My Blue Light Ballot UPDATE!!!!
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (77)
sorted by:
This is for those who were following this post here: https://greatawakening.win/p/12iNQ4Y9Dz/i-found-my-official-ballot--im-o/
UPDATE Sorry for the delay but I have a valid reason. So I originally bought the commenter suggested UV-B tube light from Petsmart that gave very little detail to my ballot. With the exception of the fact that lettering and the actual texture of the paper “popped” a little bit more. Not happy with that lackluster result I proceeded to drive all around L.A. looking for black lights... here’s the thing, you’d think with a city this size you’d find black lights on every street corner... turns out they are either a very popular item or not popular enough to warrant stocking the shelves with them. Anyway, I finally found a “urine detecting” light (Petco) that a fren in the comments had suggested. Although it basically yielded the same results as the first light - no definitive, eye-popping mark on the paper BUT - and I think this has to do with the “off the shelfness” of the bulbs I’m using - the urine light every so often would hit the paper in a way that showed what I could only describe as white looking markings you might get from a Japanese calligraphy brush. Just random looking brush strokes on the paper itself that looked almost like stretch marks you’d see on someone’s skin that I couldn’t capture as much as I tried with my iPhone. I’m positive if I had the correct light these marking would be easily seen by the naked eye.
All that said, there is most definitely ultra-tiny black specks all over the paper that are not in the fiber itself but are printed on the surface. These “specks” were alluded to back in November when everyone was speculating about “hidden” identification markings on the ballots. I don’t think these specks are what those audit workers are looking at.
I’m heading out tomorrow to get a straight-up novelty black light from Spencer’s Gifts in a mall not too far from where I live just to see if those purple looking poster black lights have better luck.
One commenter has suggested going to a military supply store to try out night vision gear, here’s my only doubt about that tech, the people doing the audit in Arizona are only very briefly putting the ballots inside those black boxes and they aren’t wearing any goggles or gear to help look at the ballots. Is there night vision tech that doesn’t need the aid of goggles but can be seen with the naked eye? If the Spencer’s light I buy tomorrow doesn’t do anything I’ll go to the nearest Army surplus store and hopefully I won’t be laughed out of the building with my strange request.
About the photo, the blue light is from the urine light from Petco. The other bulbs (seen in the lower right hand corner) put out a color that looked white like a standard light bulb.
I know that in other applications (industrial food service) patterned dot markings are used to identify a specific machine that printed a label. Basically they're the printer's signature.
yes, every machine produces a unique forensic signature, printers, scanners etc, even retail grade machines, it was a legal requirement introduced with the technology, it was felt that the superior quality of the printouts made it too easy to use in fraud and a unique origin identifier was required.
A Machine Identification Code (MIC), also known as printer steganography, yellow dots, tracking dots or secret dots, is a digital watermark which certain color laser printers and copiers leave on every single printed page, allowing identification of the device with which a document was printed and giving clues to the originator. Developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s, its existence became public only in 2004. In 2018, scientists developed privacy software to anonymize prints in order to support whistleblowers publishing their work.[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
...so could this help identity ballots from China?
if you know how to read the marks on the authentic ballots,
you can spot illegal copies, they will have a different mark.
and modest, too.
5head
A true "black light" doesn't look like it is even turned on, because the ultraviolet light is not visible to the human eye. Those cheap "black light" bulbs have minimal UV, so until you get a strong, true, UV source, you may not be able to see any significant marks that are intended to only be visible under UV light.
In the live audit feed the box does glow blue on camera.
The camera see light frequencies better than your eyes.
Heh. No shit. :p My home system consists of 5 cameras, and I have 73 at work. I use IR outside. It just looks like normal UV blacklight light to me. But I 100% respect your right to your own opinion. :) Hopefully we will find out one day soon!
True, point your remote control at your camera with the image on!
Night vision is infrared, the complete opposite side of the spectrum from UV.
If that yields no results, then at least make a shitpost where your blacklight reveals a crude dick drawing or "we're gonna win yuge" or something similar.
Bleach works for this
I remember people here calling the watermarks fake.
It's not showing a watermark. It wasn't people calling regular watermarks "fake". It was the QFS blockchain ones.
Everything with the election is considered Vital Infrastructure. Pelosi passed a bill to stop the Russians from helping Trump. Trump used the money to have the mail in ballots marked as the controlled item that they are.
Boomerang strikes again!
It’s visible. It’s my stupid iPhone not playing nice with the brightness of that light. Although the “poppy flower” is much lighter than all the other printing on the ballot. It’s not hidden whatsoever, but it does become darker when the blue light hits it.
The specks are definitely more pronounced with the blue light vs natural light with the naked eye. Looking at the paper in the daylight they are almost invisible.
Ha! Yeah, I’m starting to think the lights they are using at the audit aren’t store bought lights.
I’m not giving up, I’m looking for other UV light options.
I heard a theory the paper was marked with low grade urainum that would flouress with the correct light frequency. You might be right and those bulbs are not available to average consumer.
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGw6fXprV9U
Awesome effort! Thanks so much for doing this.
