There's been a lot of discussion about the probability that computerized election fraud occurred during this past election. For my own part, I think I've made it clear that I find the various anomalies that have been well documented to be inexplicable except on the hypothesis of human intervention in the election process--one way or the other. The "facts" were being asked to accept just don't make sense, and the patterns we're seeing in the voting returns are--at this point--hard to explain absent fraud. Especially when coupled with events like that late night "shutdowns" of vote counting and discovery of large numbers of "Biden-only" ballots in the dead of night--after GOP observers were sent home.
To start the day I'd like to strongly recommend Andrea Widburg's blog at American Thinker, as a basis for renewed discussion:
When computers cheat, they inevitably leave evidence behind
At the bottom of the blog is the following 70 minute Youtube presentation by Shiva Ayyadurai. Ayyadurai is highly credentialed but "controversial." Several commenters have linked to his presentation, and I've listened to a very brief version. See what you think, but read Widburg's blog as well. She's a lawyer and presents her argument clearly.
It will be interesting to see what the hand recount in GA produces.ReplyDelete
November 8, you wrote a post on Jay Valentine. He talked about log files. Computers run operating systems:ReplyDelete
Operating systems need to track everything they do, so they write automatically to a log file for everything that happens. The software vendor usually uses these log files to see what happened, when something that was not expected did happen. Log files are really useful, and most serious applications use them.
Log files are huge. They are really ugly. If you saw a log file, it would look like thousand pages of random numbers and letters. It would mean nothing...to you.
To a system that reads log files, it would mean everything. A log file is the equivalent of having a social media post for every one of your eye blinks, heartbeats, finger movements, 24 hours a day — you get the picture.
You can screw around with log files and modify them, but it is really hard. It also leaves tracks, as any change to a log file is written to — you guessed it, that log file.
As I understand it, even attempts to alter or delete the log files are logged...
In a normal OS (99.99999% of all computers) all administrative actions are typically logged (system log), but the details of what's happening in the computer aren't logged.Delete
1) I log-in to computer (logged)
2) I edit a file (logged, but changes I made aren't known)
3) I run a program called sendmail.exe (logged)
4) I log-out (logged) and make sure people see me leave the building
5) the sendmail.exe program is still running and it's changing anything I would have been able to change when I was logged-in. Since I wrote the program I know what it's doing, but nobody else does.
6) the sendmail.exe program runs and sleeps, runs and sleeps, slowly doing things to not draw attention to itself. Then one day it displays a message in the system logs saying all your files have been encrypted and tells you how to pay $$$ to decrypt them.
There are "trusted" operating systems built to prevent this type of thing, that would have stopped "sendmail.exe" from changing anything. But as you know from the news, nobody uses trusted operating systems.
Computer security is a very complex and constantly evolving problem.
"2) I edit a file (logged, but changes I made aren't known)"Delete
It depends on how the system was setup. I was sysadmin on a largish business system, and depending on which files I deemed important, I could journal any changes to those files, which means a system-generated before-and-after audit record was created for any change made, whether by human or by the computer itself.
One can only hope these voter tables had similar kind of auditing enabled.
Dominion Voting Systems allows vote numbers to be erased in the system (erase those pesky Trump votes) and votes can be manually added. So our election software is equipped to facilitate fraud.Delete
8.2 Manual Entry of Results
1. Manually entry of results can be performed from the Result Files screen, which can be reached by clicking on the Result Files option in the Activities Navigation Panel (General Group). The Result Files main activity screen appears.
8.4 Deleting of Results
1. Individual or selections of Result Files can be deleted from the Result File screen, which can be reached by clicking on the Result Files option in the
Activities Navigation Panel (General Group).
FWIW I saw this today from a whistleblower working for Dominion. Don't know if it's true but it's circulating: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/12/it-contractor-for-dominion-ballot-counting-software-co-exposes-massive-ballot-fraud-in-detroit-michigan/ReplyDelete
Hmmmm. Sounds like a problem. I had heard Rudy saying the other day that they had an unspecified number of witnesses from Dominion.Delete
Steve McIntyre throws cold water on Dr. Shiva's analysis/conclusion:ReplyDelete
>> https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1326755380785983489 <<
2016 plot is virtually the same for that county.
