Jovan Pulitzer says Georgia Called in Trucks to Get Rid of the Evidence in Fulton County

I mean, let's think about this with our tin foil hats on for a change.

Pulitzer makes extraordinary claims that he's hacked into an elections system at some location in Georgia.

He makes this (as Guiliani et. al. did on December 3) in front of a Subcommittee composed of Republican State Senators, who have no official power at the moment (the General Assembly is not in session) to do anything. Guiliani did this so that he could make any claims he wanted without concern of being under oath in a courtroom.

The dog-and-pony show with Pulitzer is the same thing. And how convenient that he follows up his offer to "use his methods to validate every ballot" for free (he has offered zero proof he has such a method) with the wild claim that Fulton county is carting off ballots to evade his "test."

Come on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I linked his videos on Amazon above.

I added an ETA.

He has his own independent "Wikipedia" listing because Wiki wouldn't let him post unsubstantiated garbage:

Lol. C'mon, this is Wiki you're talking about.

The link at Stanford is to his Alumni page: Source

I'm sure that's there because he's allowed to edit it himself.

So then, Stanford doesn't mind if he lies through his teeth on his alumni page with their name attached? Wow. I didn't know they were so loose.

He's the inventor of one of Time's "50 Worst Inventions." an optical scanner that connects to the old serial PS2 printer ports. It's shaped like a mouse.

So is New Coke, Farmville, plastic bags, and pay toilets. Every inventor and/or company has had their hair-brained ideas. At least he invented something to get on that list. I haven't.

a reply to: Klassified

Since you said please. x

All of them that pertains to election fraud thus far.

If in doubt well see what your courts say.

The only hate is coming from the butthurt losers, simple as that.

a reply to: Klassified

Right. It's Wikipedia. And even they wouldn't let the guy post his unbelievable resume so he created his own "Wikipedia" entry on his own page.

The point with the Stanford link is demonstrating that he's not a faculty member or a published fellow of Stanford. He also has a link on there to his patent for some new way to measure pricks in laboratory testing ... YMMV. Prick Test Single Use Sterile Vial and Method 10 702 203 B2

You find him credible then. Fair enough. Question asked and answered.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Pulitzer makes extraordinary claims that he's hacked into an elections system at some location in Georgia.

You call that extraordinary? No. Hacking NASA was extraordinary. Hacking a voting machine...not so much.
Hacking voting machines

The dog-and-pony show with Pulitzer is the same thing. And how convenient that he follows up his offer to "use his methods to validate every ballot" for free (he has offered zero proof he has such a method) with the wild claim that Fulton county is carting off ballots to evade his "test."

Perhaps actually watch his presentation. He gives proof and demonstrates it. Enough that the committee ordered the ballots to be examined using his method. I guess the committee was stupid enough to believe him, and stupid enough to believe they had the authority to order an examination of the ballots. Also, check carewemust's post in this thread with link.
Come on, indeed.

a reply to: Klassified

For a professional treasure hunter ... it's a fairly extraordinary claim. Did he verify his "hacking"? Or did he stand at the podium and say "AND THERE WE'RE IN!"

If hacking into a voting machine is so routine, however, why is everyone so impressed that Pulitzer could do so? Unless they weren't.

It wasn't an official meeting of the Subcommitee, the Legislature is not in session. It was another episode in the reality show that Trump, et. al. are treating us all to.

I'm willing to let time reveal the truth though. Glad to know you're 100% on board for Mr. Cozy Cat. LOL.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Jovan Pulitzer made some unsubstantiated claims in front of an unofficial meeting of Republican State Senators from Georgia. He is not an "IT expert" he's a an actor. Source

I guess that means Trump, the actor, isn't POTUS then? This would explain your irreverent posts about him.

Question, does this now mean that the Morgan Freeman thread is moot? He's an actor.

I don't think this guy is particularly credible, but I wouldn't stretch that to say he isn't an IT expert. Naturally the sites you linked put an inversely proportional spin from what the OP article did. The guy seems like a real drip, but he doesn't seem to be what either side is portraying him to be.

The extreme press biases are getting pretty close to falling over their respective edges. I don't know where they land after that fall, but I can't imagine it's a good place.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You find him credible then. Fair enough. Question asked and answered.

I don't really care about him personally. I'm not looking to assassinate his character because I don't like what he's saying. What I'm interested in is whether he is right about his assertions regarding ballots and machines. I want to see his "method" in action. If he's right, he's right. If he isn't, his method will be shown for what it is.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Wow, that's a far more complicated strawman argument than one usually sees around here. Well done!

