naught: forum

[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]Having skimmed the rather laughable "preliminary report" and done some background reading I've come to a few conclusions.

[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#1 The core argument that he presents, that, "Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail" is contradicted by the sworn testimony of Dominion Founder, John Poulos.[/background]

[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#2 Without evidence he claims that Dominion has ties to the Venezuelan government. Wrong again[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#3 On page three he writes
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]"The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail." Of course, he never actually shows how or where votes were changed, the assumption is just that they were. the report doesn't present any evidence about the code that would explain why such a high number of ballots had to be reviewed. If anything they're claiming the actual fraud is due to human error, not Dominion code, but, later in the report, they allege, "The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors." (emphasis mine) You don't have to be an expert in anything to understand that there's a huge flaw in the argument being presented. It can't be both primarily human error and primarily Dominion's machines. [/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)][background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#4 He cites the Federal Election Commission's "allowable election error rate", somehow not realizing that the FEC regulates campaign finance and not election equipment. The error rate identified by Ramsland is not a measure of ballot counting errors. Ramsland did not have access to the paper ballots as part of his investigation and Ramsland acknowledged that he was not referring to ballot tabulation errors, even though the purported benchmark he compared it to is “1 in 250,000 ballots.”[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)][background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)][background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]I have a few more thoughts, Ramsland isn't qualified to do this type of work, not only because he has no background that I can find in computer science or forensics, but also because he's cited Minnesota data as evidence for voter fraud in Michigan, a mistake that should thoroughly disqualify you from making any claims of this sort.
[/background]

Also, the article is more than a year old, why post it now? And just out of curiosity I took a look at the upstanding publication that this article is from The Standard, and the first article I saw on their homepage is denial of the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting which killed 60 innocent people. In it, the author speculates that it may have been carried out by Mossad, the Communist Party, or the "Deep State". Not exactly the pinnacle of facts-first journalism. I wish you were 1/10th as critical of the sources that you use as you are of well-proven facts about the 2020 election.

Tl;DR The report assumes that election fraud occurred and makes every software update and minor statistical error into a massive fraud narrative. It doesn't present any damning evidence or any hard evidence at all.

as usual, total bullshit. Maricopa's election chief and board of supervisors chair are Republicans, as is Richer. I can't even find enough specific claims made by you and the article to respond to. election officials have an election map in their office, the scandal of the century. what our good friends at the Gateway Pundit accidentally omitted from their article is that right next to the Republican heat map was a Democrat heat map, this theory makes even less sense than it might otherwise.

fun fact: the first usage of "junk" to describe male genitalia was in 1986

I want whatever you’re smoking

there's no evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden was involved with CEFC China, so if you have any I recommend you take it right to the FBI. everyone can do the finger-pointing, R. James Woolsey Jr. who was a senior Trump advisor did dealings with the same company during the same period, I don't think that makes Trump guilty of corruption.
if Hunter Biden broke the law, he should be charged. however, until there's evidence of that we'll all just have to sit tight, "may have been involved" and "purportedly reveal" aren't going to cut it for me, and they shouldn't for you either.

pretty please

rumor has it some of Amoeba still haven't given up. I had a fun time with this one, GG everyone.

[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]Having skimmed the rather laughable "preliminary report" and done some background reading I've come to a few conclusions.

[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#1 The core argument that he presents, that, "Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail" is contradicted by the sworn testimony of Dominion Founder, John Poulos.[/background]

[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#2 Without evidence he claims that Dominion has ties to the Venezuelan government. Wrong again[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#3 On page three he writes
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]"The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail." Of course, he never actually shows how or where votes were changed, the assumption is just that they were. the report doesn't present any evidence about the code that would explain why such a high number of ballots had to be reviewed. If anything they're claiming the actual fraud is due to human error, not Dominion code, but, later in the report, they allege, "The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors." (emphasis mine) You don't have to be an expert in anything to understand that there's a huge flaw in the argument being presented. It can't be both primarily human error and primarily Dominion's machines. [/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)][background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]#4 He cites the Federal Election Commission's "allowable election error rate", somehow not realizing that the FEC regulates campaign finance and not election equipment. The error rate identified by Ramsland is not a measure of ballot counting errors. Ramsland did not have access to the paper ballots as part of his investigation and Ramsland acknowledged that he was not referring to ballot tabulation errors, even though the purported benchmark he compared it to is “1 in 250,000 ballots.”[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)][background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)][background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
[/background]
[/background]
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]I have a few more thoughts, Ramsland isn't qualified to do this type of work, not only because he has no background that I can find in computer science or forensics, but also because he's cited Minnesota data as evidence for voter fraud in Michigan, a mistake that should thoroughly disqualify you from making any claims of this sort.
[/background]

Also, the article is more than a year old, why post it now? And just out of curiosity I took a look at the upstanding publication that this article is from The Standard, and the first article I saw on their homepage is denial of the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting which killed 60 innocent people. In it, the author speculates that it may have been carried out by Mossad, the Communist Party, or the "Deep State". Not exactly the pinnacle of facts-first journalism. I wish you were 1/10th as critical of the sources that you use as you are of well-proven facts about the 2020 election.

Tl;DR The report assumes that election fraud occurred and makes every software update and minor statistical error into a massive fraud narrative. It doesn't present any damning evidence or any hard evidence at all.