Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 3-28-08: Chain of Custody Investigati... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7781
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 5 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 2:26 pm: | 
|
An original investigation by Black Box Voting
Last week, I described a way to alter ballots using the techniques used to remove ink from old, archival paper documents and old books. Archivists and custodians of rare books and documents are generally familiar with these techniques, because they are needed to restore documents.
These techniques have been adapted by modern-day criminals to "wash" the writing off of checks, and this is why it's dangerous to send checks by putting them in your mailbox with the little red flag up. Criminals have learned that they can remove the ink -- the amount written and the payee -- without disturbing the information printed on your check by the bank.
BALLOT WASHING
Archivists know this technique as a document repair method, criminals know it as "check washing." If you have the right chemicals, can you remove votes from ballots, allowing election-riggers to "re-vote" the ballots before they are counted, recounted, or audited?
Yes. We have been able to remove votes marked in ink from ballots without leaving a trace. Using this technique, insiders can alter votes on ballots.
HAVE INSIDERS EVER ACTUALLY BEEN CAUGHT TAMPERING WITH BALLOTS?
Yes. We now know that an aide to Maine Speaker of the House John Martin, together with a legislative aide, pleaded guilty in 1994 to rigging ballots in a recount structured almost identically to the New Hampshire presidential primary recount. Ballots had been packed up in cardboard boxes "sealed" with tape (a practice that the media called "an invitation to ballot-rigging") and transported to a central location for a recount.
The state attorney general and the Maine secretary of state were criticized for stonewalling the investigation after the insiders were caught red-handed, and the speaker of the house was not prosecuted, though he was alleged to have had inside information. The ballot-riggers got a few months in jail, a $2000 fine, and a sentence for community service. At least one of the perps did not pay all of his fine nor complete his community service requirement. Next time you're told to "trust" election insiders, laugh at that, ignore the advice, and keep asking sensible follow up questions!
In response to this "ballot-gate" scandal, the state of Maine invested $60,000 in more secure ballot boxes and changed policy to store them in an evidence vault used to secure evidence in pending criminal cases.
New Hampshire has known of this incident for at least 14 years, but failed to act to secure its own ballots.
New Hampshire ballot boxes - Presidential primary, 2008
THIS EXPERIMENT IS RELEVANT TO MAIL-IN VOTING, CENTRAL COUNT SYSTEMS, AUDITS, AND RECOUNTS
If it's possible for insiders to "wash" the votes off of paper ballots, all systems which give insiders access to ballots before they are publicly counted are at risk. The special risk is that ballot washing would enable vote alteration even when all ballots are accounted for. In other words, instead of substituting one ballot for another, ballot washing allows votes on the SAME ballot to be changed.
We have been experimenting with this. We learned that Premier/Diebold sells Eberhard-Faber black felt tip pens. We were not allowed to buy the Accuvote pens from Premier/Diebold because we do not have an account with them, but we purchased the same pens from another supplier.
Jim March and John Brakey came through with some genuine Diebold ballots, extras that had been used for a private election. In addition, Black Box Voting has a few Diebold ballots from the famous garbage raid outside the Volusia County, Florida warehouse. These ballots are not the same as New Hamshire presidential primary election ballots, which appear to be on thinner stock, with a colored bar along the top. We have thus far been unable to obtain a specimen ballot for New Hampshire.
WE WANT TO FIND OUT:
a) Which pens put your vote in the most jeopardy
b) Which pens have ink that is most difficult to remove
c) What effect different kinds of paper and paper coating have on ability to remove the vote mark from the ballot.
d) How the "official" pens and ballots fare when someone attempts to wash the votes off the ballots.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
I'll be posting a formal report with photos and a video when we've completed all the tests. Preliminary tests indicate more work is needed and we are awaiting a shipment with additional materials for this project. Here's what we've found so far:
INK FROM BALL POINT PENS CAN BE LIFTED RIGHT OFF THE BALLOT
Both blue and black ball point pen can be removed easily with denatured alcohol. The amazing thing about removing ink with denatured alcohol is that even if you spill solvent all over the ballot it leaves NO EVIDENCE that the paper was ever wet. Of course, slopping solvent on the paper is not necessary because all you need is a plastic applicator bottle and bits of paper towel for easy, quick removal of the vote. The ink lifts off the page with the only evidence being slight indentations -- and those only exist if the voter pressed hard with his pen.
CONCLUSION: Ball point pen should never be used to mark ballots. In reality, this means mail-in votes are in special jeopardy, because it will be nearly impossible to stop people from picking up whatever pen is handy. Even in the polling place, some people may choose to use their own pens, thinking any black pen will suffice -- and for most modern optical scan voting machines, those marks will be read just fine. The problem is, the marks can be lifted right off the ballot leaving no trace, and insiders can re-mark the ballots.
We understand that banks are now using a special coating when printing some checks, which reveals the presence of solvents if they are applied. We should learn more about that to see if such a coating does indeed exist and whether it could be used for absentee ballot paper stock.
FELT TIP PENS, SHARPIES, "PERMANENT" MARKERS
We were able to lift BIC "Mark-It" fine point black "permanent marker" with denatured alcohol, but not completely. There was still some evidence that the mark had been made, though it was much lighter and "bled" to leave visible evidence. And it took two applications of solvent to get the marks half-way lifted.
We were not able to lift Sharpie fine point permanent marker at all. However, it is unlikely that this pen will be chosen to mark ballots by any election administrator, since it sometimes bleeds through the paper which would be undesirable for two-sided ballots.
This brings us to the Eberhard-Faber black felt tip pen sold by elections vendors for the purpose of marking optical scan ballots.
http://www.premierelections.com/premierdirect/cgi-bin/desi_catalog.pl?section=6&id=56
Accuvote marking pen
http://www.amazon.com/Eberhard-Faber-Porous-Point-Medium/dp/B00006IFFS
Eberhard Faber(R) Porous Point Pens
Amazingly, this pen fails the "spit test" -- when we got the pens we ordered, before doing any official tests we marked a cardboard mailing container, moistened a fingertip with saliva, and part of the mark came off! It did leave a smear and was by no means removed altogether, and spit is a poor choice of solvent because unlike denatured alcohol, it leaves a watermark.
When we applied denatured alcohol, however, the Eberhard-Faber pens performed better than any of the other brands. The denatured alcohol had no effect whatsoever on the mark. Marks made by the Eberhard-Faber pens appeared to be indelible, impervious to the standard check-washing solvents.
NOT SO FAST -- "SPIT" WORKED BETTER THAN SOLVENT?
If you can lift part of the mark with plain ol' spit, but denatured alcohol leaves it entirely intact, it seems logical that the chemicals in Eberhard-Faber ballot marking pens may respond to a different approach. Indeed, that proved to be the case.
In a much more pleasant experiment (denatured alcohol, acetone and the like are toxic, flammable and nasty to work with) -- it turns out that Old Spice "Whitewater" after shave lotion partially lifted the Eberhard-Faber ink, and a second application lifted it further. But if you have to manipulate a lot of votes, it wouldn't be efficient to do repeat applications, and the ballots would come out with a telltale scent. Old Spice after shave lotion provided clues, but not answers. Based on the Old Spice after shave result, we've ordered some new substances to see if they lift Eberhard-Faber ink from ballots.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE PAPER STOCK YET
All of the above experiments were done on uncoated cardstock, and it stands to reason that coatings on the paper might make the ink easier to "wash".
AND NOW, A WORD ABOUT CARTING FLAMMABLES AROUND IN BALLOT TRANSPORT VANS
Ordinary solvents can be used to lift the ink off of any ballot marked with ball point pen, and this will include many of the absentee ballots, some of the polling place ballots, and many of the hand counted ballots. But how practical is it to tote tins of flammable solvents with toxic fumes around in a ballot transport van in the winter?
You've probably seen what these cans look like. Paint thinner, turpentine, what have you -- these chemicals are sold in square cans with a screw-on cap on the flat top surface. Glug-glug-glug-- not the kind of thing you want to splash around with in the passenger seat.
A quick visit to the hardware store nearest the archive building, where the New Hampshire recount ballots were being counted, did yield an unexpected result: While the shelves were fully stocked for all the other supplies, someone had purchased FIVE CANS of denatured alcohol during the last days of the Republican recount.
5 large cans denatured alcohol purchased in hardware store near New Hampshire recount
I asked the clerk how often they restock the shelves, and he said they do so every couple days. During the last days of the Republican recount, they were counting a lot of hand-count ballots, which are more likely to have marks made with ball point pen, so this did raise our eyebrows.
We followed this discovery up with a public records request for invoices, receipts etc. for purchases of products like this; the cost would have been about $75. We have not yet received those documents.
SOLVENT APPLICATOR BOTTLES?
We learned, as anyone else would who needs to remove stray ink marks from archived documents or old books, that it doesn't matter whether you are in a vehicle or not -- the most convenient way to remove marks with solvents is to keep the solvent in small plastic applicator bottles. These small plastic bottles have a nozzle that shuts off air flow when not in use -- necessary both to eliminate fumes and to reduce evaporation, because these chemicals evaporate quickly when the air hits them.
As an extra precaution, if carrying solvent applicator bottles in a vehicle, you'd want to keep them in a ziplock bag.
Here are two photographs taken by Susan Pynchon in the New Hampshire ballot transport van on Jan. 17, 2008. We are interested in getting your input on what you see inside the ziplock bag. Post away.
What's this?
What are these?
In the mean time, we are completing our experiment. We will then publish recommendations on the kinds of pens (and ballots paper) NOT to use and what kind SHOULD be used this November. And there will really be no excuse for not following those recommendations, will there? Because the cost of getting the proper pens is minimal and there is plenty of time to do so. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4834
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Great information. Intriguing. Worrying.
I bet Eberhard-Faber could tell you what solvents to use to remove their ink (e.g., if you told them your child had accidentally marked up a special book, and what could you do to remove it).
You could probably also get lots of info from the free consumer hotlines for stain removal (e.g. there are big companies that sell laundry detergents that also offer advice on stain removal). They might also have some useful hints. Same thing for dry cleaners/laundries. There are surely pockets of arcane knowledge about such things--in addition to the obvious sources of knowledge you've already contacted (archivists, etc.)
And wasn't that infamous Diebold programmer originally in the ballot-printing business? (And while spending time in prison, perhaps a convicted felon might come across check forgers and similar specialists with tips to share.) Maybe this guy was an all-round election "specialist", with knowledge of various techniques. Knowing one way to "fix" ballots could fire up the imagination to create ways to do this on a larger scale. With all these "creative" tools my imagination is taking flight. . . |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 56
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:12 pm: |
|
from BBV admin: I reposted graphics in smaller size below. Thanks, Jon.
No problem, I'll make sure all future photos are smaller 
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 29, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7783
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Repost of images in Jon's post -- overlarge images skew the text on these pages.
close, but no see-gar, Jon. The red thing on your's is a ziplock device. Note the white collar under the red device. It appears to be a screw-on lid, but I'm open to other interpretations. The ziplock bag is the same one in both Susan Pynchon's photos, just from a different angle. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7784
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Many rolled-up paper towel wads under the seat. Note small black oval on top one. When doing our solvent tests, we first realized that you've got to administer the solvent from a smaller bottle or applicator. One method that worked was to wet the end of a rolled up paper towel, then, holding it in cardboard, press it firmly to the oval you want to remove. Rolling up a piece of cardboard provided a better way to grip the paper towel without getting the stuff on fingers. When the solvent works, it lifts the oval off onto the paper towel and the oval is then on the paper towel.
 |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:42 pm: |
|
oh no Bev if those are what I think they are (2nd photo) its even more sinister. BTW I understand those photos are taken at different angles but they also seem to be taken at different times??? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7785
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:48 pm: |
|
More images
 |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7786
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Times:
Photo labeled "what's this" taken in the van while Susan was photographing them in Mont Vernon. Photo labeled "What are these" also taken in the van while in Mont Vernon. Essentially the same time. Paper towel wads at the same time. Basically, if you watch the "Butch & Hoppy Chase" video #1, these are taken while Susan is getting Hoppy to show her the list of locations they are going. The red bottle pic in my last post, same thing.
