Posted on 12/06/2020 8:49:17 AM PST by Phillyred
>>>>>Try stopping a Glacier<<<<
Great point! Can’t argue with that.
You go report whatever you want crybaby. I only found CNN by way of a simple internet search of “Gabriel Sterling Ocean’s 11” because I knew it wasn’t a coincidence like you tried to claim, and wanted to show others, not you, how Gabriel Sterling was indeed the source of YOUR analogy.
You had been trying to pawn it off as some ‘great minds think alike’ nonsense before you figured out that wasn’t really a good alibi either. Then after I dropped the transcript you finally admitted you did indeed know what he looked like after all, etc, as if we ever had any doubt.
So answer the questions before us now:
Why are you using Gabriel Sterling’s exact defenses of Dominion?
And are you only getting his talking points from TV, or somewhere else?
This would explain Biden "over performing". I have an idea how this might be done and hide the extra votes.
__What device would generate the additional ballot with only Biden's bubble filled in?
__Does the tabulator generate it? (Seems unlikely).
__Does the BMD generate it? (Where would these be staged? Are they automatically fed to a tabulator?
__Is the tabulator integrated in the BDM unit vs a separate device I walk over to to feed my ballot into?)
If I were designing these machines, I'd prefer a single blank ballot tray, a single tabulated ballot collector tray. It's all hidden within the unit.
Hand recounts would work off the original ballots and fraudulently created Biden ballot.
Anyone know how these machines are constructed?
That was .26% not 26%.
They only have to cheat in a few counties in a few states to affect the presidential election.
Yes, he did that. Since the audited count still verified the outcome of the original count, he stuck with the original count. I think the originally uncounted votes in Floyd County and the ballots found somewhere else were added in, but in Counties where there was just a difference, the question arises "which count to report?". It really doesn't make a hill of beans difference in the end. The machines were shown to have reported correctly, and one could argue they were more accurate than human counting.
The bottom line is that two disparate systems for counting the votes were used and the same outcome resulted.
Ok thanks.
I’ m just trying to ask the same questions the opposition will ask. If we don’t have solid answers this is only just another layer of “noise”.
And there’s enough “noise” out there !
I couldn't think of who to credit when I mentioned it, but I did state that I had heard the analogy. You attributed it to Sterling and assumed I heard it on CNN. After you told me it was his analogy, I remembered seeing him interviewed on Newsmax. BTW, his analogy in the interview on Newmax I linked earlier was towards the shuffling of the suitcases in Atlanta. I still think it fits regarding the shuffling in and out of ballots in 152 counties. So for the record, I still like the analogy because it fits these wild hypotheses.
And are you only getting his talking points from TV, or somewhere else?
You are convinced of something and I can't help you out with that. You owe an apology, but I don't expect one.
How was Risk-Limiting Audit Full Hand Count conducted? I don’t believe it was full hand counting. Did they still use a machine to count?
Oops, wrong again. Here is a recorded call with an election official saying she was told by then state to report the original numbers even though the recount differed.
https://twitter.com/jennybethm/status/1329615123133067264?s=21
Interestingly, EVERY election official that did report different numbers got sacked.
Your buddies are up to no good.
I’m amazed you are still on FR defending them and Dominion.
He did not audit, it was RISK LIMITING AUDIT. For those who don’t know what that is, basically it is feeding a small sample size through a machine and saying, ok the machines are good!
It shows nothing. Any machine can be chosen and because the changes can be done through a backdoor or flash drive, it proves nothing.
A forensic audit will tell, as will confiscated flash drives.
If your cheat were to involve just adding paper ballots, then the initial count would involve signature checking. That signature check would not be needed with electronic cheating.
With electronic cheating, one would just add Biden votes by machine and then add paper ballots without valid signatures.
Agree. Why should they do more if that is all it takes? More fraud than necessary brings a bigger risk.
No you didn't. Not when I first brought it up to you in Post #193. In your post #195 reply, you said quote "Well, I’m not Gabriel and couldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two, but it is a pretty good analogy." You were clearly trying claim you knew nothing about it, that you didn't even know what he looked like, and that it was just a coincidence of two great minds thinking alike. ALL proven wrong at this point.
You attributed it to Sterling and assumed I heard it on CNN.
This is also incorrect. I've never assumed where you actually heard it, which is still unknown. As I've already stated, my link to CNN was simply proof that YOU were using Gabriel Sterling's talking point as YOUR own, despite your denials to that point.
I still like the analogy
I'm sure you do. It came from Gabriel Sterling, and you tried to pass it off as your own, which I proved was false. Unless you ARE Gabriel Sterling of course. We just don't know at this point, just that you and him are using the same talking points, which is certainly worthy of note, if not further analysis. Lucky for you I've got better things to do right now, but I'm sure you'll be back with more of your/Gabe's talking points soon.
It shows nothing. Any machine can be chosen and because the changes can be done through a backdoor or flash drive, it proves nothing.
A forensic audit will tell, as will confiscated flash drives.
That simply isn't true. So many of us are now the victims of disinformation. It is the reason I post on this particular matter at all.
All that was required was a statistical sample size, but that is not what was ordered by Raffensperger. 100% of the ballots where hand counted, and not through a machine. Why would you dispute that?
What are we capable of being convinced of? Only lies? Really, we need to watch ourselves.
So you trust the claims of election officials? Did you personally inspect all the ballots in question?
I am not talking about counting, I am talking about audit which you keep lying on FR saying one was done. It was not.
The hand count is a farce. I can count 100 counterfeit dollars and still come up with 100 🙄.
Something that simple could easily run on raspian.
YOU: No you didn't. Not when I first brought it up to you in Post #193. In your post #195 reply, you said quote "Well, I’m not Gabriel and couldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two, but it is a pretty good analogy." You were clearly trying claim you knew nothing about it, that you didn't even know what he looked like, and that it was just a coincidence of two great minds thinking alike. ALL proven wrong at this point.
Here is where I posted about the analogy (post 188): I heard someone use this analogy. To do something like that, it would have had to be an "Ocean's 11" kind of expert deception which would have included in a very many counties very red counters and elections supervisors in all 152 counties "fix up" the ballot pool.
OK, so we are up to two apologies now.
ME: You attributed it to Sterling and assumed I heard it on CNN.
YOU: This is also incorrect. I've never assumed where you actually heard it, which is still unknown. As I've already stated, my link to CNN was simply proof that YOU were using Gabriel Sterling's talking point as YOUR own, despite your denials to that point.
Check your own posts. You told me how odd and strange that I would use the same exact analogy that Sterling used. Then you posted some big link from CNN with all kinds of "gotcha" language. Sheesh, you are beyond help I think.
Anyway, we are up to three apologies now.
ME: I still like the analogy
YOU: I'm sure you do. It came from Gabriel Sterling, and you tried to pass it off as your own, which I proved was false. Unless you ARE Gabriel Sterling of course. We just don't know at this point, just that you and him are using the same talking points, which is certainly worthy of note, if not further analysis. Lucky for you I've got better things to do right now, but I'm sure you'll be back with more of your/Gabe's talking points soon.
I thought you were going to get by without yet another apology owed, but alas you had to stumble yet again (see the above bolded portion).
Here is the post where I referred to "the analogy". (Please reference point number 1 again at the top of this post.
Let's just do it this way: Apologies Owed = Apologies Owed +1.
What??
When did I say or even imply that I trust the claims of election officials?
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.