC Report - Part 2
(This is a continuation from Part 1)
> A final test was performed using an election definition recreated entirely on the D-Suite 5.5-B system with identical parameters to the definition used during the election and for prior testing. The anomaly was not observed during this test, and there were no instances of the
security error “QR code signature mismatch” or warning message “Ballot format or id is unrecognizable” in the audit log.
The exact same parameters were used to re-create the configuration files with the new version of the software, and this time the tabulators worked fine. (Keep this in mind for what follows).
> The direct cause of the anomaly was inconclusive
⚠️ Really?!? This does NOT inspire us with a lot of confidence...
They are not really sure how this problem occurred, but please don't worry because Dominion did a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and identified and fixed the problem in their code. (Yay! 🎉🎉 nothing to see here. Move along...).
NOTE: Doug goes into great depth in his video concerning the code, so we won't repeat it here.
Our take is that none of this makes sense. QR codes can NOT be misread for starters. When the configuration files were generated with D-Suite 5.5-B, the tabulators worked perfectly so there wasn't a problem in the code to start with.
The problem is obviously in how the configuration files are "crafted".
It means the configuration files can be crafted in such a way that a ballot can enable or disable certain code options, which will change the behavior of the tabulator.
🚨 The point we are trying to make here, is that you don't need to "hack into" anything. (😱)
Having the right configuration files, which are then triggered by the right ballot can change the behavior of the tabulator. This is all built into the code and no "hacking" is required.
In fact, "Special" ballots are indeed used to signal to the tabulator a new batch of ballots is about to be processed....
Now that we know this is a "feature" built into the tabulators, many different scenarios are possible.
We will leave that to your imagination.
# References:
- Part 1
- Doug Logan's video review
- Doug Logan's interview with CannCon
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
(This is a continuation from Part 1)
> A final test was performed using an election definition recreated entirely on the D-Suite 5.5-B system with identical parameters to the definition used during the election and for prior testing. The anomaly was not observed during this test, and there were no instances of the
security error “QR code signature mismatch” or warning message “Ballot format or id is unrecognizable” in the audit log.
The exact same parameters were used to re-create the configuration files with the new version of the software, and this time the tabulators worked fine. (Keep this in mind for what follows).
> The direct cause of the anomaly was inconclusive
⚠️ Really?!? This does NOT inspire us with a lot of confidence...
They are not really sure how this problem occurred, but please don't worry because Dominion did a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and identified and fixed the problem in their code. (Yay! 🎉🎉 nothing to see here. Move along...).
NOTE: Doug goes into great depth in his video concerning the code, so we won't repeat it here.
Our take is that none of this makes sense. QR codes can NOT be misread for starters. When the configuration files were generated with D-Suite 5.5-B, the tabulators worked perfectly so there wasn't a problem in the code to start with.
The problem is obviously in how the configuration files are "crafted".
It means the configuration files can be crafted in such a way that a ballot can enable or disable certain code options, which will change the behavior of the tabulator.
🚨 The point we are trying to make here, is that you don't need to "hack into" anything. (😱)
Having the right configuration files, which are then triggered by the right ballot can change the behavior of the tabulator. This is all built into the code and no "hacking" is required.
In fact, "Special" ballots are indeed used to signal to the tabulator a new batch of ballots is about to be processed....
Now that we know this is a "feature" built into the tabulators, many different scenarios are possible.
We will leave that to your imagination.
# References:
- Part 1
- Doug Logan's video review
- Doug Logan's interview with CannCon
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
Telegram
ElectionFraud20.org
Williamson County, Tennessee - EAC Report - Part 1
The report is for the municipal election held on October 26, 2021 and can be found on the EAC website here.
Doug Logan does an excellent job of reviewing this report in this video.
There are striking parallels…
The report is for the municipal election held on October 26, 2021 and can be found on the EAC website here.
Doug Logan does an excellent job of reviewing this report in this video.
There are striking parallels…
👍7🔥4😱1
Williamson County, TN - 2020 Election Results
We have attached some images for Williamson County TN, as well as the analysis summary for the largest counties in TN.
Please note that this is not related to the municipal elections we discussed in our previous post.
However, the signs of voter fraud are obvious from the high level summary data.
Many counties have DVI z-scores greater than 4! (😱)
Maybe the tabulator configuration files used in the 2020 election were all created with the wrong software version. Just sayin' 🤷♂️
Warrants further investigation.
Does anyone have CVR data for some counties in Tennessee?
# References:
- Unlikely z-score values
- Williamson EAC Report
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
We have attached some images for Williamson County TN, as well as the analysis summary for the largest counties in TN.
Please note that this is not related to the municipal elections we discussed in our previous post.
However, the signs of voter fraud are obvious from the high level summary data.
Many counties have DVI z-scores greater than 4! (😱)
Maybe the tabulator configuration files used in the 2020 election were all created with the wrong software version. Just sayin' 🤷♂️
Warrants further investigation.
Does anyone have CVR data for some counties in Tennessee?
# References:
- Unlikely z-score values
- Williamson EAC Report
———
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
👍17🔥2
Forwarded from Captain Keshel and Co. American Election Integrity HQ
https://skeshel.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-sioux-falls-how-red-states
Just six contested states? Think again.
Inside the plan to hollow out core freedom states, highlighting the Keshel Method in Minnehaha County.
Thanks for reading!
Just six contested states? Think again.
Inside the plan to hollow out core freedom states, highlighting the Keshel Method in Minnehaha County.
Thanks for reading!
🔥34👍4
Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’
#GodBlessTexas
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/texas-gop-passes-resolution-declaring-biden-not-legitimately-elected_4543841.html
Does this resolution have the necessary weight behind it to start shifting things? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
#GodBlessTexas
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/texas-gop-passes-resolution-declaring-biden-not-legitimately-elected_4543841.html
Does this resolution have the necessary weight behind it to start shifting things? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
The Epoch Times
Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’
❤59👍20🔥17
Forwarded from Captain Keshel and Co. American Election Integrity HQ
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
I show you 10,000 imaginary Biden votes in Minnehaha County, SD (Sioux Falls).
A complement to this SubStack piece from yesterday:
https://skeshel.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-sioux-falls-how-red-states
A complement to this SubStack piece from yesterday:
https://skeshel.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-sioux-falls-how-red-states
🔥27🤬2