Yes, it’s visible to the naked eye but strangely becomes darker when the light is shown on it.
Yeah, sorry, I didn’t even know there was anything on the back of the ballot until after I made that post.
Great job! Wow! Haven’t seen a Spencer’s in forever!! Continued good luck!!
Yeah, I haven’t been in one since the 80s. If they don’t have the bulb it’s off to Hot Topic!
April.showers.....
Holy moly they bring May Flowers
Op delivered! Very interesting. I'm assuming that flower is the Cali state flower?
Yes, the “official” ballot watermark - all states had these apparently - California’s was the state flower, the California Poppy.
The raw paper that gets sent out is produced by the same company's that make paper money. Do you know ALL of the security features JUST in the paper
We appreciate the work and sharing of your findings! This should have been done by anons much earlier in the game (I include myself in missing the opportunity and hang my head in shame).
So we can (tentatively) conclude that at least CA ballots are not watermarked, at least in a conventional sense? Not like CA is a state where the outcome was really in doubt, I’d very much like to see FL, MI, WI, OH, PA, GA, NV, NC, etc ballot subjected to same tests...
Hopefully a fren or two from those states had the foresight you did and can perform additional forensics!
Thanks. Yeah, I don't know why anyone didn't do this back in November when there was all that discussion of block-chain technology/watermarks printed on the ballots.
I believe there is something hidden on all the "real" ballots in every state for security purposes. For example, what if the election were to come down to just one state and the only way to determine the outcome would not just be a recount but a forensic audit. I think the issue is that they are using a light source that isn't readily available "off the shelf" - and for good reason.
And I agree we need more frens digging on this. I can't be the only one that held onto my ballot.
So after the election, there was a thread on theDonald.win, where someone was convinced they found colored dots printed on the paper that were visible only with a special (not UV) light. I think the dots were orange and would look random, except they were on multiple ballots.
The Scarlett Pimpernell!
Lol??
I applaud your efforts, may I ask how you obtained that ballot? Was it unsolicited or did you request it?
Thanks, the ballot was mailed to everyone in California but we had the option to vote in person. I didn't take my ballot to the polling place because they also sent a "sample" ballot - the standard booklet that you can mark with your choices to use as a guide. I was prepared to tell them I lost/never received a mail-in ballot, but they never asked, so now I have a collectable!
So... do my eyes and desires deceive me, or am I actually looking at a watermark on the ballot?
Sorry, it's a watermark that is visible to the naked eye and iPhone camera reacted weirdly to the way the light was shinning on the paper so it's giving the illusion that it's hidden. It's not a hidden watermark, and I'm not trying to present it as such.
The UV lights could be narrow spectrum, tuned to a specific, tight frequency range to look for a watermark of ink tuned to the same frequency. Or the UV light could be used to detect creases as it is done in stamp collecting:
https://www.safepub.com/stamp-collecting-supplies/stamp-accessories-tools/ultraviolet-uv-lamps
https://michaelkay.co.uk/ultra-violet-lamps/which-ultra-violet-wavelength-do-i-need.htm
Plot Twist: what if this "mail in" ballot is a fake?
A fighter for justice!
Technically it's the watermark, but sadly it isn't hidden. It's just printed at a different resolution that is still visible to the naked eye. That stupid blue "urine" light and my iPhone had a fight and that's the image I was able to capture. I believe there is a watermark or markings that we cannot see with off the shelf light technology.
So that flower isn’t the watermark? Visible with naked eye? No real watermarks?
Yes, it's the actual watermark.
Nerd-out links about California’s ballot process.
Mentions Dominion multiple times and briefly talks about the watermark:
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2020/august/20169sl.pdf
Statement about the watermark specifically:
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2020/august/20167sl.pdf
California Secretary of State Ballot Printing guide:
https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-regulations/elections/ballot-printing
Interesting link covering all states and the ballot “paper trail”:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voting-system-paper-trail-requirements.aspx
I 100% believe that the states that had paper ballots mailed out had guidance on how to print watermarks on their ballots. This was a false illusion to those in charge of rigging the election. They think to themselves something along the lines of: “look how easy this is, they want a simple watermark printed a certain percentage…” but not knowing that they’ve been supplied by the good guys with ballot paper that has a very undetectable watermark or security feature already on the paper.
In addition; those states are probably supplied with a very precise amount of paper for ballots and back-up ballots based on census information. But they lose control of the fact that they can’t force people to vote so a good majority of those mailed-out ballots won’t be returned. Sure, they could use the reserve back-up ballots to perpetrate their fraud but that has custody issues that would require too much effort. So off to the printing press they go manufacturing fake ballots to the specs mandated by the respective states. Or so they think…
Oops! I’m sure they tried forensics much like I did yesterday but they failed to detect the truly hidden watermark/block-chain. Boom!
“These people are stupid” - Q
Oh snap!!!
Do you have access to a microscope?
Would be interesting to see what one of those specs are(RFID is a definitive possibility)...
Word of caution, would NOT try to illuminate the paper with UV when examining it under an direct optical microscope(a USB microscope where you look at a screen would obviously be a non issue)...