Now, the photo with Frank Mevers was taken on Jan. 23, by Walter Reddy on the night they were telling him the ballots were not ballots. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 537
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Bev, in closed thread Jon Evans added a solvent list and I added some disappearing ink pens used by quilters on which the ink lasts 48 hours or so and then disappears. There is not a black pen -- blue and purple and pink - but perhaps you may want to take a look/find out if there are other applications of this patent or pens in the company's line for other uses. It would sure be a lot easier than washing ballots if the pen color was readable by scanner. Wonder if this ink could be mixed with other inks to create a darker rapidly fading ink?
Of course, I am not sure if it has same properties on paper, or just fabric.
One question re: the ballots were ink only party removed: how did they appear? Neat edges? Smudged? How dark? Can you add photos to show what removal versus OOOPS look like?
This may be relevant to people doing audits or recounts and seeing ballot appearances that they can't understand...
I have seen a very low number (2??) of very evenly shaded but light ovals on ballots, and it was not clear to me how to reproduce. I initially thought they were blanks, and then saw the marking on very close inspection. Am wondering if this is what they look like if they come off most of the way, but not all the way. Of course, I would have to know ballot stock specs to see if directly applicable.
By the way, would it make sense to invite people to send you their ballot paper spec info, or blank ballot stock, for your experiments? Don't know if anyone would respond, but just a thought. Do you still need ballot stock/paper spec info?
ALSO - because there have been photocopied ballots, this raises another question as to whether photocopies or laser printed ballots would be easier/harder to clean without damaging the ovals' ink. One aspect of photocopying is that you can choose the paper stock you use for it and therefore may be able to change the ability to remove ink, based on that stock.
By the way, this totally creeps me out because in my polling place in February primary, ballpoint stick pens were in use, not felt tips. I complained but the pollworker was not really understanding the issue (which at the time I thought was mark readability) -hmm, think I will send this link to my town's ROV!
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 28, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7789
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 8:19 pm: |
|
Chris,
Some of the inks bleed a little when they don't lift properly, but some of them stay very neat-looking but fade to a light gray in the oval.
I was planning to do the demo outside due to fumes, etc., but we have had very unseasonal SNOW in Seattle this week, and hopefully it will warm up for a more extensive video session. Will definitely provide photos of all. And I forgot to test graphite -- #2 pencil. Still want to have a look at that. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 538
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 8:32 pm: |
|
very neat-looking but fade to a light gray in the oval. Well, that's what it looked like. I have to think now if there is another way to produce that appearance. You would really have to work to make it that light and even.
Yes, graphite, meant to mention that. Good idea.
Also, removal is step one -- now you are going to re-mark. Do you use same pen as removed ink, or is it necessary to change ink types? Wonder if changing ink types to something not affected by solvent in use would allow remarking more quickly. Is dry time negligible?
I just wrote to my ROV about the ballpoint pen issue and suggested she send you blank stock or specs! Never hurts to ask... |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 10:47 pm: |
|
OK well... honestly, Ive approached this with the absolute intent of disproving the entire ballot washing theory. Ive pretty much exhausted my brain trying to come up with strange and unusual explanations for those photos. Here is my analysis... take it for what its worth and feel free to offer alternate explanations just in case Ive slipped over the edge here.
Anyhow... not to toss 100 gallons of gas on the theory, but having been in the printing business with a friend a few years back, the second I saw that red bottle (I tried to pass off as oil due to thinking those were separate photos at different times) my heart kind of sunk. I'm pretty darn sure that weird little short red plastic bottle in the bag is something known in the printers trade as "Glaze" remover.
I haven't been able to pin point the exact maker because commercial chemicals aren't too fancy and they all come in a generic looking bottle. However Im looking around to find a photo of a specific brand so I can show that "Glaze Remover" packaged in a similar fashion exists. NOTE - when you get into commercial chemicals websites don't provide pretty consumer photos of the product, they kind of assume you know what your buying.
"Glaze Remover" is what you might consider the "Major league" ink remover that printing companies use to clean their equipments "plates" and "pads" with. (Parts on a litho or offset press) after they run a job. And believe me those machines have a lot of ink on them after printing 2 or 3 hundred thousand full color sheets.
Anyhow, I didn't want to suggest it in the other thread because there were enough theories running a muck. Those chemicals you're checking out at the local hardware stores are for check washing noobies If you want a serious ink remover have a look at this universal beast of an ink stripper. One bottle pretty much covers it all... I dont know about the sharpie markers, but I can assure you this stuff will suck Bic pen and oil based inks off damn near anything.
The MSD sheet on one brand http://www.jellchemicals.com/Acrobat%20MSDS/MSDS%20WISCOLITE%20%5Bv5.0%5D.pdf
Notice all the ingredients? Nice mix eh? and I suspect the ingredients are of a way purer grade than the off the shelf consumer stuff. (admit thats a guess with no actual proof)
Please say it isn't so...
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 29, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 541
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Jon, again, thanks for your printing business perspective.
Sounds like the chemical would do the job and then some. The toxicity of the chemical and the need for ventilation and odor might combine to make it NOT the one used, or used very sparingly. Are you thinking that the red bottle is the supply bottle, and tiny amounts are added to the eye dropper or squeeze dropper bottles?
This is not the "odorless paint thinner" option and its use would be dangerous, require ventilation, and potentially cause health problems used for hours on end. How would that be managed?
The bottles look like they might be sold generically by e.g. a laboratory supplier. Do container stores sell such bottles? Photographic supply houses? Would they be used in an archives for any of the work done there? Could they be recycled bottles obtained from a printer?
It's an intriguing possibility -- Can it be diluted in any way that you know of?
The extreme toxicity makes me think that if something less toxic will do the job in a less conspicuous and dangerous way, then it would be plan A. Could this be for those "ring around the collar" removals?
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 28, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Glaze remover is pretty nasty stuff.. My personal observations (havening used it on many an occasion) lead me to believe that removing a little spot of ink on a paper sheet, using an applicator bottle (or similar) and of course having the vehicles windows opened a tad... lead me to the conclusion that Bevs suggestion is not only plausible, but apparently probable.
No idea on the "Stain Stick" idea I kicked out, best guess says that would leave some sort of obvious stain on the paper?
Sounds like the chemical would do the job and then some. The toxicity of the chemical and the need for ventilation and odor might combine to make it NOT the one used, or used very sparingly. Are you thinking that the red bottle is the supply bottle, and tiny amounts are added to the eye dropper or squeeze dropper bottles?
I probably did a disservice to the discussion in the other thread by posting the warning information printed on a container of acetone. Realistically these chemicals aren’t something you want to pour gallons of in a bucket and stand directly over all day long breathing while smoking a cigarette. Don’t forget those warning label are written by a bunch of people more concerned with “C.Y.A.” than your safety. Acetone is nasty, but it’s the same thing nail polish remove is made of. I’m pretty safe to assume that the ladies posting on this thread have all used and inhaled nail polish remover fumes… the fact that you’re not dead indicates that being sensible with the stuff probably doesn’t prove a serious health risk.
This is not the "odorless paint thinner" option and its use would be dangerous, require ventilation, and potentially cause health problems used for hours on end. How would that be managed?
I think a partially opened window and tiny quantities are enough to keep the “hazard” level to a minimum. My opinion is that Bev’s experiment is 100% plausible.
The bottles look like they might be sold generically by e.g. a laboratory supplier. Do container stores sell such bottles? Photographic supply houses? Would they be used in an archives for any of the work done there? Could they be recycled bottles obtained from a printer?
You can get tiny applicator bottles all over the place. Search eBay for “Applicator Bottle” and you will find all shapes, colors and sizes.
It's an intriguing possibility -- Can it be diluted in any way that you know of?
I have no experience diluting acetone or “Glaze” remover.
Ive stated it in one way or another a few times, my gut instinct tells me "Butch and Hoppy" know or work with a few different printing companies and/or have friends or associates in the business. (perhaps at the company that prints NH ballots). I personally don't believe this is the first time around on the "magic ballot buss" for these two. If the theory Bev stated here is true, developing it clearly takes a bit of time, money and experimentation. I don't think this was a dry run for B & H. I had the feeling their biggest problem was not knowing what to say when people showed up and started asking questions.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 29, 2008) |
Betsy "B" Lindsey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: A_voter
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:36 pm: |
|
OMG Bev, you are a wealth of information. I remember watching the clip of you all doing a video of the contents of the van. It seems like I remember you saying to be sure and get a shot of the ziplocs...now it makes sense.
I also wonder what you get when you add up:
sold out (5) denatured alcohol bottles
+ballot boxes matching the hospital next door's boxes
+no videos allowed of the hospital next door
+the opened, unlocked "archive" building (next door to the hospital) the next morning when you all got there.
Something smells, and it's not the solvents...and it could be coming from a vacant room at the hospital.
BTW, have you received everything you requested from NH?
P.S. Color me ignorant, but what do the slits on the right side of all the boxes represent?
P.P.S. Is it normal for the counties to send boxes with the # of democrat and # of republican ballots in them? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 542
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Jon, in printing did you ever have to use the ink formulation databases? Based on Catherine's comment about stain removal and Eberhard Faber, I first tried to search for that info. I happened on the "ink formulation" databases, (Google it and see the few that come up) quite expensive, and perhaps used by chemical companies. They may not refer to ink in the pen sense, maybe more printers' ink. However, the takehome mesg. is that there may be some sort of finite cataloguing or characterization of different ink formulations for pens. That would make the process of looking at which ink pen is removed by what solvent more straightforward, based on its components.
the other aspect of glaze - suppose it were glaze, would it leave an odor on the ballot? |
Betsy "B" Lindsey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: A_voter
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Wow Jon, Great information! Probably another of my dumb questions, but:
1) would the chemicals you're talking about also take off the printed part on the paper?
2) would the glaze remover leave a dull place on the ballot?
3) does that spray can (not in the ziploc) have any significance?
(Message edited by A_Voter on March 28, 2008)
(Message edited by A_Voter on March 28, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 12:03 am: |
|
Besty no questions are dumb
The answer is no that chemical would not take the printed part off. Commercial ink is generally dried using a special process involving a high intensity ultra violet light source. Ink out of a pen or a marker dries from being exposed to air. Short answer is the chemistry is different.
Lame example but... you can add water to hard dirt and make mud, but you cant add water to dry cement and make wet cement.
"3) does that spray can (not in the ziploc) have any significance?"
I looked at that can as best I could. I believe that is a can of Satin finish spray paint. (Brand and color unknown). I have no opinion at this point as to its importance or lack of.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 29, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 543
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 5:03 am: |
|
Oh, man, Jon, you just opened another question for Bev's experiment on the remarking.
Can the washed ballots be remarked within the oval outlines without the detection of an anomaly (and if detectable, how detectable), or does partial removal of the ovals necessitate that washed ballots be marked not "perfectly colored in", but by deliberately slightly overwriting the oval to cover any removal of the ink on oval. Would be interesting to know if any counterse/observers picked up on any patterns in marking from town to town.
Jon, maybe the three bottles represent three different solvents, and the glaze stuff you are talking about could be the magic solvent for the Eberhard Faber pens? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4837
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 5:22 am: |
|
Does the "8A" bottle have any relevance to this discussion? (It's not in the plastic bag but is beside it.) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4838
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 5:39 am: |
|
Jon to answer one of your earlier questions/observations that B & H were probably not doing this for the first time, on one of Bev's earlier posts (or perhaps on a video) she mentioned that B&H had been doing ALL of NH's ballot transport for many years.
Whatever was going on this time it was probably not the first time. I too had the impression, that B & H's only problem "this time" was dealing with the unexpected observers, their questions and their video recorders. (And now Dave Scanlon/NH wants to introduce legislation to prevent observation. Hmmm.)
***What does all this mean for those who are emphasizing that optical scan ballots are the answer? What does it mean for paper ballot recounts and audits?
I am stunned, Christine, at your mention of light-colored gray ovals in your one audit observation experience--before anyone here indicated that such a phenomenon was possible or that it could mean anything. It is such damning evidence in light of this discussion.
