New Report Released about the Election Theft Conspiracy

originally posted by: Phage

It should also be noted that the ballot envelopes are bar coded. They cannot be duplicated.

The the barcode is on the envelope right? Where are the envelopes after the ballot is removed since they do not stay with the ballots that get stacked. I don't even think they save the envelopes.... If states are not checking signatures, addresses, registrations etc why would they check the barcodes? So we have witnesses that say they saw stacks of unfolded ballots like they were never in a envelope, and I think the point of the OP is there are signatures on a ballot if it moved though the mail system. You pick up one that is not folded, or has any track marks etc it was never mailed....

OK so why not check?

a reply to: Xtrozero

If states are not checking signatures, addresses, registrations etc why would they check the barcodes?

They did check signatures and barcodes. That's part of the process.

I don't know what you mean by checking addresses and if someone isn't registered they won't receive a ballot.

You pick up one that is not folded, or has any track marks etc it was never mailed....

Sure. Got any evidence of that happening?

The folks going meh trump advisor are funny, act like he is a lifelong republican and ignore he was a supporter of Clinton in 2008 and was even endorsed by her when he ran for office.

originally posted by: Gnawledge

So the signatures were verified. Just not in the recounts. It was all done according to the laws they have.

Some states like AZ were not checking signatures. Then we have NV that people were listing casinos as their home address along with other irregularities to suggest people voted who were not of the state....

Then if you have someone on the inside or a small group on the inside...lets say a heavy liberal area where most of the workers are liberal you can pull out boxes hidden under a table and scan them after everyone leaves...as example... So was every signature verified by election watchers?

The failure rates were extremely low in GA I wonder what accounted for that? Humans all of a sudden got better...lol

I don't know but there are some crazy surveillance videos out there of very questionable activities.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Some states like AZ were not checking signatures.

According to whom?

I don't know but there are some crazy surveillance videos out there of very questionable activities.

Yes, selectively edited videos can be misleading.

a reply to: Phage

Loads of claims have been made. A pretty good one was the cash for legitimate ballots to be filled out later.

If (a big if because scanning an envelope ahead of a ballot would have slowed down the process more) the machine “kicked out ballots” that had duplicate bar codes: Were they noted? And were they manually counted anyway?

Without vigilant observation (and we know observers were not always present during counting) who is to say what happened?

Did all locations even have traceable, accountable bar codes as there seems to be tales of ballots mailed out that were not requested as well?

Are the totals in the scanned images on the machines matching the numbers reported? Has that been checked on any of them? Can those images of scans be manipulated? Have they been manipulated?

This image is Trayvon Martin. Left side is the original and the right has been over manipulated. Did you think they were the same picture before being told, let alone the same person, same hoodie?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Did all locations even have traceable, accountable bar codes as there seems to be tales of ballots mailed out that were not requested as well?

I did not have to request a ballot.

Are the totals in the scanned images on the machines matching the numbers reported? Has that been checked on any of them?

The machines don't create an image, they note where the paper ballots are marked. Georgia checked three times. The paper ballots matched what the counting machines said.

originally posted by: Phage

Sure. Got any evidence of that happening?

Sure got a stack right by my desk... The point of the OP is it would be easy to check...As far as evidence I just go by what a witnesses say think like 9 in GA alone... What else do you want?

Witness

Witness

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gnawledge

So the signatures were verified. Just not in the recounts. It was all done according to the laws they have.

Some states like AZ were not checking signatures. Then we have NV that people were listing casinos as their home address along with other irregularities to suggest people voted who were not of the state....

Then if you have someone on the inside or a small group on the inside...lets say a heavy liberal area where most of the workers are liberal you can pull out boxes hidden under a table and scan them after everyone leaves...as example... So was every signature verified by election watchers?

The failure rates were extremely low in GA I wonder what accounted for that? Humans all of a sudden got better...lol

I don't know but there are some crazy surveillance videos out there of very questionable activities.

As to Arizona - sounds similar to Georgia:

Voters have to sign the front of the envelope their ballot is in so election officials can check to make sure the ballot came from the correct voter. A county recorder or another election official compares the signatures on the envelope with the voter's signature from their voter registration, according to a spokesperson from the secretary of state's office. For the next layer of protection, the election official should also look at signatures from other documents like early ballot request forms or past voting documents. RELATED: Map: Where to vote in Maricopa County If the signatures match, the county recorder marks the unopened envelope showing that they were satisfied with the signature. The envelopes remain unopened until they can be counted. Ballots that do not make it past this step cannot be counted. Ballots that aren't counted are tracked and reported.

