TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of securing election systems. They highlight the risk of connecting these systems to the internet, as it can make them vulnerable to hacking. The speaker suggests that using paper ballots might be a smarter option, as they cannot be hacked like computer systems. By having something tangible to hold on to, like a piece of paper, we can ensure the integrity of the election process.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail and the word "Republican" written on both. They mention that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't go through all of them. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batches were fairly close. They highlight one image with a little bubble and mention that it matches another image with the same batch number. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots in the entire batch that were scanned multiple times.

The speaker raises concerns about the security of the tabulation machines and the process of transferring votes. They question whether the votes can be manipulated before being saved on a flash drive and if the flash drive can be swapped. They also mention the issue of trusting the county commissioner to not edit the contents of the flash drive. The speaker highlights the importance of the digital devices that hold cryptographic keys, emphasizing that if these keys are lost, the entire precinct's security is compromised. They give an example of a theft in Philadelphia before the election, where USB drives and a laptop were stolen from a key precinct, potentially impacting the legitimacy of the election results.

The speaker discusses real-time election data from SIDL in multiple states, highlighting oscillations and deletions in vote counts. They question the accuracy of projections and media calls, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the election process. The speaker also mentions legal challenges and concerns about the media influencing election outcomes.

In this video, there is a discussion about the number of votes cast in the election. It is mentioned that 14,150 ballots were cast on November 3rd, with an additional 598 provisional ballots. However, there seems to be a discrepancy between this number and the reported 59,000 people who voted on election day in Fulton County. The speakers question the math and suggest that it doesn't make sense for 45,000 people to have voted in the last two hours.

The speaker claims that real-time Edison data reveals election data manipulation. According to the speaker, Seidl receives raw election data directly from election officials in at least nine states. The speaker alleges that an additive process should show more votes, not deletions, in each interval report. However, a video of Edison reports allegedly shows pauses, oscillation, and deletions in total, in-person, and mail-in votes. The speaker claims this is the algorithm trying to figure out the math problem. The speaker points to North Carolina and Georgia counties as examples, noting Seidl directly contracts with Georgia. The speaker then plays a clip of someone discussing estimated vote percentages dropping, suggesting the reported results are not actual results. The speaker questions the calling of races with razor-thin margins, particularly Arizona, based on projections and alleged impossible data anomalies. The speaker asserts that historically, those counting votes called races, but now machines and news outlets do, deterring challenges.

In this video, the speaker talks about a voting system that had 36 million votes in one day. They emphasize the use of strong voter ID and identification, along with special paper ballots that have watermarks, making them difficult to forge. The speaker mentions that there were no disputes, and the winner was happy while the loser was unhappy. They highlight the benefits of same-day voting, paper ballots, and voter ID, stating that it saves a lot of money.

The transcript discusses concerns about election irregularities and voting machines. One speaker claims a voting machine subtracted votes, displaying a negative number. Another speaker states that such subtraction cannot occur accidentally and that someone consciously tried to steal votes. A third speaker says that when they press the button next to their name, another person's name appears on the display, questioning the accuracy of the vote count. Another speaker asserts that the machines are working correctly, recording votes accurately, and that the results will be accurate and reliable. One speaker expresses concern about private corporations controlling the voting system and calls for a formal debate about election irregularities, warning that the democracy and republic are at risk.

During the video, various speakers discuss their experiences at the TCF Center during the election. They mention issues such as lack of training, intimidation, and improper handling of ballots. Some speakers claim to have witnessed ballots being counted multiple times, while others mention the absence of Republican poll workers. There are also allegations of fraudulent activity, including the arrival of boxes of ballots in unsealed vans. The speakers express concerns about the lack of chain of custody verification and the potential impact on the integrity of the election process.

