Posted on 11/21/2020 10:24:17 AM PST by USA Conservative
Another American patriot by the name of Edward Solomon believes he has uncovered how Joe Biden was allegedly able to steal the 2020 election.
In his video entitled: Smoking Gun: Dominion Transferring Vote Ratios between Precincts in PA, Solomon explains his thesis and provides numerous examples to support it.
Solomon states:
In this video, you will see data from the NYT feed from PA on November fourth.
In this data, particular vote ratios are transferred between random sets of seized precincts throughout the day (see image link below): Image below:
Link below:
https://ibb.co/h1x3Xds
A total of nine exhibits are presented in this video, but there are in fact several hundred of these precincts seizures and ratio transfers on the day of November 4th alone, and the same ratios continue to be transferred for several more days within the overall dataset spanning an entire week.
Original data sets: https://gofile.io/d/qZcQl6
“The Dominion System isolated a “Flip Set” from the expected vote count and the expected percentage.
It then splices the Flip Set into multiple “ratio sets” and assigns them to precincts throughout the day.
Once a particular “ratio set” receives the votes it needed, it releases that set, and then Dominion injects it into the city wide count.
To hide it’s trail, Dominion reassigns the same “ratio set” to different (random) precincts throughout the day, so that the same precinct doesn’t keep getting the exact same ratio (or the same set of precincts).
During a particular period of time while a precinct is selected, it gives Trumps an EXACT NUMBER of votes, it gives Biden a MINIMUM number of votes, and splits the small remainder to a third party or to Biden (via random assignment).
This explains why Jo Jorg got so many votes in every precinct (I’m a Libertarian and I know very few libertarians who voted for Jo this year, due to the importance of this monumental election).” Video below:
More and more American patriots are coming out with more alleged proofs of voter fraud, will this evidence or other evidence that we saw lately be used in court?
Scroll down to leave a comment below
Ok....I’ve got a new word.
Now...what does mekbees mean?
It's not even maliciousness...it's just pure arrogance on so many levels:
1) That they know better than the average American what is best for us.
1) They as 'elites' their whims and desire shouldn't be held back by commoners.
1) They have built and developed foundations and networks necessary to execute their will upon the people.
The greatest challenge in the pursuit of their desires was a successful businessman, who wasn't a politician; nor beholden to any one group. The largest wrinkle in their plans was ignoring the support that Trump really held.
My opinion, is that if Trump was only mildly successful, the algorithms and methods they employed would have gone undetected. A few vote here, a votes there; simple enough to write off. But Trumps support was so underestimated that they had to overplay their hands in order to ensure that he didn't win.
The part that should put every American on notice and cause them to not sleep at night, isn't how many elements had to come together to not just enact this fraud/theft on the American people; but that it required elements of our governments (Federal, State and Local) to be complicit in this matter.
The soapbox has been tried, and while strong in some areas; is under strong attack by social media outlets and news networks. The ballot box is now an area of even greater suspicion, and one which we have to ask if it can ever be trusted again. Which only leaves one box left, and given some of the commentary coming from progressives and Democrats; may need to be opened all too soon.
It means I shouldn’t be posting in a rush on a mobile device. :)
I hope the guy checks the 2016 numbers on the Trump Hildebeast race for a comparison...it could help prove the case for fraud even more.
I leveled that accusation at a liberal I was debating on facebook. He didnt admit it, but he didnt deny it either.
There are many other possibilities, any of which would be considered 'Kraken' level evidence.
witness who decided to tell the truth..facing large prison sentenes..its called cracking egga...one breaks and soon the whole dozen is busted
Yep. Like ‘climate models’. Garbage in....garbage out.