Sou rce

All I've heard of Nevada is people having voted there or listed as living there and voting in CA or vice versa due to there families being in the military. I don't know that story though really.

All of what you are saying is speculation that hasn't been proven in front of any court, is the problem. If all of what you and other's are saying is true, provide some real evidence and present it to a court. Not me, not Twitter, not some blog on the internet.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The failure rates were extremely low in GA I wonder what accounted for that? Humans all of a sudden got better...lol

The failure rate change was statistically improbable and even the mayor of the town I live in down in south georgia was saying something was very off adn the secretary of state did nothing.

As he mentioned this morning on his radio show, when he ran for office 2 election cycles ago he said there was very little questionable situations across the state.

New secretary of state changed the rules trying to reinvent the wheel and in the mayors words this election cycle was a train wreck, possibly worse than Florida in 2000.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Not to say they are lying, I'm sure that's what they think they saw. Often people see what they want to see, an airplane becomes a spaceship, for example.

a reply to: Irishhaf

statistically improbable

Once something happens, probabilities become irrelevant.
www.cbsnews.com...
www.insider.com...

originally posted by: Gnawledge

All of what you are saying is speculation that hasn't been proven in front of any court, is the problem. If all of what you and other's are saying is true, provide some real evidence and present it to a court. Not me, not Twitter, not some blog on the internet.

Lol blah blah blah.... I'm not trying to prove anything, just suggesting possibilities as there are 1000 posts on all this and what can or can not go in front of a court...That is not the point here. There is a simple way to check ballots period... If people are satisfied that eyewitnesses are lying, or surveillance videos are not what they seem to be then good.

originally posted by: Phage

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Not to say they are lying, I'm sure that's what they think they saw. Often people see what they want to see, an airplane becomes a spaceship, for example.

I'm not debating you here...I agree the proof isn't there to push in front of a court...that isn't the point in this OP...

a reply to: Xtrozero
I know. The OP is about Navarro whining about his boss losing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ahabstar

Did all locations even have traceable, accountable bar codes as there seems to be tales of ballots mailed out that were not requested as well?

I did not have to request a ballot.

Are the totals in the scanned images on the machines matching the numbers reported? Has that been checked on any of them?

The machines don't create an image, they note where the paper ballots are marked. Georgia checked three times. The paper ballots matched what the counting machines said.

Makes them rather subjective then doesn’t it. If you cannot print nor reconstruct a ballot from the image then how can you actually and honestly audit with any degree of accuracy because some ballots are going to be unreadable by the machine. Coffee stains, smudges, etc.

originally posted by: Phage
Once something happens, probabilities become irrelevant.

All of a sudden extremely low human error while having a 50%+ increase in mail in ballots is not a flip of the coin luck...lol
That typically means ballots were not checked as close as they were in the past, or errors were simply ignored. It was like 6% in 2016 and now .2%?

a reply to: Ahabstar

If you cannot print nor reconstruct a ballot from the image

It is not an image. It is a paper ballot.

Unreadable ballots are not counted by the machine. They are set aside to be counted by a human.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gnawledge

All of what you are saying is speculation that hasn't been proven in front of any court, is the problem. If all of what you and other's are saying is true, provide some real evidence and present it to a court. Not me, not Twitter, not some blog on the internet.

Lol blah blah blah.... I'm not trying to prove anything, just suggesting possibilities as there are 1000 posts on all this and what can or can not go in front of a court...That is not the point here. There is a simple way to check ballots period... If people are satisfied that eyewitnesses are lying, or surveillance videos are not what they seem to be then good.

Yes, it would be funny if this wasn't the sort of thing sowing discord and disbelief in our election process.

I suppose the speculation is fine for ATS. Unfortunately it's being handed down direct from the current POTUS and has become rampant in our country.

a reply to: Xtrozero

All of a sudden extremely low human error while having a 50%+ increase in mail in ballots is not a flip of the coin luck...lol

Can you provide some data on that "extremely low human error?"