Scientific Methods of proving election fraud

a reply to: rounda

Yes, that's the law in Georgia, once the signature on the mail in ballot envelope matches the signature on the application AND the Driver's Licenses Real ID on file with the State, the ballot is accepted.

That happens for every mail in vote. Separating the ballots from the envelopes at that point also follows the Georgia law requirement for an secret ballot.

/shrug

Everything you have offered is a claim, not evidence. Given that you were incorrect about your first claim, I have no reason to expect that it's worthwhile to review the rest of them.

Best.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: putnam6

Kemp was SoS before Raffensperger.

He knows that asking for a signature audit after the fact is impossible.

Once the signature is verified, the envelopes and ballots are separated to insure voter anonymity.

Kemp knows.

Im not saying he doesn't, he is playing CYA himself, he is feeling the heat and hiding behind the statement. On top of none of these officials wanting fraud to be discovered on their watch so to speak. You have Kemp and Raffenspeger backed the purchase of 108 million dollars for voting machines, and now we really expect them to not dance around the fraud claims? Like I said they could completely 100% clean but it is not in their best interests to let anybody any entity any agency examine anything to do with this election period.

a reply to: putnam6

Like I said they could completely 100% clean but it is not in their best interests to let anybody any entity any agency examine anything to do with this election period.

You know they have to follow the law, right? To whom does the law allow access?

a reply to: continuousThunder

Funny how they claim to use the scientific method, yet they have a conclusion they are working backwards trying to prove.

What is really happening is they are narrative shopping, looking for a narrative that validates the conclusion they want to be true. That is not how an investigation is supposed to work.

The problem with the scientific method and the attempt to apply it here, it one need to do tests with controls and be able to replicate said tests in order to reach a conclusion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rounda

Yes, that's the law in Georgia, once the signature on the mail in ballot envelope matches the signature on the application AND the Driver's Licenses Real ID on file with the State, the ballot is accepted.

That happens for every mail in vote. Separating the ballots from the envelopes at that point also follows the Georgia law requirement for an secret ballot.

/shrug

Everything you have offered is a claim, not evidence. Given that you were incorrect about your first claim, I have no reason to expect that it's worthwhile to review the rest of them.

Best.

Well that’s one of the ways to prove fraud, now isn’t it. How convenient.

Especially when only .60% of the absentee ballots were rejected in Georgia. 6% in 2016. 3.5% in the state elections in 2018.

But magically, in the “most important” election, with millions more absentee ballots sent out than both 2016 and 2018 combined, a little over half a percent rejection rate in Georgia.

Riiiiiiight.

Oh, and by the way, the envelopes are supposed to be kept for 2 years.

And no, a local election being completely thrown out due to discrepancies isn’t a claim.

It’s fact.

Which you are ignoring.

Because you don’t want to see proof.

a reply to: rounda

Well that’s one of the ways to prove fraud, now isn’t it. How convenient.

Convenient indeed. Any idea of the composition of the Georgia legislature? Who could pass such an outrageous law?

ballotpedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rounda

Well that’s one of the ways to prove fraud, now isn’t it. How convenient.

Convenient indeed. Any idea of the composition of the Georgia legislature? Who could pass such an outrageous law?

ballotpedia.org...

But county election officials keep the signed envelopes for two years. Currently, there’s no state law requiring or outlining the process for rechecking envelope signatures against the state database after those signatures were already confirmed, said Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system implementation manager.

“If a court orders it or if we have specific investigatory reasons, you do it,” he said of auditing the signatures. “If we make a precedent of ‘I don’t like the outcome. Therefore, we should start investigating random parts of the process.’ ...It’s a bad precedent.”

www.ledger-enquirer.com...

But they were “thrown away.” Oh no!

a reply to: rounda

But they were “thrown away.”

They were?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: putnam6

Maybe and that just semantics,

No, it isn't. It crucial.

"You claim no fraud! Look at this person! That proves the election is rife with fraud! Look, these 2 ballots out of 100 were misread, expand that to all the votes!"

Absurd.

You are getting emotional again.

Need to stay on point and this thread number 1 and number 2 All I ever claimed is finding 2 fraudulent ballots in a random selection of 100, which warrants more investigation. It's considered high statistically.

My argument remains at this point nobody in the state government wants to find any "new" evidence of fraud not enough or otherwise.