It would have been interesting to see the reverse graph- Biden votes from non-straight ticket voters vs straight Democratic voters. I suspect it will have a similar slope and dispersion.Delete
One thing I do notice, though, is that the dispersion is far less this year than in 2016 in Oakland County- I don't know if it is meaningful or not- do take note of the comment in McIntyre's feed that mentioned that the Democrats may have done the same thing in 2016, but just not enough of it. It seems to me that doing more of it might have the effect of narrowing that dispersion field.
In the end, only a hand count of the paper can actually settle this issue.Delete
McIntyre does a deeper dive starting here:ReplyDelete
>> https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1326897315324567553 <<
One thing I noticed:Delete
"7/ Some obvious points. In intense D precincts, straight D share reached 80%, whereas straight R share never reached 50% in any precinct. The proportion of mixed tickets with Biden presidential vote was ~20% in all precincts."
Obviously this will depend on local variations, but on a national basis I've read that Rs are far more likely to vote straight ticket than Ds. Now, perhaps Ds in these precincts really were outside the national norm, but the low number of Rs doing straight ticket seems odd--strictly at first glance.
This all seems to be BLOWING UP , today. Could this have to do with the Turtles two meeting earlier this week?ReplyDelete
>> Stephen McIntyre
10/ I.e. the increasing spread between Str and Total with greater intensity is likely to be a property of Straight Ticket voting and supports my original criticism that an exploratory analysis with novel statistical comparison cannot PROVE manipulation (or even begin to prove it)
10:25 AM · Nov 12, 2020·Twitter Web App <<
>> https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1326909023891968008 <<
Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes.ReplyDelete
It starts with the observation of reality that Trump held dozens of campaign rallies that were attended by tens of thousands of avid voters, which included many Democrats. Conversely, Biden held very, very few, almost no one showed up, and enthusiasm was nonexistent.
Second, Biden (in one of his few public appearances) literally announced to the world that he would be the beneficiary of the most extensive voter fraud campaign ever conducted.
Third, there are now dozens of eyewitnesses who have come forward with direct, first-person, testimony of overt acts of voter fraud witnessed in their presence. This included numerous public employees who were tangibly involved in counting votes.
Fourth, the limited investigations by third parties (which includes GOP efforts) has already uncovered volumes of direct evidence of voter fraud in all the contested states, and the numbers exceed the vote difference in many cases by an order of magnitude.
Fifth, probability analysis of voter results already reported reveals that all of the contested state results defy credulity and this is especially significant in that all of these extremely improbable outcomes benefit Biden only. This is physics, not political science.
Last, at least half the country (and likely far more) are perfectly aware that the elections is being stolen and the will of the people is being undermined like never before in our history. No faux campaign of unity healing is going to make that go away. There will be consequences, and those consequences will be non trivial.
Barr has one shot to prevent a real civil disaster from exploding in the coming months. Pray that it happens soon and is formidable.
This must be answered, not with unsubstantiated assertions, but with hard facts:Delete
"Why did the vote counting stop simultaneously, for hours on end, in the middle of election night, in the very decisive swing states where Trump was winning by sizable margins? Why can’t we get straight answers from the officials involved?"
With reports of some voting machines seen pulled into internet, Gina Haspel & Bill Barr going to see Mitch McConnell. Now Trump tweeting a OANN story about the machines switching votes. And the BIG tweet " They have been caught". This just might be the big one Q has been referring too.ReplyDelete
"Q"? The fictional omniscient persona from the Internet?Delete
Because of course...ReplyDelete
"This nut job is responsible for recounting the vote in Arizona. Something tells me she’s gonna #Resist doing an audit on the vote to weed out bad ballots."
Here’s a simple question maybe you legal beagles can answer: can the USAs, freed from Pilgar’s supervision, perform, or cause to be performed, a forensic analysis on the voting machines? If, as Valentine asserts, as Bebe reminds us, there are log files, shouldn’t the DoJ be investigating?ReplyDelete
And on a different note, shouldn’t we find out if the counting of ballots in different states is being done in Barcelona, as alleged on Breitbart this morning? Somebody must know for sure who is tabulating the ballots, no?
