The watermark theory just doesn’t hold - I continue to believe what was needed here was to identify the location(s) of where these ballots were stored (as “Q” guided) and for white hats to monitor and mark them there.
************************************************************************************
Watermarks and monitoring the ballot storage are not mutually exclusive activities.
The various stories about how watermarked ballots are used are just speculation. One of them includes knowing the storage area and monitoring and having recorded phone calls of the various official involved with fraud.
The CISA website has indicated that watermarked ballots exist.
How and where they might have been used is surely speculation.
But one can not deny that watermarked ballots exist-unless you think that the government is putting out bogus information at their website:
Watermarks are described at the bottom of the chart as one of the techniques.
I understand the watermarks - my thinking is that the technology was known & not what I’m looking for. Also consider that what “Q” was indicating is that the suspect counties order tons of ballots they don’t need and those are source material. I think there is an “all of the above” approach by the RATs here ... it’s just in my contemplating what could/would have been the sting here was to identify the locations where the fraud ballots were stored and to mark them there, as they are/were.