He posted a lot of hype leading up to this, I had faith, but there was nothing about the paper? Did I miss something?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
One of the 9/24 presenters mentioned in his presentation that there wasn't any official standardized paper used for printing ballots in the 2020 election (he said there were like 10 kinds of paper used). So maybe Jovan's paper analysis info would be discredited to some degree based on the many types of legitimate paper used on ballots.
I realize that "computer generated" filling in ballot ovals vs. pressure on paper from a human filling in ballot ovals is totally valid analysis, but maybe it would be watered down "evidence" since there's 10 kinds of ballot paper in the mix to kinda muck things up. Just my $.02 on why Jovan may have been left out of this presentation.
The giant gaping hole in the evidence that I WANTED to see and hear screamed from the rooftops was all the stolen / flipped / injected votes via hacks - provable with IP addresses, country of origin, and time/date stamped with # of votes removed / injected / flipped - from the data packets. That wasn't part of the presentation at all today. :-(
I thought that was Doug Logan, in reference to the (mostly) military absentee ballots. IIRC there were only like 850 or so in that class of ballot, each of the other classes were uniform.
I was referring to the mention of there being no uniform specific standardized ballot paper used in the AZ election - that was stated during one of the 9/24 presentations (sorry I don't remember which speaker it was who said that).