Whenever I think I suspect just how bad things are, Bev brings evidence to light that demonstrates that the truth is likely far worse than I ever imagined. When it comes to elections, our ability to "imagine the worst" always falls short of reality. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 545
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 6:18 am: |
|
Well, Catherine, what I think the whole thing brings up is not just light evenly colored ovals, but potentially ballots colored outside the oval outlines - how common is it, and does a high quantity of sloppily colored ovals suggest ballot washing -- in conjunction with what other evidence? Or is it the default/not the exception?
In NH, what would be interesting to understand about the choice of ballot counting method for the recount is whether they used a double count with e.g. mark and read followed by sort and stack. Why is a particular method used?
In sort and stack, ballots for one particular candidate appear one after another. In mark and read, they appear mixed together.
Sort and stack might be more revelatory of a high degree of consistency in the way ballots are marked for a particular candidate. The number of consistent marks for a particular candidate might sugg. a change in results for that candidate. An entire candidate's run with pretty inconsistent marks might suggest that candidate is the one whose ballots were washed. A loser with inconsistent markiings coupled with more consistent markings for several other candidates might suggest destruction of a runner up's evidence of popularity, such that such a candidate would not proceed to other primaries.
Observers could take note of this fact and look at sort and stack steps with a different training of the eye.
In the case where I observed gray ovals, it's very interesting -- and yet I do not hold the hypothesis that it did occur. The ballots were completely compromised and it is among the options that an investigator might consider, to be sure. First step would have been to get the ballots examined.
It's my take that we (public officials, citizens, etc.) must proceed with care and deliberation looking at laws, procedures and logstics to see where the conditions for compromise may in some cases be there. It is not necessary to find compromise to change the law.
IOW -- determination and perserverance at uncovering the worst is critical. Imagining it? Hmm, I question whether we have good enough imaginations! 
I am of course sobered by what is possible here. Basically, Bev Harris is breaking the magician's code and revealing how a magic trick is, or could be, performed.
May the audience never be the same.
I could get alarmed at how messed up everything is, to be sure. I have spent a lot of time worrying about the state of things before I actually started to take on learning and taking action. I would hope anyone who is alarmed would not e.g. "wring their hands" but get out there and take action. Single actions by citizens in this area DO make a big difference, in a way that other individual acts such as recycling your bottles does not make nearly as evident.
So - lurkers: NOW are you worried? Get involved, join us! Just show up for an audit and share the experiences, for better or worse. Just do one FOIA document request. It all helps. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 547
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 6:54 am: |
|
Interesting link that may provide some leads on e.g. ink recipes or other ink related minutiae that comes in handy -- I found it by looking for info about how museums preserve items, thinking that their cleaning materials might be of interest.
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/links.html |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 9:25 am: |
|
Election Reality TV - Butch & Hoppy Chase 1 sec.2 @ 7:08
Nice choice of beverages. Concord Hospital??
Safe to assume that Concord Hospital would likely stock applicator bottles and alcohol?
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 29, 2008) |
Betsy "B" Lindsey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: A_voter
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 10:20 am: |
|
Concord Hospital? Hmmmmm. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7790
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 9:41 pm: |
|
The "8A" can is a V8 can, don't you think?
While we wait for the order to arrive to complete our experiment, I am preparing two more videos, should have them up by Sunday evening.
First is a day with Butch and Hoppy, basically just nine minutes of road footage.
The second will contain Hoppy's statements about the scrutiny and suspicion that he and Butch have been subjected to.
Hopefully the experimentation can be completed by mid-week this week.
Can anyone interpret what is at Frank Mevers's feet? Whatever those items are, they weren't there earlier and weren't there the next day. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 11:25 pm: |
|
"The "8A" can is a V8 can, don't you think?"
I don't... I thought the "8" was a blurry "S". The can seems to big to be a V8 can. IMO this looks more like a spray paint can to me? If the 8 is an S then you have the letters SA... thus its possible it says Satin. Wonder if a "Satin" finish paint would be handy for hiding paper that might have been over-treated with alcohol or other solvents?
"Can anyone interpret what is at Frank Mevers's feet? Whatever those items are, they weren't there earlier and weren't there the next day."
Not sure where your talking about... which video and at what time?
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 30, 2008) |
Betsy "B" Lindsey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: A_voter
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 1:12 am: |
|
Here's a can of V8 juice. Not like the can in the van.
 |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 1:27 am: |
|
Umm maybe if the film is flipped? problem is the "V" nees to come before the "8"
Check US Trademark 0507653 (1947) for more info.
 |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 552
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 1:33 am: |
|
A piece of the puzzle -- establishing the factual, not speculative, reason to fix the ballots -- is missing. Seems to me either hacking has to be established or definitive ballot washing has to be establishing, which by implication means the results were fixed - or aren't Peter and Armand two state employees in a van with squeeze bottles and unfortunate nicknames?
It's not a crime to carry squeeze bottles with solvents in them while driving ballots around(and if Bev et al have established that's what's in the bottles, she hasn't told us that yet). Maybe it should be, but it's not now. It's only a data point until dots are connected and presented formally to a body that is charged with deciding whether the data points mean something.
(Anthony Stevens's letter posted elsewhere in which I believe he states that the BLC is charged with dealing with the voting machines, not the ballots, is worth clarifying as to how to use that venue.)
I once met a criminal lawyer who told me in his first case, he fought passionately for a guy's innocence and really believed in him. After the trial, the guy made it clear he was guilty. From then on, he realized, he said, that the point to him was not whether someone was innocent or guilty -- it was whether in a trial he would be convicted of being innocent or guilty with the facts presented and arguments made.
Just interjecting a note of caution on making leaps to talking about people as guilty, when nothing is proven and there has been no trial or even accusation.
Guilty as charged means "whatever you did, we were able to find enough facts to charge you, and present them in a way that convinced a jury to convict you."
Guilt in a legal sense is a consensus about actions formally presented and considered. In some ways, it may be removed from what a person actually did. It is far easier to remove belief in innocence than to establish guilt.
(steps off soap box).
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 30, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4847
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 2:26 am: |
|
I wondered as well what the object is to Mever's left sloping down. A rifle in a case?
Are you sure that is Mevers? From the back (especially the body posture) I thought it looked like SoS Gardner. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 555
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 8:02 am: |
|
Haven't looked. Keep in mind NH is an open carry state, with guns even allowed in the state house while in session, and NHites like it that way. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:08 am: |
|
One problem with these photos is they are a bit subjective. I'm wondering if the person that took them saw the items with their own eyes or if they were looking at them with the cameras view finder?
Its a bit like the looking for animals in the clouds game. Did anyone notice the "Secret Agent" in the photo? Looks like a bald guy with sunglasses, white shirt, tie and a jacket on. :P
P.S. What photo are you guys looking at that you think might have a rifle case in it? Just curious.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 30, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7791
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 11:43 am: |
|
Correct about subjectiveness. Artifacts like the secret agent appear, but do not retain their integrity frame by frame as the angle shifts by slight increments.
Okay, here is the Mevers picture (yes, earlier and later frames show it is Mevers and Burford).
I marked what I am looking at, items that do retain their form frame to frame:
 |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4848
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 11:45 am: |
|
quote:P.S. What photo are you guys looking at that you think might have a rifle case in it?
I was looking at this photo upthread: http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=1954&post=44358#POST44358
Or maybe it's a double-bass bow in a case?
Can someone confirm that this is definitely Mevers and not Gardner? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7792
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Catherine, we have established that it is Mevers. Rifle case??? Nah. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 2:09 pm: |
|
This might add some prospective.
Interest choice of work surfaces too... looks to me to be a collapsed brown cardboard box.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 30, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 560
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Searching for pencil fixatives, one example I quickly pulled up was a mixture of ketone and shellac -
4.6 Charcoal/pencil
Fixative for charcoal and pencil
Alcoholic fixative of bleached shellac and
non-yellowing synthetic resin with high
fixing efficacy.
Apply to the painting in à vertical position
with a fixing nozzle at a distance of
12 – 15 inch. Due to higher resin content
stronger fixation than pastel fixative.
Contains: shellac and ketone resin
Didn't yet find pix that match this picture, though. Ketone is an ingredient in the glaze stuff that Jon mentioned.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 30, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 561
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Duh, thanks for the tip, jon (grin).
I pulled it into power point and enlarged it -- could that be cans of denatured alcohol? I haven't tried to clean it up by pulling it into Photo Shop yet. Are they arranged in groups of 2 each?
Thinsol (as pictured above in Bev's post)?
Also, I think Betsy's v-8 logo post suggests it is something else. Fixatif is an interesting suggestion -- wonder if a browse thru an artists' supply store might help? (printers' supply site/catalog? Hardware paint/chemicals section? The base of the can -- is that like a drink can or some other kind of can? (is that the base toward the camera?) it's very fuzzy but to me the graphic looks a little like a short pencil, so wondered if it was a fixatif for e.g. pencil sketches...
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 30, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2151
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 5:11 pm: |
|
I am reminded about the fact that from the 1800's through the mid-1960's, there was widespread consensus among planetary astronomers that there were "canals" on Mars.
As soon as we got up close orbital shots from Mariner, we found that we, for over a century, had been deluding ourselves about the "canals". Our eyes and brain were merely "connecting" relatively dark areas (marea) into connected structures.
Trying to identify articles from stills taken from motion video is a fool's errand.
Oh wait, wait. Maybe we can have those CIA spies "enhance" the photos with their computer algorithms that allow us to read the dates on newspapers from orbit. Yeah, that's the ticket.
C'mon, folks. Isn't this getting a little "Hollywood"? Maybe we can get the movie trailer voice-over guy who did the Geico TV spots.
This is all very entertaining.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4850
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Actually I think it looks just like a V8 in a (plastic?) container upside-down, with the top part (twist-off?) pointing towards the viewer but hidden by the front of the drawer or compartment.
Thanks for the explanation about the guy's legs.
It looks to me like those are collapsed boxes being used as a work surface, as Jon Evans pointed out.
I've idea at all what those 3 small boxes might be. They only thing they remind me of are wooden containers with slide-off tops used to hold cribbage pins, chess pieces or the like. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 563
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 6:56 pm: |
|
just coming back to Jon's earlier comments in response to Betsy's question. Betsy asked if the printers' ink would also come off when the pen ink was washed off. Jon said, "The answer is no that chemical would not take the printed part off."
I must have misread Jon Evans's post above. I thought you said it did. So, people should discount my comments about large numbers of ovals that overwrite the edges of the ovals -- it doesn't mean that the oval's ink came off (unless the compound was glaze, Jon?).
This brings us to an interesting aspect of specified pens. Do ANY pens only wash with a chemical that ALSO removes ballot/oval ink?
If so, use of that chemical would likely lead to coloring outside the lines. And, working backward, any town official 1) interested in ballot washing and 2) having a say in which pen was ordered would NOT specify that pen, would they? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 566
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Calling Jon Evans -- pls. answer a question re: printer overruns here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=157&post=44439#POST44439
thanks - now back to our normally scheduled discussion. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7793
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:00 pm: |
|
quote:Trying to identify articles from stills taken from motion video is a fool's errand
A still shot is just a photograph. According to you, Kurt, photographs could not be used as evidence. The video taken by Susan Pynchon has 29 frames per second -- there are over 100 still shots of the same object, each from a slightly different angle. Not all are in focus.
It is possible to determine whether (a) the object holds its color and shape from frame to frame (b) Size, color, shape, and markings match any other known specimens
But more to the point, Kurt, if you know that cardboard boxes with tape affixed have already been tampered with by insiders (in Maine), you basically have ballots in unsealed containers being transported and stored. At that point, it isn't a matter of ruling IN whether solvent could be present, it's a matter of ruling it OUT.
So the point is, can you rule it OUT based on the photos above?
Don't make the mistake of assuming the burden is on the public to prove the ballots are tampered with. The burden is actually on the state to prove the chain of custody is intact.
So, Kurt, in your opinion, in this situation, can you state with certainty that the chain of custody is intact? Can you claim a formal opinion that the ballots counted by the recount squad have the same votes on them as those cast by the voters?
