Posted on 12/06/2020 8:02:04 PM PST by grundle
A Test: HOLY COW – Ware County GA ran same number of Trump and Biden voter to test Dominion system. Biden came out ahead by 26%! WHAT???
(Excerpt) Read more at generaldispatch.whatfinger.com ...
What a great idea.
Wow...
That should be tried all over.
Ok, the story originally said they tested a whopping 37 ballots, then ran them again. Great, but hey, let’s not overdo it on this one.
Where’s the bigger test, more ballots?
I want this to be true. Has it been confirmed? It needs to be done on TV, or in front of reporters if it’s true.
Real news, or Fake news?
Put the video on rumble. we’ll make it go so viral, it crash the servers.....
It was 37 votes. Point two six percent, not 26%
C’mon folks, its important to get information correct
Ware County found it switched 0.26% (not 26%!) in the machine(s) they were able to test.
At this point, there is no way to know how other machines were programmed - they may have a greater discrepancy. They all need to be inspected to know for sure.
BY THE WAY - even the 0.26% is GREATER than Biden’s present margin.
heard a podcast the other day in which Dominion Voting Systems Patent #8844813 was said to be crucial to the fraud.
wanted to see if it was among those patents sold to China - via UBS/via HSBC whatever, as collateral etc.
sure enough, it was the first patent listed in the following, which has been posted previously on FR:
13 Nov: Project Camelot Portal: Dominion Voting Systems Patents Given In 2019 To China Bank For Collateral by Paul Collin
by PAUL COLLIN, UNWANTED PUBLICITY GUY
HIGHLIGHT: America Voting Security Secrets, additionally include, the greater ‘Glitch’: Dominion Voting Systems Inc. ’18 Patents’ and ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ exchanged on September 25, 2019 for Collateral from (HSBC) Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (People’s Republic of China), Patent Numbers, Descriptions, Collateral Security Agreement plus more within)
Pertinent Patent Numbers –
#1 listed is: 8844813
https://projectcamelotportal.com/2020/11/13/dominion-voting-systems-patents-given-in-2019-to-china-bank-for-collateral/
Patents: Justia: Patents Assigned to DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC.
Electronic correction of voter-marked paper ballot
Patent number: 8844813
Abstract: Methods, systems, and devices are described for electronically correcting votes made on voter-marked paper ballots. An optical scan system may image a paper ballot and allow vote modification by the voter following the imaging. Such a modification may be necessary, for example, if a voter has improperly voted (e.g., voted for two candidates for one office), if a definitive determination of the intention to cast a vote cannot be made (e.g., partially filed-in bubble associated with a candidate, erasure, stray marks), if a write-in candidate is included on the ballot, or if a voter has changed their mind or otherwise wishes to cast a different vote than initially indicated. After correction, the corrected ballot may be re-imaged.
Type: Grant
Filed: May 21, 2012 Date of Patent: September 30, 2014
Assignee: Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.
Inventors: Lawrence Korb, James Hoover
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/dominion-voting-systems-inc
on FR, the ownership of UBS has been looked at but, for the record, just clearing up a bit about ownership of HSBC:
16 Nov: Financial News London: from WSJ: HSBC Has Big Ambitions in China. Westerners Still Dominate Its Board
The British bank has scaled back in Europe and the U.S. and doubled down on Asia but that isn’t reflected in its senior ranks
By Simon Clark; Frances Yoon and Julie Steinberg contributed to this article.
Global banking giant HSBC Holdings PLC has made clear that its business destiny is in China. Its board, however, remains an Anglo-American affair.
The London-based, Asia-focused bank appointed three board members along with a chief legal officer and a chief operating officer in the past 12 months. All are American. Just two out of 14 board members are Chinese...
The bank has received competing demands for pledges of loyalty from Washington and Beijing after China imposed a national-security law on Hong Kong...
“It doesn’t make good business sense,” said Gregg Li, a Hong Kong-based investor who advises companies on governance, pointing out that Shenzhen, China-based Ping An Insurance —HSBC’s largest investor—doesn’t have a representative on the bank’s board. “Given where China is going I would think you would start working much closer with the Chinese economy and major players,” Mr. Li said. Ping An declined to comment.
HSBC earns more money in Asia than it does in the rest of the world. The bank’s British chief executive, Noel Quinn, is refocusing on the lender’s lucrative network in China and Hong Kong while scaling back operations in Europe and the US...
In May, former Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying called on HSBC to express support for the security law or risk losing business. HSBC wasn’t among the banks that arranged a Chinese government dollar-bond sale in October, the first time in years that it wasn’t involved in such a sale.
“I shall watch with interest now that the bank has a new board,” Leung said in an email from Beijing. “Any business should have sufficient collective expertise on the board level of its major markets.”