Any actions like that have to proceed step by step, with each step justified by what proceeds. They need to gather evidence that would justify taking that step of examining the physical machines--what they expect to find, etc. We're seeing anecdotal and witness evidence and that may be enough, but it's hard to say at this remove. There may be records of each machine's operationing history for the election time period that were generated, which could be more important than the machine itself.Delete
When a savvy lawyer like Sidney Powell states it is a fact that a computer vote fraud was perpetrated on the voters I would believe her. Somehow I doubt she would risk her reputation in making such a statement without seeing or having positive proof to support the allegation.ReplyDelete
15h, 11 tweets, 2 min read
What we have learned so far from reading the Dominion Voting System manual:
1. Votes can theoretically be ignored for individuals if a straight ticket vote is selected. This setting could very welI enable "Repubiican"-style typo fraud. Many complex rules decide how the "straight ticket" option works.
2. Network Security is very weak since all software access keys use the same cryptographic pair. This gives plausible deniability to whoever potentially decides to mess around with voting settings. It cant be proven who changed a setting since everybody has the same key
3. Digital certificates are not protected by password, and Dominion user manual explicitly says not to enter a password. This enables potential for bad actors to MITM attack data traveling over network between precinct tabulator and central tabulator.
4. Cryptic "split rotation" function that features the ability to "force a maximum deviation". There is no definition of a "split rotation", so we cannot know what "force a maximum deviation" means in this instance.
5. Local IT guys have ultimate power to clandestinely change settings, thus having the ability to potentially alter an entire election. There are no checks and balances or observers of the local IT guy when he accesses machine debug and admin settings. Its unclear if logs exist.
Putting up the rest of the tweeted notes on the Dominion manual (see my Comment above). Tweets have a way of being disappeared.ReplyDelete
6. Dominion is a black box with votes ultimately tabulated in a central server system. Who has access to the central server and where is the manual and security reviews of that server software?
7. Settings could theoretically have been changed during evening downtime on first night of voting. Much easier to change settings on hundreds of machines than to forge thousands of ballots. A couple of people could have done it quickly.
8. State of Pennsylvania requested semantic changes to the Dominion voting software, possibly to aid in their lawfare efforts. The word "Cast" became "Print", obfuscating the moment when your vote becomes officially cast. For what reason is currently unknown.
9. There is an option to force the vote scanner to "overrun" a preset amount of ballots EVERY time anybody pauses the scan mid-batch. "Overrun" is undefined. Potential for abuse is high with this function, which was added shortly after 2018 mid-term elections.
More to come later.
Many people have sent me (completely publicly available) Dominion security audits, documents, manuals, and state contracts. Have a lot of reading to do.
If there are any potential election fraud settings hiding in plain sight, I will do my best to find it.
Link in my last Comment above.
While I was in college in the early 80's studying compsci, I worked part time at a garage. The boss had a great saying that still applies today, which when asked what did he think was wrong with their car, he would reply "It's like a Christmas present - You don't really know what's inside until you open it up". These voting machines are similar in nature. They could have altered code, altered settings, altered code that has since been surreptitiously "wiped" since the election(not with a towel either), altered results that were correct at the machine itself, but were altered either in transit or wherever the results were tallied. (think portable thumb drives, etc.) From what I'm seeing in the article, they may be weighting results, but there may be certain criteria that's hidden in the code that would only trigger under ideal circumstances. For example, they could have a test dataset put through the machine and the results appear correct only to have other (real) datasets trigger counting anomalies. It can can be hard to detect by trying to read the code (assuming that it's still the same code from election night) and very time consuming. The fact that some of these machines were Internet connected should disqualify them for use period. I mentioned this earlier, but there are likely other vendors that can scan the same paper ballots that could be used for comparison to the suspect machine totals which may save time, but in all likelihood, you will still need to hand count (with observers) to ensure any chance of knowing that the count(s) are either true or in fact tainted by the inner workings of software that may or may not be the same software used in the wee hours of 11/4.ReplyDelete
Here's the question for every election official, if you want everyone to accept the results, you certainly should be open to having them challenged/verified for authenticity, RIGHT?