It's okay my friend you can trust them at their word I'm sure government officials never lie, misdirect or take bribes.

Back on topic the man in the video shows it could be done to scan the ballots, and/or take the image and using forensic tech already used in court cases and determine if ballots were folded as each mail-in ballot should be, and even determined if marked in circles were done by a human with a pen or they were just printed again forensically

He "claims" this could be done in a few days and then we would know.

a reply to: putnam6

You are getting emotional again.

Incorrect.

It's considered high statistically.

No it isn't. It wasn't a random sample of votes.

He "claims" this could be done in a few days and then we would know.

I'm not sure, but I think there are probably some laws that restrict access. Laws in both blue and red states.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: putnam6

Maybe and that just semantics,

No, it isn't. It crucial.

"You claim no fraud! Look at this person! That proves the election is rife with fraud! Look, these 2 ballots out of 100 were misread, expand that to all the votes!"

Absurd.

You are getting emotional again.

Need to stay on point and this thread number 1 and number 2 All I ever claimed is finding 2 fraudulent ballots in a random selection of 100, which warrants more investigation. It's considered high statistically.

My argument remains at this point nobody in the state government wants to find any "new" evidence of fraud not enough or otherwise.

It's okay my friend you can trust them at their word I'm sure government officials never lie, misdirect or take bribes.

Back on topic the man in the video shows it could be done to scan the ballots, and/or take the image and using forensic tech already used in court cases and determine if ballots were folded as each mail-in ballot should be, and even determined if marked in circles were done by a human with a pen or they were just printed again forensically

He "claims" this could be done in a few days and then we would know.

Don’t forget about the local election for a marijuana dispensary.

It was a tie 262-262.

They ran a recount, destroyed three ballots and didn’t scan them.

Then the measure passed, 262-261.

MAGIC.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: putnam6

Like I said they could completely 100% clean but it is not in their best interests to let anybody any entity any agency examine anything to do with this election period.

You know they have to follow the law, right? To whom does the law allow access?

Well again that was kind of the guy in the video's narrative, it has to be asked for through each state's AG, and it's obviously not just asked the courts have to order it, no AG is going to give it up or investigate it himself.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Yes, this was exactly my point. Thank you for making it while I was away.... Gryphon doesn't want to commit to what he/she might find acceptable as proof so they can continue to dodge whatever proof is provided.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I have stated the same since 2016....even on this site. I have warned people since 2017 about the vulnerabilities in the tabulator machines because of their access to the internet. No one listened. By no one, I mean that not only did I share this information with 2-3 PARTICULAR federal agencies whose JOB should have precluded them doing an investigation into the information I provided them.....but I also shared this information with several journalists & talk show hosts who had national coverage. It was ignored...tossed aside as "that claim is simply ludicrous..." Now it is coming back to bite us and many people realize I was right.

IF there was any actual proof.

Who believes Trump/Giuliani wouldn’t have used it?

originally posted by: continuousThunder
see, thing about the scientific method, the way it's meant to work, kinda the whole crux of the deal, is that you do your experiment and you follow the evidence to a conclusion.

You don't typically - and i know some may think i'm splitting hairs here - but traditionally, if you're following the scientific method, you don't start with a conclusion and then shout at people on the internet for a month while you look for evidence.

I mean you can and apparently it's a very popular pastime, but it's not reeaally what i'd call scientific method

Oh that's funny....maybe you should tell Schiff and the Mueller team that??? Oh wait...they did that for YEARS, not just a month.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have stated the same since 2016....even on this site. I have warned people since 2017 about the vulnerabilities in the tabulator machines because of their access to the internet. No one listened. By no one, I mean that not only did I share this information with 2-3 PARTICULAR federal agencies whose JOB should have precluded them doing an investigation into the information I provided them.....but I also shared this information with several journalists & talk show hosts who had national coverage. It was ignored...tossed aside as "that claim is simply ludicrous..." Now it is coming back to bite us and many people realize I was right.

Glad I'm not the only one.

originally posted by: VeeTNA
a reply to: 111DPKING111

who, pray tell, is sharylattkisson?

She is an investigative journalist.

sharylattkisson.com...

a reply to: putnam6

no AG is going to give it up or investigate it himself.

Indeed, there are always turf disputes when it comes to government. That's what courts are for.

Interesting that the Texas AG did not include Texas in his Supreme Court filing even though Abbot went outside the legislative process.