That's the real question here. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7794
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:05 pm: |
|
quote:Interest choice of work surfaces too... looks to me to be a collapsed brown cardboard box.
It is a collapsed cardboard box on top of a table or crate. Another video, taken the next day, shows the collapsed cardboard boxes in the same position, if I'm remembering correctly, still on top of the crate or table but with a drop cloth hanging down like a skirt covering what's below the table or crate.
I do find it logically unpersuasive that they would be altering ballots in view of a window like that. The items below Mevers feet look to me like square tin cans. Another frame in the same video shows an additional can, for a total of four cans, or if you prefer a more conservative analysis, four items. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7795
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:20 pm: |
|
I'll also answer a question posed by both Kurt and Del on the other thread. They asked if I seriously consider that the secretary of state could be in on a conspiracy to rig ballots.
First, the secretary of state is not directly implicated in this, though the deputy secretary of state would have to be "in on it."
I find it completely unpersuasive that no public official -- of whatever stature -- is immune to corruption. Further, the facts do not bear that out. The secretary of state of Arkansas was convicted of corruption in a case related to voting machines, as was the state elections director in Louisiana. The Speaker of the House in Maine was implicated (but later only his aides were convicted) in a ballot tampering incident involving almost an identical setup to that in New Hampshire. Two elections workers in Ohio were convicted of tampering with a recount.
One thing to look at is how many people would actually need to be involved. In New Hampshire, you'd have to have any ONE of: Scanlan, Mevers, or Burford. It would help to have Butch and Hoppy, but it would not really be necessary.
But I'll tell you one thing: If I were Butch and Hoppy, I'd testify my ass off in front of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission and the New Hampshire State Legislature, demanding that New Hampshire follow Maine's example with solid, locked metal ballot boxes stored in the law enforcement criminal evidence vault during recounts.
Because what New Hampshire is doing is putting Butch and Hoppy in a very undesirable situation.
And if Butch and Hoppy WERE doing something to those ballots in the van, listen up boys: past history in election-tampering indicates you will be the only ones prosecuted. We saw this in Ohio, where the two assistants got a jail sentence and their boss got a promotion and a raise, and we saw this in Maine where the two aides got convicted and the Speaker of the House was (barely) reinstated as the Speaker again. And by the way, the Ohio convictions were based largely on VIDEO evidence taken by Kathleen Wynne, who was working with Black Box Voting.
So if I were Butch and Hoppy, I'd take the position -- immediately -- that New Hampshire needs to step up and apply a proper chain of custody. What New Hampshire is doing right now leaves Butch & Hoppy swinging in the wind. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 68
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:27 pm: |
|
I think before anyone dismisses this somewhat vague "evidence" we should consider the credibility of the witnesses before passing judgment. Keep an open mind is all I'm saying. "Truth" is always a matter of prospective.
P.S. Kurt the Geico comment cracks me up, but I'm thinking the "So easy even a caveman can do it" campaign might be more appropriate.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 30, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7796
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Bear in mind that there is an upcoming hearing on the validity of the recount before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission. It was supposed to take place in March, but they have of late become vague and uncommunicative about setting the date. In that hearing, it should be possible to get some of these questions answered.
And P.S. my next two videos are done but I'm uploading them tomorrow, not tonight. |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 572
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Re:Three box-like items to the right of Mevers.
A technique I always use when examining photos is to invert the colors, and then adjust the intensity and brightness of an image. It can be very revealing. For example, colors that in a normal picture are rendered as black, can be identified by lightening the image and viewing their inverted color.
I believe that the three items are really six stacks of rectangular items, arranged horizontally in three double stacks each, in each case the long side of each object is facing the camera, with the short side facing the individual in the photo. There appears to be a distinct 'break' in the apparent consistency of each stack, and there is a noticable shift in the apparent angle of the stacks, suggesting that they are on a somewhat reflective surface, and that the shift in angle is likely a reflection or shadow, depending on which way one interprets it.
If someone were to suggest that these were six stacks of memory cards, it might not be beyond the realm of possibility.
HG;) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 69
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Or you might be interpreting the handle in the middle of a can as a break in the objects. Or you might be interpreting the reflection of a lid in the center of a can as a break in the objects. Who knows... its too subjective for evidence on its own isn't it?
Again credible witness testimony plus subjective photos/videos may or may not equal compelling. I have a feeling the people that shot that film were convinced of what they saw, but without their testimony the film on its own would never make it into a court of law.
Yes I am playing "Good cop / Bad Cop" here because so far were listening to a compelling "Closing argument" being presented to a possibly "Tainted" jury. I don't think we can dismiss Kurt's point of view at this point, but being fair and impartial requires keeping an open mind.
(wishing a criminal trial attorney reading this thread would lend some prospective at this point)
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 30, 2008) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 4:18 am: |
|
quote:Trying to identify articles from stills taken from motion video is a fool's errand.
Oh wait, wait. Maybe we can have those CIA spies "enhance" the photos with their computer algorithms that allow us to read the dates on newspapers from orbit. Yeah, that's the ticket.
C'mon, folks. Isn't this getting a little "Hollywood"? Maybe we can get the movie trailer voice-over guy who did the Geico TV spots.
This is all very entertaining.
With the level of secrecy that can be maintained by default, what other choices do elections integrity people have, Kurt? You adopt a condescending attitude toward all of this stuff, and then later, when (and to be fair to you, or if) the assertions prove out, you say oh, well this can't be prevalent. It's a problem that this is even possible, Kurt. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 568
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 5:33 am: |
|
In response to Bev Harri's observation that the BLC is being "vague" on setting a hearing date, I have posted under general some info on who is representing the BLC in this hearing and thoughts on law changes that MIGHT be worth considering if the BLC statutes aren't sufficient to get the state commission whose function is to hear complaints to... hear complaints.
I have moved the comment to "general" to keep this thread free for aactual discussion of the ballot washing topic.
You can see the comments here and respond /add if you wish over in general:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=72&post=44456#POST44456 |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 569
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 5:45 am: |
|
Jon Evans, you are doing a service playing good cop/bad cop or devil's advocate. I believe that if we don't hold ourselves to the same standard of proof that we expect of our public officials, it's likely that someone else in a hearing or court of law will do so. I like to think of it as leading with the facts, and anytime I find that both feet are in the air because I'm making a leap of faith or jumping to conclusions, I like to go back and look to see which facts would help make it not a leap but a clear step.
So, I'm all for it -- magic shows are two way streets, and whether in our elections or our efforts to unearth how our elections are/are not run, both the transparency of our own actions and what we are and are not willing to do as observers are important. I do not think Bev Harris is asking for an uncritical audience fo the type who appreciates a magic show -- I think she is appreciating the input/tire kicking that happens here (but only she can say if my long-distance perception is accurate or not).
Being clear on what we can say TO THIS POINT and not overstepping it is responsible, builds credibility with people who read but do not comment/only think "this is not enough info to say X", and keeps us looking for/at the other puzzle pieces.
I think it's helpful to be explicit in this regard (expectations of observers) because people may think there is an expectation of "going along without questioning" that is not there.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 31, 2008) |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 145
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:07 am: |
|
I'll also answer a question posed by both Kurt and Del on the other thread. They asked if I seriously consider that the secretary of state could be in on a conspiracy to rig ballots. (Bev Harris)
More specifically, here is what was asked:
Are we seriously suggesting that the SoS of NH is in on some deep dark conspiracy to steal NH for Clinton?
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-profile.cgi?action=rate&topic=1954 &page=73281&post=44288
The original question posed by Kurt included the specific word "we" - are "we" suggesting...
My response, in my opinion, was appropriately worded, to include "we" and not deserving of the response you gave in that thread to my post.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-profile.cgi?action=rate&topic=1954 &page=73281&post=44348
I've asked you to delete my posting but have changed my mind on that, because I do think it is indicative of the type of questioning and observations that should continue to go on here at the Black Box Voting "Forum."
Now you admit to "assertions" don't you, and that is exactly what I was addressing in my post.
Up until the point when the testing of the theory of ballot washing is completed, that ballot washing is assertion and is speculation.
Now that the testing has been completed, "we" can go from there.
I agree with Jon Evans comment: being fair and impartial requires keeping an open mind.
That is what should be of paramount importance to the entire election integrity process.
Regarding New Hampshire and the chain of custody, it seems to me observing the videos, while filming (it appears) whispered comments (with question mark-like upraised voice) about paper towels and a ziplock baggie are made, yet a direct and clear question does not appear to be posed to the drivers of the van.
Were those direct questions asked and answered and have yet to be shown in upcoming videos?
It seems to me, if the drivers of the transport van were not asked then, and will not be asked now, what were the paper towels used for and what was in the ziplock baggie - and were not and are not given an opportunity to respond to those questions - all commentary here regarding those specifically remain assertions and speculation.
That's not to say the topic
Chain of Custody Investigation: Ballot washing?
isn't worth posing. But that is what the topic will remain - a question... (per New Hampshire)
...until such time hopefully during the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission and the New Hampshire State Legislature hearing, testimony is elicited with respect to the use of paper towels and contents of the ziplock baggie, etc. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2152
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:27 am: |
|
No Bev,
I won't bite on your premise, nor shall I ever.
In my world in which I live, it is always the responsibility of the skeptic to prove his or her case. The "null hypothesis" or the idea that nothing special or unusual is going on, is always always always entitled to the presumption of fact.
So no, Bev, it is not ever my responsibility to rule it out, it is your responsibility to rule it in.
This is the way educated people behave. Those alleging unusual events have the burden of proof. In fact, to run things the way you suggest is dangerously close to the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theorism".
Science and law do not allow the hypothesizing of a theory, which then stands until the mainstream of thought can poke holes in it. It is the responsibility of anyone proposing a new idea to establish through rigrous proof that the new idea is valid. Then, the critics still, even after the so-called proof, get to demonstrate that the observed phenomenon can be explained without the new hypothesis.
These are the scientific and rational methods.
I have on numerous occasions here been taken to task here for accepting the "null hypothesis", that nothing special or unusual is going on. People here tell me I'm just speculating as well. Well, that's the whole point. Speculation that nothing special is going on is the starting point of scientific inquiry. Always has been, always will be.
But this much I will state: Jon's Sunday 2:09PM post with photo, while it is not greatly artfully done, does show what can potentially be done with Adobe Photoshop. That denatured alcohol can has been added to the shot higher upthread.
Yes, Bev, a series of photos, or frames, taken from a video does add orders of magnitude more data. One still is nearly useless, unless it has far more resolution than is typical in video, especially if interlaced, rather than progressive scan.
I do imaging as a profession now, and nearly every day, I talk to people who are horrified how miserable stills from video are. They think their video footage is so sharp. What they don't account for is the brain's ability to interpret the motion video as a sharper image than any individual frame of it. Again, I repeat, trying to interpret a still frame from motion video is a fool's errand.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 572
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:32 am: |
|
Bev, could you please comment further on your statement that the burden of proof is on the state to prove that the chain of custody is intact. Sounds like you are thinking from a legal point of view? If so, I would like to hear more. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 573
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:38 am: |
|
Del Argenti said:
I agree with Jon Evans comment: being fair and impartial requires keeping an open mind.
I would even dispense with fair and impartial for a moment to shed light on another point: I find the best results come when I try to limit my own evaluative "lens" and test, both the hypothesis and its opposite.
That is a free standing comment and invitation for people to consider vs. their own experiences in problem solving, not a comment to prove or disprove any previous points.
Kurt, don't we have both video and still frames on the items in question? Do you suggest using video instead as in replaying a video loop?
Would welcome your insights in that regard.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 31, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2153
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:49 am: |
|
This from "allexperts.com"
"You are making the same mistake many unread and poorly-educated Americans make when it comes to history: Believing something for which there is no proof. In effect, what you are doing is telling me: I'm going to believe this until someone can prove my belief is unfounded. This is exactly 100% backwards from the way educated people see the world. Imagine what the medical profession would be like if doctors followed YOUR example? "Mr. Smith. There is absolutely no evidence that you have stomach cancer, but I THINK you do, therefore you should assume you have cancer until YOU can prove that you don't." YOU are assuming there IS a [fill in the relevant conspiracy here] simply because you want to believe in one so that some stupid movie would have been more interesting to you. Of course you are free to believe anything you want--but don't expect educated people to take you seriously. We should ONLY believe things that there is forensic proof of. POSITIVE in FAVOR of something, NOT a lack of evidence disproving it."