On a related note, I wrote software to tabulate bubble sheets for as student programmer for a University IT department in 1982. Same stuff. Just test questions instead of votes. Why is it we still can't we get this right in 2020?
“Why is it we still can't we get this right in 2020?”Delete
We know the answer: They didn’t WANT to get it right. This is a feature, not a bug.
@Anonymous November 12, 2020 at 11:20 AMReplyDelete
"Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes".
[Apologies if this is a multiple post. I'm having unusual problems with my computer and with Blogger this morning.]
I want to agree with Anonymous. I really do. But, honestly, I feel like I'm on a roller coaster. I'm reading everything. One minute I'm up and the next minute I'm dejected.
But there seems like more than enough doubt to lead a fair-minded judge (Court) to want to get to the bottom of all the conjecture. We may not get a fair-minded judge at any given trial level, but it would seem that these cases are headed for higher courts and ultimately the US Supreme Court where there will be terrific advocates and a great deal of transparency.
I'm just thinking out loud, but it would seem that a combination of hand recounts, examination of contested ballots, and examination of logs in swing states would reveal the truth. It is hard to imagine what rational arguments Biden could make to resist the foregoing steps...(Note: I said 'rational'.)
I do fear that the logical consequence of Giuliani's arguments in Pennsylvania (i.e., throw out every vote where GOP watchers were excluded) might not be politically sustainable. Because many of the excluded votes would be legitimate votes that a voter cast in the reasonable expectation that his/her vote would count. The logical solution I would have thought would be a revote in Pennsylvania, but I suppose this raises all sorts of objections and concerns...some of which may even be legitimate.
A better result, and again I'm just thinking out loud, would be for Republican lawyers to establish a sufficiently large number of illegal and 'computer reversed or fixed' votes in AZ, MI, GA and WI to 'prove' that Trump legitimately won a plurality of votes in those states. But, as EZ citing McIntyre points out, the compelling proof, either on a statistical inference basis, or a hard factual basis, is yet to be seen.
So...we wait. Its pretty excruciating.
A final word. I think the ultimate 'tell' here is Mrs. Clinton's admonition to Biden to wait and wait and never concede. There is just no rational basis for her statement unless she knew that votes would be reversed after polls closed. And its totally in character for her to expose herself in this way.
I think we're struggling to accept election numbers that are fraudulent on their face. Fraud is when election workers refuse to follow the law. It's fraud, and we don't want to believe it.Delete
dfp, no struggle here. Not accepting the numbers. I believe there have been various kinds of fraud and want all of them identified, remedied, and the election results retabulated. No denial here.Delete
From Kylen Becker (formerly of Fox News) has this video excerpt showing potential problems ...ReplyDelete
"there seems like more than enough doubt to lead a fair-minded judge (Court) to want to get to the bottom of all the conjecture."ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, conjecture doesn't cut it.
Mark, what real impact did Rudy's possession of Hunter's laptop have?ReplyDelete
What if it was a feint by Trump to panic the Democrats into in more electoral corruption?
So that the more they do, the more it can be seen by investigators?
Here is what I would consider compelling evidence of fraud:ReplyDelete
(1) A hand recount of the paper ballots of, let's say, Waukesha County, that shows a material net gain for Trump of 1,000+ votes. This would then necessitate a hand recount of every county in Wisconsin, and an investigation as to why the first count was an "error";
(2) Analysis of ballots that only selected the Presidential candidate. Simply, in any state or county, hand count the ballots that only voted for Trump and only voted for Biden. Compare the ratios- the ratio Biden/Trump should not exceed 2- if it does, then you have to take a closer look. If the ratio exceeds 10, then you have a fraud full stop. At that point, you can even estimate pretty solidly how many votes were fraud votes from people just filling out ballots in haste on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.
A judge should be able to understand those items, even a very partisan one. I am keeping an eye on Georgia- part of me suspects certain counties will try to evade the hand count, or hide it from observers. Waiting for that to happen.
