I am not denying the obvious, I am pointing out that Mr Zeidman did *NOT* prove his case. Whether that file comes from Dennis Montgomery or voting machines streaming packets, Mr. Zeidman has only proven he can't decipher it.
He has not met the legal requirement of the contest in my opinion.
Now if he *CAN* prove that the file was random data created by Dennis Montgomery, then that is proving what it *IS*.
He alleges such, but does he have proof that this is true?
Allegations aren't proof. Hearsay claims are not proof. A confession from Dennis Montgomery would be proof, but I don't think he has that, does he?
I'm taking a lawyer's position on this. The man did not prove what he claims to have proven, therefore he is not entitled to the money. The difference between me and the idiot arbitrator and idiot judges is that *I* know something about computer science and how packets are sent and received and processed by software, and I know this because I have *WRITTEN* software that does this sort of thing.
So I am not denying the obvious. Your "obvious" thing is irrelevant to the only significant point, which is "did this guy prove his claim?"
And the answer is "no."
Denying the obvious is a Federal Court appointed Mediator and Federal Judge both ruled his favor, our opinions mean nothing in terms of Federal Court decisions, you may not like or agree with the decisions but they hold the rule of law denying that is denying the obvious