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 576
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:53 am: |
|
Kurt, what I would like to clarify is whether the law is written in such a way as to indicate the burden of proof is on the state to prove chain of custody was intact, not vice versa. That is separate from what is logical.
But I know you already know that the law and its interpretation are not always logical from a scientific point of view.
I look forward to giving you more info on my encounter with this exact type of situation --though a different application -- in CT soon. |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 146
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:54 am: |
|
Unless the original videos were already entered into law enforcement or state District Attorney custody, the videos and still frames have the capability of being altered and have already been shown as alterable on this site, and could not now be used as evidence in a legal case. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2154
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:55 am: |
|
Christine,
A good video, if that is the original form factor, is always better than any still from it.
Of course, it is harder to establish in a post on a bulletin board.
Have you noticed how crappy most "title frames" are on YouTube? Stills from video are horrendous.
Even a still frame from a 1080p digital video, while quite good, doesn't compare with viewing it in motion or a still from a still digital camera. The data just isn't there.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 71
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 6:58 am: |
|
Kurt as I'm sure you're aware, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecutors side. Thats not always an easy burden. So far I cant dismiss the argument as impossible, but I'm not convinced its been proven either.
I just think we should give a little more weight to an argument presented by those whome have proven themselves be reputable in the past. Bev doesn't strike me as a "I saw a light in the sky therefore I saw an alien spacecraft" type.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 31, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 577
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:23 am: |
|
Kurt, an interesting point about having a still camera as well as video when observing elections. I use wide shots set at a fine setting in my work, and am delighted often that zooming in for details prevents having to revisit a site for more info.
Jon, a BLC hearing is a civil hearing, not criminal, right? There are no prosecutors -- the results of the election I believe is the focus. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2155
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:41 am: |
|
Unless there is something highly unusual going on legally in NH or CT or wherever is the locus we're discussing, the burden of proof in elections is always on the skeptic. Public elections are legally entitled to the "presumption of validity", akin to the presumption of innocence.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 578
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:54 am: |
|
If this particular part of the investigation is not your cup of tea, I think Karen Reineke would appreciate benefit of counsel/experience from election and statistic savvy people as she tries to sort through the various data submitted about election results in the NH thread. This might be a place in this overall effort where people who aren't comfortable engaging in video still hypotheses can/will contribute, and the non-video election results area needs help, it appears. Karen indicates there are discrepancies, some of which can be explained and some not so easily -- some attention from anyone so inclined would be helpful to Karen, I think. In some cases, experience with how an election runs would provide backup to what Karen has been able to learn about this on her own. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2156
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:09 am: |
|
Christine,
Okay, why the cryptic description like "some of which can be explained and some not so easily"?
What I know is that the more closely you look at anyone's election, the more flaws you can find, in about half a dozen separate areas, most of them procedural and record-keeping.
I know it will shock some, but dotting all the "i"s and crossing all the "t"s has seldom been the standard of inquiry for elections. The question usually comes down to "did we get the winner right?" Once that threshold has been met, there is a fairly high tolerance for procedural error.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2157
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:21 am: |
|
Here's the dirty little secret. Most "decisions" that affect the franchise get made at the precinct level, by people who are just a three hour seminar away from being a complete rank amateur. They are making decisions that affect the ability to vote, and to have their vote counted, over what will likely be over 100,000,000 people/voters in November 2008.
They need to know and keep straight the differences between voters who need to show ID, those who do not, those who need to fill out an affirmation of elector, and those who do not, vote a traditional ballot or a provisional ballot. They need to understand how to treat a voter whose eligibility has been challenged. They need to know what to do if the scanner or DRE goes down. They need to know how to potentially count paper ballots that may have seemingly contradictory marks on them. Ad infinitum.
And if they are all A students, and get an A+ score of 99%, there are still then (follow me on the math) a million voters whose votes they handled wrong.
"Look, there are discrepancies!!!"
No feces, Sherlock. I'd be utterly astounded if there were not!
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 580
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:30 am: |
|
Not cryptic, factual. I tried to help Karen sort through some discrepancies and did not easily see how to do so. You have the background and would far more easily get a handle on/ see what Karen did not and I could not see.
re: discussion of the law, in order to try to understand the specific laws and the BLC, rather than make a generic statement, I took a look through the BLC statutes and posted some highlights over here, if anyone is interested. Looks like it's a great way to avoid being prosecuted -- you testifyat BLC and plead the fifth, and nothing you say can be held against you in any other court of law. Boy, the lines ought to be long at such a hearing -- almost as good as tax amnesty.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=72&post=44484#POST44484
Kurt said: The question usually comes down to "did we get the winner right?" Once that threshold has been met, there is a fairly high tolerance for procedural error.
That, Kurt, is the understatement of the year.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 31, 2008) |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 147
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:46 am: |
|
Maybe Hoppy and Butch need a more directly-worded invitation to explain the paper towels and ziplock baggie shown in the video with the proviso of open minds being among us. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 72
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:50 am: |
|
Here's the dirty little secret. Most "decisions" that affect the franchise get made at the precinct level, by people who are just a three hour seminar away from being a complete rank amateur.
Thats a secret? That doesn't surprise me at all. Anytime you have as many people involved in an operation like a statewide election mistakes are bound to occur.
Assuming the ballot washing hypothesis makes it past the possible stage and reaches the threshold of probable, were going to have another HUGE obstacle to overcome with this argument.
If indeed ballots were being altered, then one naturally has to answer the question why?
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 31, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 582
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:26 am: |
|
The most important broad based implications for the idea of ballot washing have nothing to do with Dubois/Falzone et al. In states that have not had paper ballots for years, and therefore may either not have appropriate chain of custody laws OR may not have any c of c laws, the take home message is simple:
Do you know where your ballots are? They CAN be compromised. Central control of ballots is not a panacea.
If paper ballots are the bedrock proof of voters' intent, and they are not required by law to be secured under seal and chain of custody documented, then there is no paper ballot safety net. There is no legal underpinning to the idea that the ballots should be sealed to be viewed as legitimate proof of how the election turned out. There is nothing to enforce.
Are there states that have written laws that weigh what to use as the evidence of an election result if the ballots -- or tape -- are compromised? What is the role of the memory card? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2159
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:45 am: |
|
"What is the role of the memory card?"
That depends utterly on state law. In some states, by law, the memory card is official, and the paper is immaterial.
By the way, Christine, not only is central control of ballots not a panacea, it may not even be a good idea. It all depends on the rigor of C of C, and that's not looking all that good.
More links, longer chain, more potential issues.
(Message edited by formerelecdir on March 31, 2008)
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 74
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:29 am: |
|
 |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:33 am: |
|
Christine,
Regarding the peculiarities of the BLC, I see it as very anaologous to the powers of Pennsylvania's county election boards.
They have quasi-judicial powers, can issue criminal-court-like mandatory subpoenas, which cannot be quashed legally, and testifiers brought before them have automatic immunity from prosecution for everything but perjury.
In other words, in order to have the unfettered ability to get at truth when an election is called into question in Pennsylvania, county boards can drag anyone they want before them to testify, and the only thing that reluctant witness needs to fear is not telling the truth.
It's a powerful system, when used to its maximum effect.
The key difference is that in PA, it goes on in 67 county courthouses or office buildings, not a central state bureaucracy.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 583
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:40 am: |
|
Jon. try blowing up the rectangle and viewing it in B/w. looks like the whitish box to left side of front panel has a curved-cornered base a nd flat top. There is a shelflike overhang on the unit, which appears seated on a blue and white cardboard archival type box (lidded). It does not match your photo of a voting machine at all.
Doing the same thing to view the squarish objects on floor, they appear to me to be pairs of rectangular shaped objects with 2 white circles on top and perhaps an image on front panel that slants low left to higher right, with a darker horizontal band of color just below the top edge. I cannot distinguish anything consistent with a center handle; see the Lynsol can for comparison.
It would make sense that a volatile substance would have two vents on top -- a pouring cap and a vent cap. I do not see same on the Lynsol bottle pictured. Without photoshop or some kind of cleanup software, best I can do. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 584
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:44 am: |
|
deleted - duplicated post was somehow accepted
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 31, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 76
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:59 am: |
|
Well well.. I was waiting for someone to come along and use the word "consistent".
People are convicted every single day with video surveillance footage, ATM photos etc. That footage can be of far poorer quality than what were looking at.
Those objects on the floor are indeed consistent with the size and shape of a can of alcohol. I cant say thats what they are, but they are consistent therefore that possibility cant be dismissed.
Back later with a different analysis on that photo. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2161
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:12 pm: |
|
What does the back surface of that ballot scanner look like?
It's clearly not any side that can be matched to the inset photo, but the back????
The basic shape is about right (height to width ratio).
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 587
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:13 pm: |
|
It appears to me that the tops are not one surface, but two things beside each other, and I would like your take on the lighter circles on those surfaces. Maybe you can get a better image of it or do the reversal John Howard suggested.
Does anyone have software they can use to clean up the other image of the apparent can with the plastic bags in glove box? It may provide insight into nature of what is in the can. As I said, looks a little like a graphic of a pencil with rubber eraser and lead tip, but it's very foggy and my imagination is particularly adept at cloud pix...
Lynsol does NOT have black stripe at top of left panel of can -- but objects in picture do.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 31, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4851
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 1:01 pm: |
|
The machine in the picture here looks to me like a desktop printer or scanner. Also, the blue box/white top that is beneath it looks like it is what that device came in. The machine and the box appear to be of approx. the same size, with the box being possibly taller than the machine as one might expect with packing inserts.
The three "boxes" to Mever's right do appear to be 3 pairs as suggested by John H. If you look carefully at the right-most pair or stack, it appears to be less than half as high as the two object (or 4 objects/stacks) to its left. Or, half of whatever it is has been turned/angled. This could support John's idea of these not being boxes, but paired stacks of objects. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 588
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Kurt, pls see page 55 of this manual linked below:
http://bbvdocs.org/diebold/manuals/AccuVote-OS_Hardware_Guide_Revision_2.0.pdf
This is back of an AccuVote machine. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 589
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Catherine, any ideas of what the black vertical think object might be between cubes #1 and 2?
You're right, #3 looks more like shallowly stacked objects. When I blow this up and render in black and white, #2 and #1 I don't see any lines consistent with short, wide obejects, but certainly #3 has some bright lines moving horizontally across surface.
There are some indents on the top surfaces of #1 and #2 in blown up version at mid right and mid left surface. They are consistant with corners/separation of two tall thin objects. (How can I upload such pix? Can't figure it out).
I have looked through google images for acetone cans and have not found any with two circular caps on top, so that feature appears inconsistent at least with cans/brands I found while unline.. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2162
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 1:34 pm: |
|
The more I look at that item, and thanks, Christine, it doesn't look like it's a ballot scanner, if I were not looking at it in the context of an elections environment, I would say it looks like an external SCSI enclosure box, of the type used some years ago in the Macintosh environment, back in the days of "tan case" Macs that used external SCSI devices profusely.
If that's what it is, that greyish device at the left of it might be some sort of SCSI to something else adapter. (USB? FireWire?) Or a 50-pin Centronics style SCSI to an HD68 pin SCSI adapter more typical in modern Windows servers?
In today's environment, the most commonly used external SCSI device in such an enclosure is typically a DDS-3 DAT tape drive, which actually if you're about to archive huge chunks of data, just might make sense.
(Message edited by formerelecdir on March 31, 2008)
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 591
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 2:14 pm: |
|
I think we should use up a call. Who knows someone who has worked as a service tech for copiers or laser printers, a sales person in a computer store or department, an employee at an electronics store like Radio Shack? I suggest copyiing the link or image to them. Questions: can the foreground cubes be toner? Who uses that color of box in their marketing materials (HP uses more of a turquoise color, but would fluoorescent light change box appearance?)
