Forensic analysis of Dominion voting machines

@metal-brain said
You didn't specify who or what got the votes wrong. You simply said there was no flipping. It does not matter who or what caused it for you to be wrong.

Now you are admitting the votes were counted wrong by communication. Wrong vote counts are flipping. But feel free to explain why votes were flipped by whatever means you want. You still proved yourself wrong.

Any errors in unofficial results are utterly meaningless.

Since the machines themselves properly tabulated the votes and recorded the correct numbers on their tapes, no votes were "flipped".

@no1marauder said
As the article explained, the machines didn't "get the votes wrong". One more time:

"Again, all ballots were properly tabulated. The user error affected only how the results from the tabulators communicated with the election management system for unofficial reporting.""

Nor was a hand count of individual ballots required because:

" Every tabulator recorded bal ...[text shortened]... ere counted.

That you are too stupid and/or stubborn to admit this, doesn't change that fact.

The tabulators are part of the voting machine. That means the voting machine gave the wrong count to the election management system, whatever an election management system is.

All that jargon you repeated is just an attempt to confuse you and it worked. You just chose to repeat some confusing jargon that means the voting machines gave the wrong count. The Dominion voting machines flipped votes. You can blame an election worker for neglect all you want, but all you are doing is explaining why the voting machines gave the wrong count, also known as vote flipping.

As far as you claiming a count was unofficial, why would any count be unofficial?
If a count is not a real count why is anyone counting it? It doesn't make any sense so I suspect you got that intentionally confusing jargon from the Dominion website.

They sure duped you. Don't you feel foolish?

@no1marauder said
Any errors in unofficial results are utterly meaningless.

Since the machines themselves properly tabulated the votes and recorded the correct numbers on their tapes, no votes were "flipped".

The machines gave the wrong count. If unofficial results are utterly meaningless why do they exist? And what is the point of shifting blame to human error when that count was utterly meaningless?

Why are they counting a count that doesn't count? 😠

@metal-brain said
The machines gave the wrong count. If unofficial results are utterly meaningless why do they exist? And what is the point of shifting blame to human error when that count was utterly meaningless?

Why are they counting a count that doesn't count? 😠

Because people want to have some idea of the results soon after the election. Thus, unofficial results are sent to a central State location. But:

"Because Michigan uses all paper ballots, and tabulation machines print the vote counts, there is always a paper record that can be reviewed if a reporting error occurs. When 1,520 jurisdictions are reporting results from several thousand precincts, it is not uncommon for isolated reporting errors to occur, when election workers record or transmit unofficial numbers incorrectly. However, the bipartisan county boards of canvassers compare the physical tabulation records to the unofficial results and correct any errors before certifying the election making results official."

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/informed-voter-panel/election-administration-basics

So before the results are made official, the local canvassing boards must examine the tabulator tapes and add them in each individual precinct. Because, as already explained, these were accurate in Antrim County, there was no possibility that any votes were "flipped" and the proper figures would have been included in the official count even if the original reporting error in the unofficial count hadn't been fixed within hours that night (which it was anyway).

@no1marauder said
Because people want to have some idea of the results soon after the election. Thus, unofficial results are sent to a central State location. But:

"Because Michigan uses all paper ballots, and tabulation machines print the vote counts, there is always a paper record that can be reviewed if a reporting error occurs. When 1,520 jurisdictions are reporting results from sev ...[text shortened]... rting error in the unofficial count hadn't been fixed within hours that night (which it was anyway).

That contradicts the report:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/14/michigan-judge-allows-release-report-antrim-county-voting/6537394002/

The report, authored by Russell James Ramsland, Jr., who is part of Allied Security Operations Group's (ASOG) management team, says the group found an "error rate" of 68% when examining "the tabulation log" of the server for Antrim County. It's also unclear what the "error rate" data refers to specifically and how it impacts the results.

"The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable," Ramsland wrote. "This is a result of machine and/or software error, not human error."

@metal-brain said
That contradicts the report:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/14/michigan-judge-allows-release-report-antrim-county-voting/6537394002/

The report, authored by Russell James Ramsland, Jr., who is part of Allied Security Operations Group's (ASOG) management team, says the group found an "error rate" of 68% when examining "the tabulation log" of ...[text shortened]... certifiable," Ramsland wrote. "This is a result of machine and/or software error, not human error."

The report that was "laughed out of court" AGAIN.

@no1marauder said
The report that was "laughed out of court" AGAIN.