Mark Tucker, HSBC’s British chairman, led the appointment of former Citigroup President Jamie Forese, former Bridgewater Associates LP Co-CEO Eileen Murray and former Microsoft executive Steven Guggenheimer to the board this year. Bob Hoyt was appointed chief legal officer in October and John Hinshaw was appointed chief operating officer in December.
Along with directors Jackson Tai and Heidi Miller, Americans represent 36% of the board, up from 25% in 2016, before Tucker became chairman. There are more American directors than any other nationality. There are four British citizens and three other Westerners: Henri de Castries from France, Pauline van der Meer Mohr from the Netherlands and José Antonio Meade Kuribreña from Mexico. Ewen Stevenson, the finance director, holds British and New Zealand citizenship. The two Chinese nationals on the board are Laura Cha and Irene Lee...
Nationality has long been a strategic consideration at HSBC, which was founded by British bankers in Hong Kong in 1865. Faced with the prospect of HSBC becoming a Chinese bank when the UK ceded control of Hong Kong, Michael Sandberg, the bank’s chairman until 1986, devised an international strategy called the “three-legged stool” to build out operations in Europe and the Americas to balance those in Asia.
Sandberg said in 1986 that if HSBC found itself confined to China after the 1997 handover of Hong Kong “it must be absolutely as night follows day that we would become a Chinese bank” and that in such circumstances it would be “a complete anachronism to have all our senior officers British.”...
The bank has sold billions of dollars of assets in the past decade and now operates in 64 territories. Hong Kong and mainland China are by far its most profitable. HSBC reported pretax profit of $2.41bn in Hong Kong and mainland China in the third quarter of this year, equivalent to 78% of its total pretax profit in the period.
British nationals still have an outsize share of senior leadership positions, and the need for more Asians in those roles is discussed by employees, according to people familiar with the situation. British nationals represented 16% of HSBC’s workforce but 36% of senior leaders in 2019, while Chinese nationals made up 23% of employees and just 9% of senior leaders, according to the bank. Indian nationals were 17% of the workforce and 6% of senior leaders...
“That exactly reflects the colonial past of the bank,” Tricker said. “They haven’t grown in China and with China in the way that they could have done and should have done.”
“What we’re looking at is building a strong Asian leadership base,” Quinn said. “We’re continuing to diversify the bank.”
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/hsbcs-ambitious-on-china-but-westerners-still-dominate-board-20201116
The last attachment is an article stating the hand recount showed .52%. Then states that the margin statewide is .26%. The first attachment is about the test that was performed running equal amounts of ballots and getting 26%. These are two different events, the hand recount and the test run.
People are right to have skepticism. That said, I think that exercise is an illustrative one, and does NOT need a large volume to prove the point. More ballots won’t prove the point. (If this is even true)
And I think it is important to keep context in mind. If they took a machine and hacked it to demonstrate, fine. That simply shows it can be done.
However, if (and this is a big if) if they took a machine, off the floor, that has been unaltered since the election and did this exercise, that would be extraordinarily significant. In reading the content at the link, it sure sounds like this is what happened. They did not discuss “hacking” it to prove the point. It sounds like they took seized machines and ran votes through them.
For a system to be successful and trusted, we need to know how many votes go in, and how many votes come out.
The tabulation system is a big, black box between in and out.
There are two major problems here: first, we have no idea what went into the black box. We have no solid numbers on not only the number of legal votes that went into that box, we have not a clue how many of any kind went in.
What this exercise does it to take a variable (Votes into the black box tabulating system) and another variable (known votes going into the black box tabulating system for each candidate) and setting a stable known value for those variables.
If we put ten votes in for Trump, and ten votes in for Biden...simple test...we should get ten votes out for Trump and ten votes out for Biden.
This is a simple test to test the validity of the “Black Box Tabulating System”. If this report is true (and I no longer accept anything out of the gate anymore) then this test of the “Black Box Tabulating System” failed.
It sounds like they put in ten votes for Trump and ten votes for Biden, but came out with 8 votes for Trump and 12 votes for Biden.
If this is true, and it is a big if at this point, the ramifications of this are wide and deep.
How does a vote machine get a fraction of .26%?
Incorrect. The sample highlighted the fact that Biden received 113% of the vote and Trump received 87%. Even though, the same amount of votes for each were scanned in. That is a 26% difference.
This is a “new test!” What you were refering to was the reason for the judge to allow Powell access to the machines. So they filled out say 1000 for Trump and 1000 for Biden. This is a new blind side by side test. I would like to know what the number of ballots were used though.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3912901/posts?page=1
The Georgia Ballot Underground
Apelbaum.wordpress.com ^ | 12/3/20 | Yaacov Apelbaum
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.