Officials said evidence of systemic fraud has already started to show
(media.greatawakening.win)
? B O O M ! ?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (104)
sorted by:
Who is to say they didn't?
There was a lot of time before the audits began. One of the theories floating around is they destroyed extremely fabricated ballots a long time ago, and use this time to print ballots that were cleaner and would less likely fail a scrutiny test.
That is why the blacklights are being used. I don't know for sure if they are checking for water marks, but they are definitely checking for something, most likely folds or fingerprints.
That is why the testing appears to be extremely thorough, they look like they are photographing every single ballot and tagging results to them.
I originally thought they were looking for fingerprints (as a printed stack would have few or none), but saw the auditors were not wearing gloves.
We don't know for sure what the black lights are testing. But they are looking for "something" when using them.
Noticed that too
I saw a post on Gab that they're using them to look for oils left by human handling.
Black lights can also show differences in the paper. One more simple way to tell a counterfeit ballot from a real one - the paper itself. There should be a record of a legitimate printing company and the type of paper they used for printing ballots. So, unless the counterfeit ballots from China used the exact same paper, oops. The same holds true for inks. These are actually pretty ingenious and low tech ways to verify a real ballot from a counterfeit. The Dems are not that smart. Watermarks would be great, but in the end not necessary.