Kurt if you copy e.g. to power point, you can crop it, enlarge it, and have a look that way. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4852
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 2:23 pm: |
|
quote:any ideas of what the black vertical think object might be between cubes #1 and 2?
The more I look the more I see 1A and 1B and 2A and 2B and 3-??. They could be either stacks or pairs of small containers--with the caveat that 3-?? implies a different size of container/object being stacked since its height is discontinuous or different.
The black line between 1A+1B || 2A+2B looks to me like a break in the surface on which these objects rest--the kind of break you'd see when two smaller tables have been pushed together. It looks like 2A+2B and 3-?? are on the same surface. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 592
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 2:26 pm: |
|
have you tried enlarging the picture, Catherine? If you can, have a look that way. I think enlarging it changes how it appears. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4853
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 2:30 pm: |
|
quote:Who uses that color of box in their marketing materials
Funny you ask. I was thinking about posting that it looks like the Dell color & logo, including the first word of whatever is on the side of the box. |
Caryl Brt
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brtova
Post Number: 17
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Hi,
Re:
Quote:
Jon Evans
Post Number: 62
Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 11:25 pm:
"The "8A" can is a V8 can, don't you think?"
I don't... I thought the "8" was a blurry "S". The can seems to big to be a V8 can. IMO this looks more like a spray paint can to me? If the 8 is an S then you have the letters SA... thus its possible it says Satin. Wonder if a "Satin" finish paint would be handy for hiding paper that might have been over-treated with alcohol or other solvents? " End quote.
Am I missing something here? Isn't this item an ordinary Morton Salt Shaker? I have one in my hand right now. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 82
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 5:58 pm: |
|
No idea Caryl? Post a photo if you can.
I started a new thread on the "Cans and Cards" theory. You can check it out here.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73430.html |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 594
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Caryl, a search for salt containers with white backgrounds using Morton as the example came up with this link:
http://finosalt.com/recipes/images/products/saltshakers.jpg
Please have a look and see if it's the shaker style you thought might match. Also, do you have an image on your salt that is similar to the image on the photographed item? |
Caryl Brt
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brtova
Post Number: 18
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Christine,
If you take one salt shaker out of that 2-pack, you have exactly what I have in my hand.
I won't be able to take a picture and post it until tomorrow.
Didn't anyone else see this? |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 85
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Id buy it. Thats the best explanation thus far IMO. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 596
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Caryl, the bottom of container looks like metal to me -- what do you think? Hmm, thought they were plastic but maybe cardboard with metal bottoms? Also, could you take a picture of the side of the shaker that most closely matches up to the graphic at the end of the container closest to viewer? Looking forward to it! Thanks...
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 31, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 86
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:17 pm: |
|
I started a new thread on the "Cans and Cards" theory. You can check it out here.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73430.html
It would be nice to know who deleted this thread and why? |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 88
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:23 pm: |
|
never mind this thread was moved from investigation to general discussion???? Feel free to delete any posts that don't collaborate the original hypothesis. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7798
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Well, two points here:
1. A single image from video should be accompanied by the other frames. I have produced some complete sets, but haven't posted them here.
2. CHAIN - OF - CUSTODY being broken does NOT require proving a crime of any sort whatsoever. The chain of custody broke in New Hampshire the moment they decided to store ballots in unsealed boxes. It broke further when they allowed unsealed ballot containers to be transported for up to 10 hours a day for over three weeks, inside a van with just two clerks in it. It then broke further when they decided to do ballot intake activities in secret, in the dark, and ultimately with a police dog blocking public view. It then broke even further when they decided to refuse all efforts to account for uncast ballots.
And now, even if they had accounted for uncast ballots, it's clear that due to the chain of custody problems named above, the ballots were at risk of alteration using ballot washing techniques.
And by the way, add hydrogen peroxide to the list of commonly available substances that lift the Diebold pen's ink.
I see a lot of people here getting distracted trying to "prove a crime" when all that is necessary is to prove that chain of custody is broken and that said break in chain of custody can be exploited in specific ways.
And yes, Kurt, it IS up to those who safeguard the evidence to prove chain of custody is intact. It is NOT up to the public to prove that a crime was committed. Furthermore, the use of nonstandard cardboard boxes for the recount ballots violates New Hampshire law, which apparently at least tried to contemplate having a proper chain of custody.
Following the lines of reasoning I'm reading upthread, the Hursti Hack was meaningless because he did not prove that elections had been rigged using his hack. In fact, that hack made national news precisely because it showed A MECHANISM IS AVAILABLE.
Most adults of average intelligence can understand that when a mechanism is available, sooner or later someone will try to use it, if the stakes are high enough. This time, the stakes are only the presidency of the United States of America. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7799
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:38 pm: |
|
And I must be missing something here, because the cans at Mevers's feet are certainly not the size of memory cards, which are about the size of credit cards.
The item some of you have been trying to pass off as an optical scan machine is just a cardboard box. There were several like this holding ballots - that one seems to be empty, sitting in its lid. We have photographs of ballot boxes in boxes that are pretty much identical.
They had an interesting chain of custody deal there. In a primary which could always have a recount, one would think it would be preferable to put all the pink (Republican) ballots in one box and all the blue (Democrat) ballots in another. Instead, they mixed them into the same boxes, then opened boxes for the Democratic recount without telling the Republican candidate that his ballots were being handled. Even though they carefully bar coded all the ballot boxes on pickup, the ballots were taken out, sorted (Repub/Democrat), then replaced in boxes in different numbers and groupings than they came out, rendering the bar coding useless. (It is used later to help locate boxes on shelves, but what's in those boxes won't be the same as the ballots originally delivered in the box).
They stuck more ballots back into some boxes than came out of them, ending up with empty boxes. Here's the problem I noticed with that: One of the good chain of custody procedures they use is to have the moderator and the poll workers sign the ballot box on election night, noting how many cast, uncast, and cancelled ballots are in it. The discarded boxes happen to discard that chain of custody label. And, the shuffling of the ballots into different boxes renders the chain of custody labels useless.
The simple solution is to pack Democrat and Republican ballots in separate boxes and to take them out, count the box, and return the ballots to the same box, re-sealing it with its original chain of custody labeling and bar code still matching its contents. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7800
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:49 pm: |
|
One more thing:
I do NOT subscribe to the idea that photo enhancement or photo manipulation is a valid way to analyze images.
For this reason, although I've experimented with it, I did not do ANY photo enhancement techniques on the images posted. Here's why: Whenever you enlarge, invert colors, "sharpen", "clarify", "enhance contrast" etc., the computer is simply using its own formulas to alter the color on individual pixels. It's not necessarily altering it accurately, and the results can be very, very misleading.
A more sound way to analyze is to capture, at highest resolution and with no compression, each separate frame. Compare one to the next. Use a focal point, such as an item with known text on it -- and pay closest attention to the photos where the known text is clearest and most accurate.
I have had one challenge with this. Susan Pynchon and Paddy Shaffer's video only saves as Quicktime .MOV files, which extract into high res photos as .PCT files, which are not viewable in most graphics programs. The .PCT files are better quality than the highest quality export, and that -- along with my opportunity to examine all the frames in original condition -- accounts for my greater level of confidence that what I've posted is very likely plastic bottles with red lids, and by Frank Mevers's feet, rectangular metal cans.
I spent a fair amount of time trying to find a way to keep the full resolution on the PCT files. They will export to TIF, JPG, PNG, PDF, and GIF, but all of those formats result in some loss of clarity, even when "no compression" and "millions of colors" options are selected.
Thus, while those of us who were in New Hampshire have swapped disks with the actual video files on them, I haven't yet figured out a way to provide full resolution frame by frame images to the public.
Suggestions are welcome. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7801
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Jon, I moved the thread because the "Investigations" section automatically appears as the lead story on the home page. There was no way for you to know that. Only BBV admins and guest bloggers (by invitation) are allowed to start "Investigations" threads due to their lead story status.
I don't have a problem with posts that disagree with the hypothesis, but I feel that you photoshopped that in a way that misdirected. For example, for some reason your copy of the cans omits the original pixel pattern on top of the cans, and smoothed it out, and then you pointed to the (now smoothed out) image and said there was nothing to indicate lids or handles.
I don't think the original picture proves lids or handles, but it does show slight differences in color, on the left-most that is consistent with a handle and on the others, consistent with lids. Not definitive, but should be left in its original condition, not artificially smoothed out.
I have learned my lesson. Not going to post single still shots unless they are definitive. But please don't photoshop them, except for the helpful and obvious photoshopping that Jon did using outlining.
Any time you enlarge, enhance, or alter images electronically in any way that has to be clearly disclosed, and I am uncomfortable with basing opinions on computerized enhancements. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 89
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:16 pm: |
|
OK thanks for that. Moving the post makes good sense and it wasnt my intention to hijack your homepage. Ill keep that in mind moving forward.
PS thats not a photoshop job, Id be more than happy to discuss the scientific methods that went into those two photos on the other thread. I just wasnt in the mood to write up the 20 page post explaining how police and other professions enhance less than desirable photos.
There is one thing in that photo that cant be argued and thats the dimensions of the door in the background. Knowing those dimensions make it possible to deduce with a pretty good degree of accuracy the dimensions of other items in the photo.
P.S. if the person that shot those photos would step forward and say "I believe I saw metal cans of the floor" that might add some credibility to those still photos. The photos alone are not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 31, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7805
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:25 pm: |
|
quote:There is one thing in that photo that cant be argued and thats the dimensions of the door in the background. Knowing those dimensions make it possible to deduce with a pretty good degree of accuracy the dimensions of other items in the photo.
No, not unless you also know:
1) The precise distance from the door the object sits
and
2) The angle of perspective of the view. (Example: If you lie on the floor and photograph someone as they sit in a chair, their legs will look larger than if you take the photo standing up.)
Actually, I thought about police enhancement techniques. If they try a conviction with an "enhanced" single frame from any video, I'd like to argue that case. There's nothing magic about police enhancements. The only thing an enhancement can do is take some known set of parameters and make best guesses based on that known set. Enhancements, police technique or otherwise, can't turn a toy rabbit into something real. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 90
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Enhancements, police technique or otherwise, can't turn a toy rabbit into something real.
I agree nor can they take shadows and turn them into cans of ballot wash. I love the debate, but I hope you realized when you posted those videos and your theory, those charges carried enormous weight. Expect that your claims will be met with at least as much resistance, you have a tough case no doubt. I still have an open mind and I welcome any new information, photos, videos etc. Notice how many times Ive made "suggestive" posts? Heck I think I even got Kurt to bite on the scanner theory for a second. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7806
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:43 pm: |
|
I did not make "charges" -- I stated facts:
1) Where the chain of custody fell apart
2) What mechanisms exist
3) Who had access to exploit the mechanisms
I do not expect my facts to be met with resistance. Cardboard boxes - tape. Not secure. Proof? Cardboard boxes, taped, were involved in a ballot-tampering incident in the state of Maine, where insiders exploited that inadequate storage practice to rig an election.
Mechanisms? Fact: New Hampshire refused to account for its uncast ballots, leaving insiders a mechanism for ballot swapping. Fact: It is possible to lift the ink off of ballots and replace original votes with different ones, using various kinds of solutions.
Who had access: Fact: Butch and Hoppy, in vehicles. Scanlan, Mevers, and Burford, because they have the keys. Hoppy, Scanlan, Mevers, and Burford, videotaped after dark in the ballot storage area.
These things are facts. I don't see the controversy, unless we actually want to live in a country where it is considered "disloyal" to point out defects that need to be corrected if we are to keep our liberty. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:50 pm: |
|
OK well by definition that is a red herring isn't it? Just because a crime occurred in Maine doesn't mean a crime occurred in NH. I see your point and your reasons for concern are NOT in question. What is in question is can your prove that high level elected officials and/or "Butch and Hoppy" conspired and/or collaborated to alter the results of an election. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7808
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:02 pm: |
|
Straw man, different set of proofs.
