Posted on 02/22/2024 5:58:37 AM PST by Miami Rebel
I think it's more accurate to say "it's not just the machines."
The machines certainly cost Kari Lake the election in 2022. That and all the other corruption in Arizona elections.
Go to hell judge.
No he wasn't, but you have to understand something about files before you can comprehend why.
If I recall correctly, his most significant claim is that he proved the data Lindell provided was *NOT* proof of machine fraud in the 2020 election.
His basis for claiming this was the time stamps on the files. He showed that as the file was created after the election, it could not therefore be proof of fraud during the election.
Ridiculous argument, because the file creation date changes when you open it and save it. There is no way to permanently link a date to a file, and so the file creation date is essentially meaningless.
The guy in question never decripted the data, so he didn't really prove it wasn't data from machine rigging in the 2020 election. His entire claim was based on that file date information.
He didn't prove his claim.
I wish these well-meaning dopes like Lindell and Sidney Powell had never fixated themselves on the voting machines in 2020. The machines were never the problem. All the evidence points to voting machines working just fine while they counted potentially millions of illegal ballots.
I seem to recall reading articles that indicated the machines were engaging in funny business too, like fractional votes and shifting percentages of votes from Trump to Biden, but the bulk of the fraud was fake mail in ballots and drop box fraud.
I think they went too overboard on the machine angle, and this distracted from the primary means they used to steal the election, which was fake voters and fake votes.
They did not. They merely claimed to have succeeded, and when you look at their proof, if you understand anything about file creation, you realize they did *NOT* prove their claim.
His claim is that because the file date on the data said it was created *AFTER* the election, it could not be a data file from the election.
Well sure it can. When someone opens it and saves it to a new media storage, it changes the file creation date on the copy. The guy was using a copy that had been created in this way, and so of course it won't have the correct file date.
The guy did *NOT* decript the data. He did *NOT* explain what the data meant. He tried a cheap trick to claim he had "proven" it wasn't part of an election steal.
Three separate chances of succeeding.
Your bank analogy doesn't work, because the public is unaware of the three methods being used to steal the votes.
Look at it more like a Blitzkrieg. Air, Land, and Naval forces all being used simultaneously to achieve the same goal.
They couldn't keep up with how many ballots they'd need in each location and didn't know how many voters would show up on Election Day. Eyewitnesses reported ballots being delivered to off-site locations.
-Ballots are taken to off-site locations with illegal scanners.
-Someone taps into the real voting machines to get a count of how many fraudulent votes they need.
-The count and ballot type of the fraudulent votes needed are sent to the off-site teams.
-The images and data for the fraudulent counts from the off-site locations are uploaded to be added to the data and images from the real votes.
-The fraudulent hard copies and the legitimate hard copies are both taken to the same collection point days later. The collection of hard copies now matches the supposed scans in the machines if anyone audits them.
They knew what they were doing because they'd already done it in foreign countries for years, tried but failed at in 2016 because they underestimated how many fraudulent votes they needed, and they succeeded in California in 2018. Retrieving the data from the machines and uploading scans from other locations were key to carrying out the fraud.
His basis for claiming this was the time stamps on the files. He showed that as the file was created after the election, it could not therefore be proof of fraud during the election.
I don't see any reference in the arbitration award to timsetamps or file creation dates.
Did you look at the man's initial claim, or are you just looking at what other people said about it?
I read the man's initial claim.
You should always rely on primary documents whenever possible.
Do you have a link to that?
You should always rely on primary documents whenever possible.
Agreed!
In lieu of finding the report that Zeidman filed, I have read the following article quoting Zeidman:
Computer forensics expert speaks out on Lindell’s election fraud ‘proof’
and:
How I Won $5 Million From the MyPillow Guy and Saved Democracy
To be sure, Zeidman is full of himself, but he does have a good reputation within the IEEE world.
The last article is by Zeidman so it is a high value primary source document. In it, Zeidman writes:
"But I had come too far to give up. On the third and final day of the symposium, an idea hit me. I decided to scan the file modification dates for all of the latest files we’d been given and, lo and behold, most of the dates were August 2021, right before the symposium. In other words, the data were obviously modified right before we examined them. They could not possibly accurately represent data from the November 2020 election."
Zeidman pushes the envelope with his conclusion. But taken with his findings of the contents of the files, it seems reasonable (to me) that the files provided to the participants at the Symposium were not what Lindell claimed they were in any way.
What's a shame is that the files provided to the contestants were apparently not read protected - either the data or the meta-data. How they could be released in that state is surprising. It makes establishing the provenance of the files even more challenging.
You've found the essence of his false claim. File dates prove nothing. I would disqualify him for attempting that trick.
Zeidman pushes the envelope with his conclusion. But taken with his findings of the contents of the files, it seems reasonable (to me) that the files provided to the participants at the Symposium were not what Lindell claimed they were in any way.
If I recall properly from the time I actually looked into this, I would have to say he did identify the files that he referenced, all except for the big main file.
He did not decode, decrypt, identify, or otherwise demonstrate that that data did not come from the election machines of 2020, and therefore that data may very well have come from the election machines of 2020.
The big file is the one he tried to pull that stupid date trick, and only people who do not grasp how this stuff works would conclude that this is a "Eureka" moment.
As I said in my previous discussion on this topic, file structures can be very specific, and unless you know how the file is put together, you probably cannot decode the data contained in it.
Zeidman didn't decode the data, and thereby prove it wasn't from the 2020, so I would have denied his claim.