Linda McLaughlin and her colleagues present a data-focused argument alleging election fraud in Georgia, supported by multiple data analyses and demonstrations. - Linda McLaughlin introduces the data integrity group and states that data is numerical and non-partisan; she aims to remedy a lack of presented data in the discussion. - Dave Labou, a lead data scientist, explains that their analysis across precincts, counties, and the state identified over 40 data points of negative voting or vote switching across candidates totaling over 200,000 votes. Separately, machine learning algorithms used for anomaly detection in fraud detection flagged over 500 precincts with over 1,000,000 corresponding votes showing suspicious activity. He emphasizes that the process is scientific and not tied to political affiliations. - Labou uses a banking analogy to illustrate data integrity concerns: in hypothetical online banking, deposits or withdrawals being redirected or split would indicate fraudulent activity. He applies this concept to voting data, arguing that the voting system data aligns with the Secretary of State data used to certify results, yet exhibits patterns akin to transfers and reallocation not authorized by voters. - He states that the data are publicly available but require advanced programming to extract, parse, and join datasets. Their independent team has made all analysis, programs, and data public to allow replication and has produced videos to translate the analysis for broader understanding. - A key claim is that receiving over 90% in a precinct is a marker for fraud; in Fulton County, more than 150 precincts voted 90% or more for Biden, and in the statewide race (decided by less than 13,000 votes), these 150 Fulton precincts accounted for 152,000 Biden votes, described as a clear indicator of suspicious or fraudulent activity. - Labou and team present a series of visuals and explanations indicating explicit vote count switching, e.g., in Dodge County, where Trump’s votes appear to be subtracted while Biden’s counts increase in tandem with county updates, leading to a shift in totals that would not appear in state totals due to timing of updates. - They reference adjudication as the review of ballots flagged during scanning, noting that only ballots with a contest causing questions about how the computer reads them are adjudicated. - In DeKalb County, they assert it is statistically impossible for nine out of ten voters to vote for Biden in 94 precincts. - They describe a data flow in Fulton County: poll pad check-in, ballot image saved on the machine, SD cards transported to drop-off locations, escorted to a warehouse, run through Democracy Suite, exported to a Dominion server, and inserted into a SQL Server database before transmission to the Secretary of State and data aggregators. - A critical point is the vulnerability within the county update data-entry process: the square box detailing data-entry options in the election software allows updating vote batches, projecting batches, and generating new or temporary batches that can be injected directly into the tally; these options can be validated and published, enabling potential manipulation before server upload. - They pose questions about validation: whether two observers from both parties were present during SD card transmissions and drop-off transmissions, and whether there is a public log of exchanges at drop-off points. They challenge why elected officials have not pursued these questions about voting integrity. - Labou notes the process is machine-to-machine and, by design, should not decrement sums; any decrement requires a robust explanation, and their data suggest negative drops are inconsistent with normal sequential processes. Speaker 2 clarifies the data sources (CITL election night data and Edison/New York Times data) and asserts that the process from poll pads to secretary of state is machine-driven, with no human entry of totals, thereby removing human entry error as an explanation for observed negative changes. Speaker 4 adds emphasis on the validation and potential vulnerabilities in the software options used for election administration, underscoring the need for transparency and inquiry into the electoral process.

Ballots were allegedly found under a table in a video presented. The person who placed the table there is said to be the same person who cleared the area and claimed to stop counting. Four suitcases were seen being taken out from under the table. These separate ballots were counted when there were no witnesses present. The machines used can process 3,000 ballots per hour, and they were running for 2 hours. This raises concerns about the number of ballots processed without supervision. The video continues until around 1 a.m., showing the ongoing operation. The speaker asks if everyone has seen enough and proceeds to fast forward to 12:55 a.m.

In this video, the speakers discuss how the voting system can be easily manipulated using a USB drive. They explain that election officials are unaware of the potential misuse of USB drives in voting machines. The speakers demonstrate how a USB drive can be used to run a backdoor utility and manipulate the election results. They show that the screen does not display any indication of this manipulation. By inserting a specific USB drive, they are able to fix the flipped election results. The speakers emphasize the simplicity and affordability of USB drives, highlighting the vulnerability of the voting system.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail that appears on both batches, as well as the word "Republican" written in the same way. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have time to go through all of them. They highlight one specific image with a little bubble and mention the batch numbers that match. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots in the entire batch that have been scanned multiple times.

In the video, the speaker highlights several concerning issues related to the recent election. They mention the deletion of security logs, thousands of voters registering and voting after the deadline, individuals voting who were not on the voter rolls, and ballots being sent without evidence. The speaker also mentions a memo from Maricopa County instructing the use of Sharpies on election day, which raises concerns about ballot validity. They suggest that Republicans who waited to vote on election day may have been affected by this. Overall, the speaker raises questions about the integrity of the election process.