To bad I didn't say any of that about Trump.

Did Trump claim to be an expert hacker/inventor/engineer etc? Has Trump claimed that he hacked anything?

I stated the facts. Pulitzer is what he is.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Gryphon66

You find him credible then. Fair enough. Question asked and answered.

I don't really care about him personally. I'm not looking to assassinate his character because I don't like what he's saying. What I'm interested in is whether he is right about his assertions regarding ballots and machines. I want to see his "method" in action. If he's right, he's right. If he isn't, his method will be shown for what it is.

Assassinate his character? By stating what drops from Google? Pfft. You're defending him awful hard to be as even-handed as you're trying to appear.

His background points directly to whether he is qualified to do any of the things he did and said. It's common around here when we're talking about conspiracies to look at the claimants background.

I will agree, this is another entry in the long line of absolutely laughable "evidence" being presented.

ETA: Speaking of evidence, where is the evidence of the caravan of trucks that were deployed to cart off the ballots? You're just going to take his word on that too? LOL.

a reply to: Klassified

Where is that evidence again?

That would be nowhere to be seen nor found.

Well of the credible sorts anyhoo.

The CueCat was invented by J. Jovan Philyaw,[7] who changed his name to J. Hutton Pulitzer.[8][9]

LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Wow, that's a far more complicated strawman argument than one usually sees around here. Well done!

No, the first two parts were obvious jokes. You did a more complicated than usual deflection from the meat of my comments below it.

It's all good. My point is self-evident looking at almost any cross-section of press coverage for the past year.

I'm only willing to consider him to lack credibility rather than the full stoning and crucification that seems to be required... so I'm a very thorny presence in this thread.

It's interesting to see "cancel culture" in action.

Don't like what someone is saying?

Impune that person's character!

Don't argue the merits of WHAT the person said, just attack the person.

Really interesting.

Trouble with rigged elections is that it's hard or impossible to trace the cheating and that's why "audits" and "recounts" often times are "false positives" just like the rigged results, especially when the "recounters", "auditors", and "investigators" are part of the rig plan 🤩

😧

a reply to: Gryphon66

ETA: Speaking of evidence, where is the evidence of the caravan of trucks that were deployed to cart off the ballots? You're just going to take his word on that too? LOL.

No I'm not, and I stated as much in the OP. "IF what he says is true".

Assassinate his character? By stating what drops from Google? Pfft. You're defending him awful hard to be as even-handed as you're trying to appear.

His background points directly to whether he is qualified to do any of the things he did and said. It's common around here when we're talking about conspiracies to look at the claimants background.

Looking at backgrounds can be helpful, but it isn't a tell all. Hedy Lamar might seem to be nothing but a Hollywood actress from the 40's, but she was also an inventor and came up with frequency hopping as a way to keep the enemy from jamming signals. She was doubted too, because who the hell was she? Just another pretty face on the silver screen.

You're defending him awful hard to be as even-handed as you're trying to appear.

No, I'm defending his presentation because I happen to work in the computer industry and can understand what he is talking about, but I would like to see it in real world use. Not everything that comes out of the tech industry holds up once it is put into everyday use even though the idea itself may be sound. So lets see it in action.

security shredding never leaves a "shred" of evidence especially for the right price !! 👁️👹👁️

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: xuenchen
The whole thing was rigged tighter than The Sloop John B 👹

In 1926 the original wreck of this ship was discovered in Nassau, a Bahama island near Florida. (Sloops were precarious 16-foot vessels, sailing hundreds of miles without a chart with a 5-person crew.)

Link

I never have understood that song. How are all those people supposed to sail on a 16 foot boat that had a capacity of 5 people and gathered sponges? They usually only took 3 on board to leave more room for the sponges.

It makes as much sense as the election. I thought that they were required by law to hold all ballots for 22 months or so after any election.

The song was rigged too 🤣

originally posted by: Rich Z
I cannot believe that anyone believes that anyone behind providing fraudulent ballots or in any other way rigging the election would be dumb enough to just leave the evidence of their misdeeds readily accessible to anyone looking for such damning evidence. That could only be true if they knew that such discoveries would not matter after January 6 anyway. IMHO.

We need to certify the fixers were all at genius level IQ.

Otherwise, phffftt 🦃

Biden/Harris are soo popular, each vote counted 1.3 times 🤣