Because a crime occurred in Maine means it CAN occur in New Hampshire. Stop redefining this. You are the one claiming that this is an effort to prove high level elected officials and/or Butch and Hoppy conspired.
What I stated, and continue to state, is that the chain of custody break, the mechanisms, and the access granted to a number of people means that we need to disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the results.
Very odd threads, these. I really, really object to people putting words in my mouth or telling me what my intent is. Please let my original words, in context, speak for me. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 94
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:22 pm: |
|
Fair enough, make a new thread that states your opinion specifically and we can go from there. Its reasonable to assume, after watching all those "reality" videos and/or other commentary, that people may be inclined to believe the following. Criminal acts with HUGE implications occurred in the back of a van and/or the NH archives. (Havent even bother to take it a step further and start wondering how if ballots were altered would one know how to alter ballots to make recount results consistent with original totals)
Ill just leave it at that. Great debate thus far |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7811
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:51 pm: |
|
I'll rise to the bait one last time, because this is getting repetitive. Butch and Hoppy had opportunity and the mechanism to rig a large portion of the recount, due to New Hampshire's violation of its own laws pertaining to ballot storage for recounts, and due to the many other sloppy and inappropriate procedures captured on videotape. That does not prove they DID it, only that they had the opportunity to do so.
There are many people who are concerned about whether the New Hampshire election was rigged, or not.
This puts Butch and Hoppy in an undesirable position, as I've mentioned above. They should be among the FIRST people demanding proper chain of custody, because they are right in the line of fire.
Here is one of the new videos - I felt it was important to post this before the Hoppy speaks video, which is going up shortly, because when Hoppy says his piece he claims they were not speeding. I think this video pretty much blows that statement up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=710FyJkflDA
Now, YouTube is interesting. I posted that video more than 5 hours ago, but it is not showing up in my uploaded videos. Had I not snagged the code to embed it, even I would not be able to locate it now. My YouTube videos are going up slower and slower after I post them, and the comments are having longer and longer delays before they appear. Some tell me it is a synchronization problem. All I know is, this was not the case six weeks ago. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 97
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 12:19 am: |
|
Great video, nice edits and entertaining music. My initial impression is that "Butch and Hoppy" break the speed limit. Leaving it at that for the evening. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4860
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 3:35 am: |
|
Bev,
So true that it is very risky to assume that images (or other data) that have been manipulated by processing are more accurate.
The original scientific measurements that were taking readings of the ozone level were producing false results for decades because the algorithms that analyzed the data considered such low ozone readings to be a mistake so it ignored them. It was only after many years that a scientist decided to look at the raw data and found out there was a huge hole in the ozone layer. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 5:09 am: |
|
Kurt is conflating several things. He is conflating the presumption of innocence with a presumption of competance. These are in no way equal. Competence is seldom a de novo assumption in anything, except when it is based on a history of the people/equipment involved; we have training for new hires, and a probationary period written into law for job hirings in which a person is supposed to prove competency, it's not assumed.
He said:
quote:No Bev,
I won't bite on your premise, nor shall I ever.
In my world in which I live, it is always the responsibility of the skeptic to prove his or her case. The "null hypothesis" or the idea that nothing special or unusual is going on, is always always always entitled to the presumption of fact.
So no, Bev, it is not ever my responsibility to rule it out, it is your responsibility to rule it in.
This is the way educated people behave. Those alleging unusual events have the burden of proof. In fact, to run things the way you suggest is dangerously close to the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theorism".
Science and law do not allow the hypothesizing of a theory, which then stands until the mainstream of thought can poke holes in it. It is the responsibility of anyone proposing a new idea to establish through rigrous proof that the new idea is valid. Then, the critics still, even after the so-called proof, get to demonstrate that the observed phenomenon can be explained without the new hypothesis.
First of all, in the event of any irregularities coming to light an examination of whether the people who were reponsible to the public for executing the duties wherein the irregularities were discovered are obliged to provide to the dependent public, good faith bona fides that they executed their responsibilities competently and faithfully. This is normal.
He is wrong in saying that anyone practicing dereliction of agreed-upon responsibilities is entitled to the assumption of things being normal. Things aren't normal as soon as the dereliction happens, and the (at least) moral obligation to show that nothing went wrong while the person was "asleep at the switch" exists, if nothing else. I find this disingenuous of Kurt. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 598
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 5:28 am: |
|
Bev said: They had an interesting chain of custody deal there. In a primary which could always have a recount, one would think it would be preferable to put all the pink (Republican) ballots in one box and all the blue (Democrat) ballots in another. Instead, they mixed them into the same boxes, then opened boxes for the Democratic recount without telling the Republican candidate that his ballots were being handled. Even though they carefully bar coded all the ballot boxes on pickup, the ballots were taken out, sorted (Repub/Democrat), then replaced in boxes in different numbers and groupings than they came out, rendering the bar coding useless. (It is used later to help locate boxes on shelves, but what's in those boxes won't be the same as the ballots originally delivered in the box).
They stuck more ballots back into some boxes than came out of them, ending up with empty boxes. Here's the problem I noticed with that: One of the good chain of custody procedures they use is to have the moderator and the poll workers sign the ballot box on election night, noting how many cast, uncast, and cancelled ballots are in it. The discarded boxes happen to discard that chain of custody label. And, the shuffling of the ballots into different boxes renders the chain of custody labels useless.
In CT, the D/R ballots are also left not sorted - they go right into the box out of the scanner, which Mike LaBonte has told us leaves a rather messy unsorted pile in the AccuVote ballot compartment before retrieval. On one occasion in CT when they came out of improperly sealed/witnessed boxes separated (largely) D/R, it was striking. I was glad that the comparison point was "unsorted ballots".
A couple of points regarding the difference between a scientifically correct chain of custody and the law. In CT I have discovered it is interesting to compare what makes logical sense/is good practice with what has been codified (as opposed to listed in procedures). Further, I am told that "sealed retention" and "retention" are not the same thing, and the laws/procedures may vary for local, state and federal elections, and maybe also for referenda. I haven't come across any NH primary/general election retention differences.
Thus, you and I may realize that there are very good reasons to question whether e.g. ballots presented for an audit or recount are the real ballots voted in election day. The fun begins in trying to understand whether the law also recognizes and provides for ensuring that the ballots presented for a recount or audit are in fact the same ones cast on election day.
It may all come down to what the law requires, and based on that review, whether the next step is to lobby for changes in the law, lobby the SOS meanwhile to beef up procedures, or look for ways to have existing law enforced.
What is not clear to me is whether ballots that clearly are not preserved in what you/I would call an intact chain of custody, but may not clearly be required to be preserved in this way (POSSIBLE: R ballots after opened in recount???) can be challenged on that basis.
In NH, on election night, the law says:
659:95 Sealing and Certifying Ballots. I. Immediately after the ballots cast at a state election have been tabulated and the result has been announced and the return has been made, the moderator or the moderator's designee, in the presence of the selectmen or their designee, shall place the cast, cancelled and uncast ballots, including such ballots from any additional polling places, and further including the successfully challenged absentee ballots still contained in their envelopes, in the containers provided by the secretary of state as required by RSA 659:97 and shall seal such container with the sealer provided by the secretary of state as required by RSA 659:97. The moderator or the moderator's designee shall then enter in the appropriate blanks on such sealer on each container the number of cast, cancelled and uncast ballots in such container and shall endorse in the appropriate place on such sealer a certificate in substance as follows: Enclosed are the ballots from the state election in the town of (or in ward____ in the city of ) held on ________,19 required by law to be preserved. The moderator and the selectmen or their designees shall sign their names in the appropriate blanks on the sealer.
OK, that's how they arrive at the recount.
After a recount (legally there is only one recount), ballots are by statute required to be handled as follows:
669:33 Preservation of Ballots After Recount. –
I. Upon the conclusion of the recount, the clerk shall place the ballots and all envelopes or wrappers which had previously contained them in a suitable container showing the contents and the date when and the reason why it was opened; and said clerk shall retain said ballots until the expiration of 60 days from the date of the recount unless some action is pending which makes their further preservation necessary or unless enjoined by action brought before the superior court.
II. Ballots, including cast, cancelled, and uncast ballots and successfully challenged absentee ballots still contained in their envelopes, prepared or preserved in accordance with the election laws shall be exempt from the provisions of RSA 91-A[NOTE: this is right to know legislation - ergo, ballots cannot be examined?]. This exemption shall apply to any ballots or absentee voter affidavit envelopes prepared for or used in any election conducted by the state or any political subdivision, including federal elections.
Source. 1979, 410:1. 1981, 454:16, eff. Aug. 22, 1981. 2003, 289:62, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Thus, it is not illegal to discard any evidence of previous chain of custody -- the ballots here are required to be retained, but not required to be under chain of custody or anything more rigorous than a note saying how the ballots were handled and why.
This was a federal election, so if HAVA has any language about the 22 months' retention that includes specification as to sealing the ballots, then that would be important to consider for these ballots.
But Bev describes a different situation: ballot handling of a second, also challenging party during the first party's recount. It's a very, very good point and that I do not see addresssed specifically in the law or NH election procedure manual posted online (it says 2006-2007). A statute that theoretically would apply is a statute that says e.g. that ballots may be unsealed for an inquiry and must be resealed afterwards. It may exist but can't put my hands on it at the moment.
First, NH law does not specify whether the two recounts should go on simultaneously or separately, and SOS procedures do not address this point. It would be good to clarify that. It does act to disadvantage the party that has to wait for its recount in a primary election. The very decision of which recount to do first develops significance (in this case, they were done in the order the requests for recount were received, and that is most likely SOS Gardner's practice, though not codified).
So the way the second party's ballots are handled (in this case, R ballots) is a useful piece of information and indicative of our starting point with recount ballot handling - were they resealed during the recount, were the boxes kept in public view and D ballots put back into them or what? It becomes particularly sensitive knowing that the archives stores the unused and overrun blank ballots from the same election as is being recounted, and nothing is codified as to their handling.
From an auditor's point of view, you have the same agency doing the recount as is responsible for printing, distributing, and storing the ballots -- both cast and blank. If NH's auditor function can audit this situation, it would make great sense to me for a neutral party to examine procedures, separation of duties, and conflicts of interest in this area. No, it's not a financial audit -- but it might as well be.
Again, I (a layperson) see no legal guidance for how to handle this situation in the statutes. If the SOS has procedures written about this, they do not show up in e.g. the NH election procedure manual (which is a document that is statutorily required that the SOS produce and keep updated).
What does that mean? I think it means that someone will have to interpret whether the handling of the R ballots was proper. (The one place in the law that might apply (but might not as it could be limited to e.g. town elections) is the stipulation that the ballots be under seal for 60 days unless unsealed for some purpose like a recount -- but then what?? It is LOGICAL that they be returned to seal if they are not the subject of the recount, but is it clear enough in the statutes as to be enforceable?) It certainly imho calls into question the chain of custody on R ballots and raises the issue of SOS storage of ballots during a recount while simultaneously storing the state's blank ballots and no visible provision in statutes (what about regulations of SOS?? Any??) for keeping these groups of ballots ABSOLUTELY SEPARATE AND there is no state requirement visible to me anyhow that the SOS account for the blank ballots statewide, which -- given the situation - I find it hard to believe NH residents would not find a highly important omission from the statutes, not procedures or regulations.}
There's even a provision under "purity of election" section of the statutes that allows the AG to impound the ballots -- but the details are not codified -- imagine this impoundment with no chain of custody language to enforce (I don't see any):
666:l3 Impounding Ballots. If directed by the attorney general as part of his enforcement of the election laws, the state police which he designates shall collect all ballots requested from the town and city clerks who have custody of the ballots. The state police shall deliver the ballots to the public facility which is designated by the attorney general.
Bev, what is your info/take on whether improper chain of custody can be used to argue for disclaiming results, if no statutes detailing chain of custody procedures are in place?
Transport of ballots: all it says is "state police". Procedures appear to handle the fact that chain of custody logs are kept.
The above comments are based on my experience in CT, and it's possible that the way they do things in CT is not a good model/example on which to extend thinking to other states.
