thanks.
So Dr Shiva trashed Ninjas, Jovan, Bobby Pitton, Mike Lindell and DJT and then promoted his own movement as the solution?
I'm not sure I agree with everything he said in his debunking effort.
If a batch label says 199 ballots, I would expect 199 ballots.
Dr Shiva says this is wrong because the ballots are counted 0-199 which means there are 200 ballots.
I have a lot of respect for Dr Shiva but this looked more like an effort to trash the findings and has raised my suspicions that even with the audit there was foul play, I just don't know who to believe.
In any case it doesn't look good.
It is very common to count from 0 in programming. And the ballots were most likely processed digitally. So 0-199 accounting 200 ballots is perfectly reasonable and expectable.
I understand programming as I worked in the software industry for many years.
However, here I am referencing the Batch Modification Report which has a box labelled # BAL.
Even if this was a machine count, the first ballot that passes through that machine will be ballot 1 and not ballot 0. This is how software is configured for counting functions. This is because "0" itself is a valid integer denoting "No ballots".
Hence # BAL value should equal the actual number of ballots, therefore I disagree with Dr Shiva's statement on this.
Using his logic in this "0" would indicate 1 ballot.
https://conservative-daily.com/cd-livestream/election-fraud-roundtable-dr-shiva-and-david-clements_0
thanks. So Dr Shiva trashed Ninjas, Jovan, Bobby Pitton, Mike Lindell and DJT and then promoted his own movement as the solution? I'm not sure I agree with everything he said in his debunking effort. If a batch label says 199 ballots, I would expect 199 ballots. Dr Shiva says this is wrong because the ballots are counted 0-199 which means there are 200 ballots. I have a lot of respect for Dr Shiva but this looked more like an effort to trash the findings and has raised my suspicions that even with the audit there was foul play, I just don't know who to believe. In any case it doesn't look good.
It is very common to count from 0 in programming. And the ballots were most likely processed digitally. So 0-199 accounting 200 ballots is perfectly reasonable and expectable.
I understand programming as I worked in the software industry for many years. However, here I am referencing the Batch Modification Report which has a box labelled # BAL. Even if this was a machine count, the first ballot that passes through that machine will be ballot 1 and not ballot 0. This is how software is configured for counting functions. This is because "0" itself is a valid integer denoting "No ballots". Hence # BAL value should equal the actual number of ballots, therefore I disagree with Dr Shiva's statement on this. Using his logic in this "0" would indicate 1 ballot.