Scytl
English
Contact
Partners
News
Careers
US Site
What We Do
We Power Democracy
Election Solutions
Online Voting
Benefits
Technology and Security
Expertise
Resources
Election Solutions
Election Training
Online Voter Registration
Candidate Management
Online Voting
Electronic Ballot Delivery
Results Consolidation
Election Night Reporting
Election Types
Political Elections
Political Party Elections
Referendums & Consultations
Professional Association Elections
Labour Union Elections
University Elections
Parliament & Assembly Elections
Shareholder Meetings
Customers
Research
Articles and Publications
Research and Development Team
Projects & Reports
Scientific Advisory Board
Collaboration Agreements
About Us
Company Overview
Management Team
Awards
Quality Policy
Board of Directors
Shareholders Meetings and Other Announcements
Investors
Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin
Electronic Ballot Delivery
Secure and accessible ballot delivery and return for remote voters that reduces processing errors, improves voting integrity and efficiency, voter accessibility and remote voter participation.
Scytl Electronic Ballot Delivery allows remote voters such as military and NGO workers to receive election ballots electronically and later return their marked ballots through the postal system, email or fax. Ballots can be marked on-screen via a secure marking utility that prevents common errors such as over-voting and under-voting. Voters also have the option to print their ballots and mark them by hand. All with the industry´s leading security and integrity protocols that ensure maximum voting privacy and election integrity.
Once ballots are completed and sent, voters can track the status of their ballots through voter receipts to ensure their vote has been received, included in the ballot box and not been tampered with.
Scytl Election Solutions - Electronic Ballot Delivery - Side Image 01
Scytl Election Solutions - Electronic Ballot Delivery - Side Image 02
Scytl Election Solutions - Electronic Ballot Delivery - Side Image 03
How Electronic Ballot Delivery Works
1
Absentee Voter Request
Voters submit the required data online via a secure website. Election officials approve or reject the absentee request and validate that only one absentee vote application is submitted per voter.
2
Secure Unmarked Ballot Delivery
Secure transmission of unmarked / blank ballots electronically via encrypted channels or via postal delivery.
3
Secure Ballot Return
Voters receive, print and complete a blank ballot or directly mark their ballot on-screen and return it online, via fax or mail.
DOWNLOAD SOLUTION OVERVIEW
Resources
Electronic Ballot Delivery Scytl Solution Sheet
View
Scytl OLV - Resources - IDC White Paper OLV
White Paper IDC “Implementing End-to-End Verifiable Online Voting for Secure Transparent and Tamper-Proof Elections”
Download
Scytl Election Solutions - Resources - IDC White Paper Election Modernization
White Paper IDC Technology Spotlight “Delivering End-to-End Election Modernization Roadmaps”
Download
secure accessible efficient auditable election solutions
Solution Overview End-to-End Election Modernization
View
Scytl OLV - Resources - General Video
Video Scytl Innovating Democracy - Election Solutions
View
Scytl OLV - Resources - OVUM White Paper Election Modernization
White Paper OVUM “Scytl On the Radar”
Download
Scytl OLV - Resources - Frost&Sullivan White Paper OLV
White Paper Frost & Sullivan: “Scytl Competitive Strategy Innovation and Leadership”
Download
Highlighted Customers
Follow us
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
What we do
We Power Democracy
Election Solutions
Election types
Political Elections
Political Party Elections
Referendums & Consultations
Professional Association Elections
Labour Union Elections
University Elections
Parliament & Assembly Elections
Shareholder Meetings
Research
Articles and Publications
Research and Development Team
Collaboration Agreements
Projects & Reports
Scientific Advisory Board
Online Voting
Benefits
Expertise
Technology and Security
Resources
Election Solutions
Pre-Election
Election Training
Online Voter Registration
Candidate Management
Election Day
Online Voting
Electronic Ballot Delivery
Post-Election
Results Consolidation
Election Night Reporting
Company
Company Overview
Management Team
Awards
Investors
Quality Policy
Board of Directors
Shareholders Meetings and Other Announcements
Customers
News
Partners
Contact
Careers
©2020 Scytl Election Technologies S.L.
Legal Notice
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
This is rather long but off the Scytl website. I think this is how they managed the blank ballots to be marked in such huge numbers.