Unless there is some generally accepted "rules of evidence" type practice that goes without being specified in election law, I don't see how c of c ends up being enforceable. I look forward to listening and learning!
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 5:39 am: |
|
And Kurt also said:
quote:Kurt said: The question usually comes down to "did we get the winner right?" Once that threshold has been met, there is a fairly high tolerance for procedural error.
How does one ever know if "they got the winner right" if one has no handle on how faithfully the tenets of a secured chain of custody and elections environment were met? You don't, because you can't, under those conditions. It's a PSWAG, a (P)seudo-(S)cientific (W)ild (A)ss (G)uess, and more pseudo- than -scientific.
This is both a practical and a logical/hypothetical flaw, if the chain of custody is violated, there is, then, no way to tell if any ballots that can possibly have been affected by this catastrophe were affected. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4861
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 5:47 am: |
|
Kurt said:
quote:Science and law do not allow the hypothesizing of a theory, which then stands until the mainstream of thought can poke holes in it. It is the responsibility of anyone proposing a new idea to establish through rigorous proof that the new idea is valid.
Science
This is not true in the scientific field. Scientists can and do present theories all the time. Depending on the specifics, there may or may not be grounding in experimental observation. Theories are suppoed to predict future results or findings. In a perfect world, experimentation is then done which may corroborate the theory (but may or may not necessarily proove it), refute the theory, or do neither.
In practice, scientific theories carry on sometimes for generations even after lots of evidence has accumulated that disproved the theory. Scientists like other human beings have careers, reputations, industries, funding sources and family incomes to protect. Like election officials, there can be strong motivation not to "buck the trend" or not to bite the hand that feeds them.
In any case, even in a perfect world, scientists can and do propose theories that are credible and widely taught even when there is not yet evidence to support them. When one comes to know the insider decision-making process that determined which theories became "gospel" it can be surprising to discover how much was down to politics and chance alliances as apposed to scientific merit. And once adopted, and once many scientists' careers and institutional funds have been invested based on acceptance of a certain theory, it is not always easy for discrepant observations/data to get the level of visibility, consideration or acceptance they deserve.
The Law
On other occasions Kurt has spoken about the legal truth or precedent--which he personally believes is fair, is that by default elections are assumed to have been fairly run. If anyone claims otherwise then the legal burden of proof is on them. I do not dispute that this is the current legal status quo in most places and maybe everywhere. Kurt's right that, in legal terms, the burden of proof currently lies on the person who wish to challenge the outcome of an election.
I think changes should be made to this legal framework. As is, it creates an inappropriately high standard of proof which is required before even preliminary investigation can be done or other mitigation or remedies can be proposed or executed. The system typically gives little or no standing to voters or citizens who are directly affected by inaccurate results in an election. (Candidates are not the only people affected by elections, believe it or not.}
It also puts the burden of proof on citizens who have little or no resources or expertise to jump over incredible legal and technical hurdles. Typically, the very officials whose work is called into question are in a position to impose such hurdles, run out the clock, and otherwise impede the discovery of even basic facts.
Equally disturbing, there is no fair accountability for these officials. They are typically allowed to break the law repeatedly and flagrantly without suffering any consequences.
The situation as it currently stands is unfairly weighted to favor officials. The system offers little or no protection to voters/citizens who are supposed to be served by democratic principles, and it gives all protections to officials regardless of their behavior.
We will need changes in law to ensure accountability and consequences for those who break the law and/or ignore their responsibility to the public good. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 599
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 6:21 am: |
|
It's easy to get caught up in the hypothetical and general arguments and miss what is happening in the actual situation.
It's worth checking the state by state rules in the US to find out if this generic statement applies -- because it does, except where it doesn't:
The system typically gives little or no standing to voters or citizens who are directly affected by inaccurate results in an election. (Candidates are not the only people affected by elections, believe it or not. }
In NH, a complaint is being brought to the BLC.
The BLC does not operate using rules of evidence. See the post under general with snippets from code creating BLC and a link to their regulations.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 601
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 7:01 am: |
|
Jon Evans quoted Bev Harris: Enhancements, police technique or otherwise, can't turn a toy rabbit into something real.
and then Jon Evans said: I agree nor can they take shadows and turn them into cans of ballot wash. I love the debate, but I hope you realized when you posted those videos and your theory, those charges carried enormous weight. Expect that your claims will be met with at least as much resistance, you have a tough case no doubt. I still have an open mind and I welcome any new information, photos, videos etc. Notice how many times Ive made "suggestive" posts? Heck I think I even got Kurt to bite on the scanner theory for a second.
Jon, was this one of your suggestive posts? Because I have to say, I found it pretty disturbing to see this statement from you:
Ive stated it in one way or another a few times, my gut instinct tells me "Butch and Hoppy" know or work with a few different printing companies and/or have friends or associates in the business. (perhaps at the company that prints NH ballots). I personally don't believe this is the first time around on the "magic ballot buss" for these two. If the theory Bev stated here is true, developing it clearly takes a bit of time, money and experimentation. I don't think this was a dry run for B & H. I had the feeling their biggest problem was not knowing what to say when people showed up and started asking questions.
If it is not a deliberately provocative statement, it is imho a leap away from the facts that does what you are cautioning Bev against doing, doesn't it? We are all human and it is for sure a discipline to hew to the facts as known. But would like to clarify here your intent in posting this.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7813
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 7:08 am: |
|
I think the best comparison point we have, procedurally, is in financial auditing. The state does not have to pass laws on financial chain of custody. Instead, there are "Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures" (GAAP standards, currently they have added an initial to that I believe). Those who keep track of and report on financial activities are expected to follow GAAP (or whatever it is nowadays) standards. When they are audited, if they do not follow generally accepted practices, which are set up nationally, they are either formally chastised, fail the audit ("disclaim the results"), and/or are turned over to law enforcement.
Business owners who discover accounting irregularities may find it very difficult to get law enforcement to investigate, absent a confession or hard proof (and even then it can be difficult to get law enforcement to do anything about it). Business owners can, however, fire the bookkeeper.
We are faced with a more difficult task with elections. If you own a business, you have the absolute right to personally examine and/or take custody of the bookkeeping records and documents. As citizens, due to the current practices of secret chain of custody and secret vote counting, we cannot even examine the documents.
Our ability to turn anything over to law enforcement is even more restricted than business owners, since we don't have access to examine the documents and can't even require our public employees to answer questions. Further, "law enforcement" comes with a built-in conflict of interest, in that the local prosecutor and the state attorney general actually are assigned to represent the election officials we would be asking them to investigate.
As citizens, we still have the ability to muster public pressure to "fire" our public employees, though that becomes difficult or impossible in situations that have become corrupt. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4862
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 7:38 am: |
|
Christine, there have been a lot of discussions here about "standing". Laws vary widely from one state to another--but in most cases it is not so easy to get standing if you are not a candidate or meet a range of other tight criteria. (E.g., you might have to be a candidate and show that there is evidence that something not right happened that would have changed the result of the election. The CT law is something like that, from my familiarity with what happened a couple years ago in Middleton.)
Just the typical deadlines themselves present onerous obstacles to anyone who wants to question an election result. In some places you have to object within a certain number of days, or before a winner has been certified, etc. etc.--and it is often impossible to get sufficient evidence (or even hard to find out what the rules for filing a case would be) in time for the deadline. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 602
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 8:01 am: |
|
Ct law was changed in 2007 to give citizens standing to file complaints about election results.
Are you saying that outside of a hearing, in the complaint itself, evidence must be presented?
What I'm pointing to is this: the only situation I can deal with is a specific situation. Everything you say is a valid, cautionary, general statement. in the end, one must know the specifics to see what flavor of situation one is dealing with.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on April 1, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2163
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 8:22 am: |
|
Well, well, things do happen after I go home for the night, don't they?
I think I can summarize what is going on. Bev has been very careful to be very accurate about what she is saying. (She's good that way, especially in recent years. Early on? Maybe less so.)
This much is indisputable. The NH ballot chain of custody procedures, as practiced, (let's use a Beavis and Buttheadism) sucks. Removable seals or cardboard boxes, using Butch & Hoppy rather than state police, etc., etc., all indeed do present opportunities to do nefarious things.
Bev then asks, "What things that could matter are possible?"
Then Bev stops talking. Brilliant. Nothing excessive or "over the top".
However, there are numerous people all too willing to make the leap to the next step, even if Bev herself does not!
I'm sorry Catherine, but you've misstated the proper application of the scientific method. The "null hypothesis", that there is nothing unique about the population being examined, is always the default position. All hypotheses that state that there is something unique going on starts from the presumption of untruth. Then statistical tests are run on the subject sample versus a control group such as the t-statistic or a Chi-squared test, depending on what is being tested. Even after that statistic indicates a signficant difference in the populations, the system must be examined to see if A causes B, B causes A, or if A and B have a common cause C. Correlation does not imply causality. (The most frequent erroneous leap taken by amateurs.)
This last bit is why peer review of any scientific study is so important. The "new pairs of eyes" almost always see covariances that were missed by the original study and author.
What does this have to do with elections? Everything. Think Ohio 2004.
The analysis that frequently gets tossed around here, recklessly in my opinion, is "look, there's opportunity; look, elective office, due to the money it influences, is motive enough". That, in my opinion, is a fundamentally flawed analysis. It ignores the counter-motive, that screwing with an election is a sure way to a long prison term, if you get caught. And most people doing election prep are working right near the D.A.'s office, on the same computer network. I worked for 4 years with the expectation, whether it was literally true or not, that everything I ever did was being watched. The stakes in getting caught are ridiculously high.
Now I must surmise, due to his oft-stated and implied suspicion, that Brant has had some bad experences interfacing with public officials, and that's a shame. I've had a few of my own. (I have been divorced with a samll child involved, after all.)
But Brant's overly developed suspicion over elections is not without some considerable justification. Election officials, for the most part, have a horrible "tin ear". They don't believe what happened in Florida in 2000, or Ohio in 2004, or New Hampshire in January "can happen to us here". Well, they're wrong.
They don't have horrible chain of custody and documentation slip-ups because they're trying to enable fraud, even though they are unwittingly doing just that. Often, they have let all the "paranoia stuff" slip precisely because for 20-40 years, they've produced these papers and certificates, and affidavits, and seals, and procedures, only to have nobody ever look at it any more.
What they don't understand is that they are all exactly one close election that affects national power balance away from the rectal exam of their lives, and the "gloves will be off". People running elections in this day and age who don't appreciate that are "whistling past the graveyard" and deserve what is careening toward them. The "light in the tunnel" is an onrushing train. There are 67 county election offices in Pennsylvania that may need to take all this far more seriously.
They think all this security stuff is excessively expensive. Wait 'til they see how expensive it is to not do it.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4863
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 9:10 am: |
|
quote:All hypotheses that state that there is something unique going on starts from the presumption of untruth.
You are making assumptions that are not necessarily valid. My observations are based on up-close-and-personal knowledge of a range of scientific fields. I will not debate it further here because it's a distraction.
Let's agree to keep focused on elections. |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 149
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 9:24 am: |
|
People were concerned about NH before the recount process, though, when the initial and unofficial results appeared to be dramatically different from polling numbers conducted by news outlets, if my recollection serves.
so who is to say with any confidence that the paper ballots collected for transport for the recount were at that point in time the ones originally voted?
Who can verify the ballots were not altered before pickup and a potential cover-up of that began with improper packaging? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 605
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 9:56 am: |
|
Who can verify the ballots were not altered before pickup and a potential cover-up of that began with improper packaging?
No one can verify it, but verification is a whole separate issue. (only chance could be if e.g. the town had limited access to ballots storage area and an access ballot log that is signed/witnessed at each opening of the storage space).
All that needs to be done is to make the case that without proper ballot chain of custody and secure storage and transport, exactly what you suggest could be done, or other things that have been suggested. There are consequences to the lack of intact chain of custody.
The method you mention might be done or even might have been done on some limited basis. However, it would be likely that anyone doing so -- since their single act could not change the election -- would be part of a conspiracy, and we don't want to go there, do we?
Such a hypothesis would | | |
