I'm having a difficult time justifying two different "invisible" wavelengths. Are there two different watermarks? What would UVA reveal that UVB would not and vise versa?
I look forward to finding out why the UV spectrum is being used in this audit.
Have an increasing number of people that I know that are directly involved with this audit.
In fact I was offered a position for $25 an hour working on it today however I have a weed felony from about 10 years ago so I'm not even eligible to vote and I told them to check and make sure that's not going to be an issue before I accept the job because it does include a background check.
I make a significant amount more than that but I would gladly sit there for minimum wage and count ballots if they let me
You should try and get that felony expunged. In my state, once you have finished your sentence and prob parole, you get your voting rights back, which is the way it should be. You shouldn't lost that right for the rest of your life unless you are in prison or on prob/parole for that time.
Former forensics guy here.
While I've always questioned the watermarks story, there are a lot of pen inks that fluoresce or reflect UV light differently than printer ink or toner.
It's one technique to figure out what bubbles are printed vs. filled by hand, if marks were made by different pens on the same ballot, things like that. A quick UV pass looking for bright visual anomalies is a pretty effective triage technique, even if there are no watermarks embedded in the paper.
I have a vague memory of Dr Steve Pieczenik speaking about the watermarks shortly after the election. His statement was that the watermarks on the legitimate ballots were made using a radioactive ink, and were thereby easily identified. It sounded strange at the time, which is the reason it stuck in my mind. But after looking up the definition of fluorescence just now, his statement makes more sense:
fluo·res·cence: the visible or invisible radiation emitted by certain substances as a result of incident radiation of a shorter wavelength such as X-rays or ultraviolet light.
I'm having a difficult time justifying two different "invisible" wavelengths. Are there two different watermarks? What would UVA reveal that UVB would not and vise versa?
I look forward to finding out why the UV spectrum is being used in this audit.
Have an increasing number of people that I know that are directly involved with this audit.
In fact I was offered a position for $25 an hour working on it today however I have a weed felony from about 10 years ago so I'm not even eligible to vote and I told them to check and make sure that's not going to be an issue before I accept the job because it does include a background check.
I make a significant amount more than that but I would gladly sit there for minimum wage and count ballots if they let me
You should try and get that felony expunged. In my state, once you have finished your sentence and prob parole, you get your voting rights back, which is the way it should be. You shouldn't lost that right for the rest of your life unless you are in prison or on prob/parole for that time.
They are hanging $10k in "restitution" over my head for ME having drugs. As an addict I was the victims not the state.
Not for the amount that I had I can't.
Now that it's legal this might be easier to overcome. Colorado eventually tossed all old cases, I think.
Former forensics guy here. While I've always questioned the watermarks story, there are a lot of pen inks that fluoresce or reflect UV light differently than printer ink or toner.
It's one technique to figure out what bubbles are printed vs. filled by hand, if marks were made by different pens on the same ballot, things like that. A quick UV pass looking for bright visual anomalies is a pretty effective triage technique, even if there are no watermarks embedded in the paper.
I have a vague memory of Dr Steve Pieczenik speaking about the watermarks shortly after the election. His statement was that the watermarks on the legitimate ballots were made using a radioactive ink, and were thereby easily identified. It sounded strange at the time, which is the reason it stuck in my mind. But after looking up the definition of fluorescence just now, his statement makes more sense:
fluo·res·cence: the visible or invisible radiation emitted by certain substances as a result of incident radiation of a shorter wavelength such as X-rays or ultraviolet light.
I think you nailed it.