You might be conflating algorithmic analysis of data with the examination of an image of a hard drive. Do you know the difference?
If you are wrong on the forensic analysis rebuttal, you are also probably wrong on his algorithmic analysis of data.
Michigan Forensic Report on Dominion Machines
- Thread starter Good1
- Start date
You might be conflating algorithmic analysis of data with the examination of an image of a hard drive. Do you know the difference?
If you are wrong on the forensic analysis rebuttal, you are also probably wrong on his algorithmic analysis of data.
Here is an easy explanation because you want to use words like 'algorithmic' when the so called analyst didn't detail any
Firstly, the term 'error rate' is a loaded phrase meant to mislead people. You'd think a 68% error rate means 68% of the votes cast were incorrectly tabulated - but it doesn't. No, the report states that the errors results in votes being marked for adjudication - meaning it is marked for human review. Why would the machines mark votes they changed for human review? They wouldn't.
The 'audit' is garbage and doesn't define terms or detail the procedure used. But it's pretty clear what happened if you understand how Dominion machines work - so let's cover that real quick:
The machine a voter uses to make their selections doesn't count the votes (except possibly for auditing purposes). All it does is print a paper ballot with the voter's selections on it. The voter can then review the ballot before giving it to election officials. Those officials will then scan the ballot. The scanner is the machine that actually tabulates the votes. (This means a hand recount - which bypasses the scanner - is guaranteed to be accurate).
So what happened here? While the 'audit' isn't clear it seems pretty obvious to me that the scanners seem to either have a hardware or software issue or were improperly configured - preventing them from reading many of the ballots. THAT is the 'error rate' they're talking about. 68% of the ballots caused a scanner error. So what did the scanner do about it? It marked them for adjudication and let a human decide who the person meant to vote for - which is EXACTLY what it should have done.
The implied theory within the audit itself seems to be that the scanners improperly marked ballots for adjudication to give election officials a chance to change the votes - which is ridiculous. IDK the exact procedure in MI, but I'd bet anything that adjudication requires at least 2 people (likely 1 from each party) to agree. This would also require a laughably implausible number of conspirators implanted in elections offices across the country.
Correct analysis. I recommend a special counsel for election fraud and also one for Biden corruption.
I didn't say the machine changed them. Nor did the analyst. The machine created an unusually high number of error ballots that get pushed to adjudication where the flipping is done by human agent with no paper trail, as in, in the dark. If the machine creates 81% errors, that gives an unknown human adjudicator carte blanche to make the election come out as wished, with no logs, no oversight, no accountability.
The analyst states this is done by design. They are not really errors.
This is correct. It shows that you read and had a high comprehension level of the academic material.
Last edited:
Because a boomer Republican didn't update the software for an updated ballot
Not even your so called audit alleges that. Nice try though to create your narrative. Maybe you can cope using this for the next four years.
IF?
Also you don't seem to understand how the human adjudication is done.
Also this isn't an analyst, its some loser Republican wanting to make his own money from grifting boomer rubes like you.
Elsenheimer said that report, signed by Russell Ramsland of ASOG, can now be released, once some references to software coding are redacted.
Ramsland, a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate who is identified in multiple media reports as an officer of ASOG, signed an inaccurate affidavit in at least one court case and gave flawed analyses of voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. In one analysis, Ramsland confused voting districts in Minnesota with ones in Michigan.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/judge-orders-release-report-examining-antrim-county-vote-tabulators/6537004002/
Ramsland, a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate who is identified in multiple media reports as an officer of ASOG, signed an inaccurate affidavit in at least one court case and gave flawed analyses of voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. In one analysis, Ramsland confused voting districts in Minnesota with ones in Michigan.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/judge-orders-release-report-examining-antrim-county-vote-tabulators/6537004002/
I don't have personal experience of this process, because even though i walked in personally as close to the county seat as possible, also my precinct, they had no voting machines. Maybe they had scanners in a back room. But up front, they had little desks where you filled out a ballot and put it inside a privacy slip, and put that in an envelope and finally into a drop box where one or two little old ladies will give you a sticker that says, "I voted". Thus, they treated all votes as if they were absentee, and/or mail-in. A little suspicious, and probably unconstitutional.
The process you describe does not take into account absentee and/or mail in ballots, where the most important step is to verify signatures. If you destroy the signature evidence by separating the ballots from the envelopes (with the signatures), then you can scan them again, like in Georgia, and come up with approx same results. But without the signature matches, the recount is pointless, and itself rather fraudulent.
We may need one to replace Durham on Obamagate as well. 600 days is enough time to have accomplished something.