Once again, what is your source of information?
Either prove it or stop lying.

@metal-brain said
Once again, what is your source of information?
Either prove it or stop lying.

You must be missing a lot of teeth if you talk to people like this when you're not hiding behind a PC screen.

Already explained:

"What I said; that the report was laughed out of court, that a hand audit was done that showed no major irregularities (thus refuting the report) and that the judge therefore dismissed the case the plaintiff had sought to use the report in."

That's "proof" to any non-idiot.

@no1marauder said
You must be missing a lot of teeth if you talk to people like this when you're not hiding behind a PC screen.

Already explained:

"What I said; that the report was laughed out of court, that a hand audit was done that showed no major irregularities (thus refuting the report) and that the judge therefore dismissed the case the plaintiff had sought to use the report in."

That's "proof" to any non-idiot.

" the judge therefore dismissed the case the plaintiff had sought to use the report in."

What plantiff? What case?
What is your source of information?

@no1marauder said
You must be missing a lot of teeth if you talk to people like this when you're not hiding behind a PC screen.

Already explained:

"What I said; that the report was laughed out of court, that a hand audit was done that showed no major irregularities (thus refuting the report) and that the judge therefore dismissed the case the plaintiff had sought to use the report in."

That's "proof" to any non-idiot.

That court case was about marijuana, not the presidential election. And the very same judge allowed the original audit to be done so it was not laughed out of court as you falsely claimed. The judge denied another audit because he said the MI constitution did not allow it.
Nobody laughed it out of court. You made that up to mislead everyone here. The judge gave his reasons and I suggest you read what they were instead of making up lies that it was laughed out of court. The court allowed the first audit by the very same judge.

Electronic voting machines from a leading vendor used in at least 16 states have software vulnerabilities that leave them susceptible to hacking if unaddressed, the nation’s leading cybersecurity agency says in an advisory sent to state election officials.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-technology-georgia-election-2020-a746b253f3404dbf794349df498c9542

We know Dominion machines are flawed. And here is an excerpt from the link below:

"The most pricey solution available, they are at least twice as expensive as the hand-marked paper ballot option. They have been vigorously promoted by the three voting equipment vendors that control 88 percent of the U.S. market.

Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the human eye cannot decipher. That’s a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what’s tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate.

Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only 7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/reliability-of-pricey-new-voting-machines-questioned

@metal-brain said
" the judge therefore dismissed the case the plaintiff had sought to use the report in."

What plantiff? What case?
What is your source of information?

Do you ever even look at the links other posters provide?

The case I have already cited which the judge released your report as part of plaintiff 's case which was later dismissed.

@no1marauder said
I showed in the other thread that the Judge who allowed the report to be released as part of an election fraud case later dismissed the case because there had been a real audit done which showed no major irregularities.

You lose, clown. Now admit it.

The judge stated that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson had to run the audit the way she wanted to according to MI law. Benson requested the deletion of election data amidst bipartisan calls for an audit.

Michigan’s Republican Party Chairman Laura Cox in a statement said:

“Secretary Benson’s move to request the deletion of election data amidst bipartisan calls for an audit is just another example of her putting partisan politics over what’s best for Michigan...With election irregularities rampant across the state, it is vital that we have this audit before any election data is deleted. Secretary Benson’s move to delete this data before an audit raises a serious question, what are the Democrats hiding?”

https://wbckfm.com/michigans-secretary-of-state-benson-now-wants-to-delete-election-data/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

@no1marauder said
Do you ever even look at the links other posters provide?

The case I have already cited which the judge released your report as part of plaintiff 's case which was later dismissed.

Try reading your own links.
The Judge did not laugh it out of court. Admit you lied.

@no1marauder said
Do you ever even look at the links other posters provide?

The case I have already cited which the judge released your report as part of plaintiff 's case which was later dismissed.

Try reading your own links.
The Judge did not laugh it out of court. Admit you lied.

@metal-brain said
Try reading your own links.
The Judge did not laugh it out of court. Admit you lied.

GFY. I didn't lie about it at all. As already explained:

""Laughed our of court" is a colloquial term; it's quite obvious the judge found the report you keep relying on to have no evidentiary value."

You apparently still think otherwise even though the case the plaintiff introduced the report to bolster was tossed out of court when the State's hand audit showed no major irregularities contrary to the claims of the report.

You are either extremely dishonest, extremely stupid or (most likely) both.