HOW DID THEY DO IT?

 

TPATH REMARKS

December 4, 2020

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

​

​

​

 

During the past few weeks we have been watching recounts in those swing states that, aside from finding some uncounted ballots, the tabulated recounts were remarkably consistent with the final election tally.

 

How can this be if the cheating was a prolific as most evidence indicates?  For instance, if stacks and stacks of ballots, presumably for Biden, were counted and recounted, many times over, how could the tabulating machines and the number of ballots counted be so close to balancing out?

 

This question was asked many times over during these legislative hearings, not just by Demonrats who hate Trump and care not how they dispatch him, but also by our side. This needs to be answered and while some of the tech people who were asked this question knew and understood how, they were very short on explaining it in enough detail for lay people to grasp it.

 

I will detail here, maybe not exactly how it was done, but how it could have been done and was certainly accomplished in a manner very close to what I will explain here.  

 

Let me start by saying that I have not been college trained as a programmer. I was educated in electricity and spent my life working in mathematics and with several forms of programming platforms such as c++, Microsoft Visual Basics and SQL (data base queries and tracking).  I used these various program formats to help estimate project outcomes, track sales and labor.  

 

During those years I cannot say that I had become an expert but I can say I learned enough about programming capabilities to understand that source code can do anything the programmer wants it to do.  I used to joke with my wife telling her I could write a software program that would show the sum of 2+2 to equal any number I wished.

 

THE TABULATORS

These are the machines which are connected to the on site Dominion Server, which in turn is connected to the Dominion main server located in Europe via the internet. Dominion claims that the on site servers are not connected to the internet. The techs have proven that is a lie and data pack transfers confirm it.

 

Understand the Main Server is where the total vote count manipulation occurs while the on site servers and even the tabulators have their own crooked software which can be set to alter data at the counting locations, most of the real dirty work is done over seas.

 

That is why it is vital for investigative experts to get access to the source code which runs all three of those unit types. The main server, the on site server and tabulators.  This access has been denied by the Dominion company.  

 

The process by which the vote counts in a particular location get to the main server takes various steps.

1. Ballots are reviewed by hand and stacked in a fashion that the tabulator can count them. Much cheating goes on during this process but that’s another story.

2. The ballots are fed into the tabulator and the tabulator tracks and stores the totals and also sends them to the on site Dominion server.

3. If the tabulator rejects a ballot for one of many reasons, the count stops.

4. The operator then removes the spoiled ballot and is supposed to then continue the count of that stack.

 

This is where the over count cheating occurred. The counted ballots are supposed to be automatically sent to a sealed box. This was not being done in many locations and is how the operators were able to send ballots that were already counted back through the tabulator. According to witnesses, many times over.

 

So the question is, if these ballots were counted more than once, at the end of the day the total votes counted by the tabulator should total more than the the physical ballots on hand, why was there no large discrepancy? Why did the tabulator’s counts not show a much larger number than the ballots on hand?

 

In an honest software package, it would.  Remember this software was written for the express purpose of cheating.  That is why that line code is hidden. Here is what it most likely does.

 

Each tabulator has a program that converts the scanned data into an image file. Most likely a JPG.  It also has a program that can read data off that JPG and save the data to files.  The scanned ballots have tracking numbers and other information (that’s another issue) that the tabulator scans.  An honest  program written would protect the re-scanning of the same document. This is not an honest program.  It is designed to allow multiple counting of documents.

 

While it is recording the totals, it understands exactly how many documents were scanned more than once and keeps separate track of that number. When that tabulator is asked to report the totals for a particular runs of ballots, it automatically deletes the over scanned number form the total it reports. Presto! The on hand ballots and the tabulator totals match.

 

However when the tabulator reports totals to the on site server which then reports to the main server the over counts are included.  The only way to catch them at this is if investigators have access to the written source code.

 

Those tabulators, until they are reset or cleaned by use of a thumb drive will report the under count to the user and the over count to the main server.  This would not be a complicated program to write. I could easily do it using Windows file manager and Visual Basics.

 

One more point that could very well be programmed into the tabulators. In order to give the operators sufficient amounts of ballots that would be scanned over an over there needs to be lots of opportunity to do that. Many of the operators have said that almost all the tabulators reject ballots 3 times an hour.  According to the operator most of the time there seems to be no reason for the rejection.  The ballot that stopped the count must be removed for others to review.  But every time there is a stoppage there is another opportunity to re-scan that bundle.

 

So could a software program be written that would create these opportunities? From what you just read, what do you think?

 

The bottom line here is that recounts are useless except that they may delay things so that other investigations can take place.  That is why any recount that does not include signatures and actual ballots will not show fraud.  It is programmed for fraud.