Makes sense to me.Delete
Yancey, since you appear to be watching GA closely ...Delete
Virginia also falls under item #2. There are several congressional districts where JB performed much better than the democrat congressional candidate. It almost looks like the same switcheroo theory here too. https://results.elections.virginia.gov/vaelections/2020%20November%20General/Site/Presidential.html What makes it suspicious is not all the districts deviated with a bunch having similar down ballots and others where Biden had no coat tails. May be nothing, but worth looking at maybe one of the races to see.Delete
VA CD01 - Seems odd that 74k more Dem votes for Wittman(R)over Rashid(D). Did 26,601 R's vote for Joe even though he didn't beat Trump in this district? Maybe, but seems Fishy!
Biden 213,524 Rashid 186,923
Trump 233,403 Wittman 260,614
VA CD02 - Seems relevant
Biden 186,427 Luria 185,733
Trump 169,365 Taylor 165,031
VA CD06 - Another oddball - Plus 14,470 more for Biden than the D Congressional candidate. 6.6% anomaly
Biden 149,255 Betts 134,785
Trump 231,227 Cline 246,631
VA CD08 - looks like about 10k more Biden
Va CD09 - Also interesting, however, even though R congressional candidate ran unopposed, Trump got 26,855 fewer votes than his down ballot...
Maybe real? or not? Seems worth a look if there's a systemic issue uncovered.
how are CD01 and CD06 not prima facie fraud? The number of votes Biden EXCEEDS down ballot dem is almost exactly the number TRUMP LAGS the down ballot Republican. Your despicable dem fraudster would absolutely have to avoid switcherooing the count for the local candidates as that would be far more noticeable and far more likely to incite litigation, so they naturally restricted their switching to the Presidential candidates. The outlier is that Biden beat Trump not that the Republicans turned back the wave of down ballot dems.Delete
Yes, that is striking, isn't it, Mark A.? I am going to do through all the Congressional districts later tonight when I have time. I am sure someone has already done all of this, but those two VA districts are pretty amazing. Will interesting to see how they behaved in 2016 and 2012.Delete
I keep coming back to the Antrim County fiasco. I have yet to read a cogent explanation for what actually happened. The media have tried to make it a simple human entry error, but I have yet to hear an explanation that actually makes sense in that regard. Based on the media explanation, the person who made the entry had to be a complete moron who had slept through the actual counting process in that county- a non-moron would have realized the totals were wrong immediately.ReplyDelete
It would seem that one would first have to accept the premise that the swap was an error. I don't buy that.Delete
I am with Cassander on the emotional roller coaster. My reading suggests onlyReplyDelete
a finding of systemic fraud gets you the kind of access to ballots, machines etc on a widespread scale. Dead voters, out of state, potential illegal etc. is certainly evidence of fraud but apparently happens every election and rarely in numbers that can overturn the result. So if the legal standard is “prove to me you can overturn”obviously a much more difficult proposition. I need to consider that the perpetrators of a computer fraud are really smart too and despite “there is always a record of changes” to systems that they know otherwise. Or perhaps wipe it and say prove it. I am hopeful that the early results left them scrambling and taking steps that are traceable due to the need to move faster and more significantly than anticipated. I anxiously await the unfolding of the legal challenges.
News at Townhall:ReplyDelete
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled in favor of the Trump campaign by concluding segregated ballots should not be counted. Further, the judge found that Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar lacked the "statutory authority" to change election law just days before Election Day.
I expect the PA dems will be running right back again to the lefty PA Supreme Court.Delete
The PA SOS not only did not have the authority to change the election procedures a few days before the election, she did not have the authority to change them ar anytime.Delete
Anybody who wants any easy to read rundown of how insanely insecure our election software systems are should take a look at SWC's twitter thread.ReplyDelete
If anything, the switch to electronic voting systems over the last 20 years, rather than make our elections more expedient and secure, seems to have made them more vulnerable to manipulation. Add mail-in voting and ballot harvesting and there are multiple avenues of fraud.Delete
Absolutely. People who know a thing or two are saying, Go back to paper--it can be done.Delete