Specifying a type of anything other than some type of integer for counting votes is a fundamental violation of basic computer principles. Even an integer for 32 bits is way sufficient, even a signed integer. The max value foe the 32 bit integer in Java is 2147483647.
There are other forms of whole-number variable types such as the BigDecimal type in Java that would be suitable.
The only reason someone would specify floating point for vote counts would be to commit some type of fraud.
You wrote: “...relatives who are just hacks who refuse to accept that Dems committed massive fraud.”
I am afraid your relatives are infested with mekbees. So sorry.
Bttt.
5.56mm
That data shows it is not random vote counts and manipulated. No regular vote pattern could be so precise and repeatable. If anyone with any analytical sense reviews this the fraud and artificial count shows up like a pink elephant or a rabid donkey.
I do not understand how the Georgia recount did not reveal the Vote stealing. I assume that the artifacts preserved from the vote included the original ballot the voter filled out and submitted/scanned. It was this original ballot that was counter during the recount.
Am I mistaken? Now, if voting in person was done entirely interactively and a “ballot” was generated after the fact and it was this artifact that was counted during the recount, THEN I see how this vote stealing scheme would not be detected during a recount. Is this what is happening?
I’m not sure you followed his description very well. He showed that multiple precincts had the same fractional ratio at the same time (which is possible) and these groups changed together and the same ratios appeared in different precincts at the same time (not possible statistically). Not only did he show this symptom happened once - but he proved this was happening on multiple precincts through-out the day. And he’s just been doing this as a spot-check and not exhaustively throughout the dataset. Heaven’s knows how many instances would come up if he used the entire city or state!! There is no doubt this is definitive proof of an algorithm working on the data and attempting to “randomize” manipulated results.
It really isn’t that simple. It may actually be that this data manipulation is not happening in the ballot counters themselves. That’s why the servers that communicate with these counters need to be investigated. And that’s why is is alarming to hear that the counts are getting sent around the world to be “processed”. I would presume that the software in the counters is very simplistic and may not provide the proof you request. The adjustments could be orchestrated from outside the ballot counter.
At least that is what I would do if I did the design. I wouldn’t want any trail of the malfeasance by allowing someone to inspect the machine or software.
As I understand, all the voting machines in Georgia are of the BMD type which means the voter enters their vote through and electronic device which then prints out their vote. This “ballot” is then fed into a reader. I’m not sure if the vote tally is done from the entry device or if it is done on the actual printed ballot. But basically the machine could print one result on the ballot in text that agrees with the voter and then the machine can print out a barcode or QR code that is actually read by the reader that indicates a different count. Then when that ballot is put through any machine, it would count up the same every time and the voter would be none-the-wiser.
I’m not really sure how this is handled but I have hear that the BMD machines are very hackable.
You can read this analysis done by a Berkley student that talks about the BMD machines in great detail and how they can be unverifiable:
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/bmd-p19.pdf
Does the voter ever get to see the generated paper ballot to determine if it accurately reflects his choices?
If the choices are encoded in a non-readable form, there is no way to determine if this encoded string (bar code) is correct. But a manual recount would not read this encoding.
The only way I see the fraud occurring in light of possible recounts is if the generated paper artifact reflects the altered ballot.
Maybe someone else on this board knows how the ballots are printed and whether the plain text result is printed along with the encoding. I agree that a manual count of the ballots should provide evidence if that is done but I thought most all ballots were recounted with a machine. So I don’t really know how this is managed.
I need to do more research to see where the fraud opportunities are for this instance.
Now we have “seizures” and “transfers”. Every day we get more words to try to prop up ridiculous conspiracy theory.
“But look, if we capture these numbers, we can then put together a new story about how these numbers show that there was this fraud thing that happened”.
I feel like I’m watching those cheap parlor tricks where someone has you pick a number, does some “random” math tricks, and surprise surprise, the result is 23.
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.