Lindell shouldn’t have offered $5M for finding something that was easy to find.
+1. So tired of these rich people trying to weasel out of paying what they agreed to pay.
Lindell lost in arbitration.
He got in over his head with his absurd “cyber symposium” and it cost him. From the Washington Times, August 11, 2021:
“But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.”
Which proves the arbitrators are idiots or corrupt. Maybe both.
If you understand the facts, you realize the arbitrators are wrong. The guy didn't prove his claim.
“But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.”
If I recall properly, the goal of the contest was to prove they were *NOT* evidence of machine rigging.
If you can't decode the packets, you can't prove what they were, either for or against.
Leidman didn't decode the packets, and he therefore cannot prove they are not evidence of machine rigging.
He tried to push some lame argument about the time/date stamps being after the election, but those get changed every time a file is created, and so they prove nothing.
It wasn’t long after Zeidman signed the contest rules on 10 August and began to study the data that he began to see that it didn’t prove anything about election fraud in the 2020 election. In fact, the 11 files Lindell’s team handed over didn’t really say anything at all.
There was a silent video of someone using a debugging tool without any explanation. There was a file of binary data – ones and zeroes – without any explanation of how to extract any meaningful data from it. “Very suspicious,” Zeidman said. There was also another text file provided to Zeidman that he managed to convert and see was gibberish.
“It was perfectly formatted in a Word document. It was almost as if someone had typed into a Word document just random characters,” he said. “Like somebody had either typed it, or more likely designed a tiny little program to write into a Word document thousands of pages.”
Eventually, he wrote up a 15-page report concluding the files Lindell provided “unequivocally does not contain packet data of any kind and do not contain any information related to the November 2020 election”. The three-judge panel Lindell picked to judge the contest ultimately determined that Zeidman had not won. Zeidman, believing that he was entitled to the prize, sought a ruling from an arbitration panel. The panel issued its decision in his favor a little over a month ago.
“Mr. Zeidman performed under the contract. He proved the data Lindell LLC provided, and represented reflected information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data. Failure to pay Mr. Zeidman the $5m prized was a breach of the contract, entitling him to recover,” the three arbitrators wrote.
I deal with it often.
I will repeat. Date/Time stamps on files don't prove they are not election rigging data.
Zeidman did *NOT* prove that they weren't.
That was the goal. Prove they are not. He didn't reach that goal, and the people who claim he did are just wrong.
Zeidman is using a well known lying technique. He's saying some things which are true and provably true, but the core issue that he is claiming is *NOT* true, but he's hoping people will ignore that fact because the other things he said were true.
You cannot claim it contains no packet data until you can tell us what it *DOES* contain.
I know packets. I've created so many applications using different packet formats that I know packets are specific to the application that uses them.
Zeidman has no idea what that data is, and his declaration that it is *NOT* packet data, is just simply his assertion.
Again, not proven.
This nation is full of idiot/lying judges. This is just another example of them.
I believe Ziedman did this.
From the event, as noted in the arbitration award:
"As part of the Cyber Symposium, Lindell LLC also announced a contest called he “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge” (“the Contest”). The announcement said that the participants “have one goal. Find proof that this cyber data is not valid data from the November Election. For the people who find the evidence, 5 million is their reward.” "
and:
"The Panel has determined that the Contest rules are directed to data “from the election” also referred to as “election data.” The Contest did not require participants to disprove election interference. Thus, the contestants’ task was to prove the data presented to them was not valid data from the November 2020 election."
and more importantly:
"As noted above, Mr. Lindell and his cyber-expert witnesses admitted that data to be provided from the election was to be in the form of packet data or PCAP data (emphasis added). This is important, as Mr. Lindell explained, because such data can be examined by experts based on time stamps, addresses and other information from the packet to determine whether it was genuine."
Zeidman did not need need to prove what the files did contain - he only needed to prove that the data was not valid data from the November 2020 election. It seems to me he did that.
Have you ever done programming that uses packets to communicate through a network from one application to another?
I have designed several packet formats to send data back and forth from multiple machines, and the simple fact is that nobody knows what my packets do without being able to see how the software processes them.
You literally cannot know what they are without understanding how they are used in the exchange of messages.
So let's say I am sending vote data through the system. Does anyone know if the data means add votes or subtract votes? Does anyone know if it's a running total of the voting data?
No. Nobody knows what it is, because they don't know how the application software is handling it.
So you are telling me that this guy, by *NOT* decoding the data and explaining what it *IS*, as he did with the other files, has somehow *PROVEN* it isn't election data?
I absolutely disagree. If you can't tell me what it *IS*, you certainly can't tell me what it isn't.
This is like getting a Japanese coded message about the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Some guy comes along and *CANNOT* read the message, and I am supposed to believe his claim that it is *NOT* about an attack on Pearl Harbor?
He doesn't freaking know what it is, if he did, he would have told us what it *IS*.
Again, I will point out that he *DID* tell us what the other files were, and his claim is persuasive as to what he claims they are.
But the large data file which he claims is "gibberish"?
Of course it's "gibberish" if you don't know how to read it, but not knowing how to read it demonstrates you can't prove what it's supposed to do.
Is this concept too difficult for other people to grasp?
Re: 57 - as a programmer I did. Now I just use Wireshark, tcpdump etc on our high speed interconnect trunks, etc.
Thanks for the explanation. We won’t see eye to eye on this, but it’s a good discussion!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.