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of securing election systems. They highlight the risk of connecting these systems to the internet, as it can make them vulnerable to hacking. The speaker suggests that using paper ballots might be a smarter option, as they cannot be hacked like computer systems. By having something tangible to hold on to, like a piece of paper, it becomes more difficult for entities like Russia to interfere with the election process.

In this video, the speaker shows two batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail and the word "Republican" written on both. They mention that there are 62 images in total, but they only highlight a few. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batches were fairly close. They also mention specific image numbers that match in both batches. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots and the entire batch has been scanned multiple times.

In the video, the speaker describes their observations during a ballot verification process. They noticed a yellow banner indicating "low confidence" on some ballots, but the signatures being compared were illegible and didn't match. The speaker asked about it, but was told not to worry as it was a new program being tested. Later, there was a server outage, but the lights were still on. When the computers came back up, a person who previously had a yellow banner now had a green one indicating "high confidence." The speaker observed conversations among the screeners and heard one person say they were now working on high confidence instead of low confidence.

In the video, the speaker discusses discrepancies in the ballot recount process. They mention that while 782 ballots were initially counted, only 1,401 were recounted using machines. The speaker questions the disappearance of over 300 ballots between the counts. They also mention that military ballots are separated and not required to be mailed in, with 93% of them being submitted electronically. The speaker expresses concerns about verifying signatures on electronic and email ballots, as well as the lack of evidence linking military ballots to the individuals who cast them. They find it troubling that a majority of these military ballots went to Biden.

In this video, the speaker discusses the issue of Dominion machines and their accuracy in counting ballots. They question why in heavily Democratic areas, the mail-in ballots are always on target and within 1 mic, while in Republican areas, the mail-in ballots are often out of calibration. The speaker suggests that the machines allow human intervention, where a person can interpret the ballot if the machine is unsure. This raises concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the voting process.

- Speaker 0 asserts that mail-in ballots are corrupt and that a Republican-led effort will end mail-in ballots, including drafting an executive order by “the best lawyers in the country.” They claim the U.S. is nearly the only country using mail-in ballots and cite “massive fraud all over the place,” arguing that secure, paper-ballot elections with watermarking would produce faster results (claims that paper ballots provide results the same night, whereas machines allegedly take two weeks). - The conversation references a specific election night anomaly: a block of 138,000 votes (Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 confirm “138,000” votes) all reportedly voting for Biden with no Trump votes in that segment, described as inexplicable and not consistent with expected linear reporting. They note the timing as around 04:30–06:30 in the morning and suggest the results should not be linear given numerous counters reporting across states. They also complain that Nevada stopped counting mid-day, calling it inexplicable and illogical. - Speaker 4 claims a counting software glitch caused a 6,000-vote swing in a county, where ballots counted for Democrats were miscalculated for Republicans; she states that 47 counties use the same software. - Speaker 5 demonstrates concerns about voting-machine security: he shows how a bad actor could gain full admin access in under two minutes by opening a device, removing the card reader, and bypassing error messages, implying easy manipulation of tabulation in 18 states using the machine. - Speaker 6 describes observed ballot processing irregularities: a ballot-stuffing environment where ballots are stamped and filled in rapidly at the top of tickets, with security oversight present but gaps noted in workflow. - Speaker 7 discusses absentee/mail-in ballots with suspicions about sequence numbers: numbers appeared almost sequential, suggesting they could not be from mailed-in ballots, as mailed ballots typically arrive at different numbers; they note there was no date on envelopes and that some details would not be in poll books or the system, alleging irregularities in how ballots were handled. - Speaker 8 reports ongoing theft of duplicate ballots: a table for duplicates existed, but ballots were copied and redistributed at various tables, with duplicates not fully processed and ballots stashed under boxes; the speaker claims this occurred throughout the night. - Speaker 9 recounts a local media denial of fraud at the TCF center, contrasted with video obtained later showing a van delivering ballots after hours; she describes escort cars, a back-and-forth of ballots, and suggests the presence of unobserved ballots and a lack of witnesses during tabulation. She notes that the video was shared publicly and led to the suspension of a social-media account. - Speaker 10 provides a timeline from October 21, detailing a driver delivering mail-in ballots from New York to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and then to Lancaster, with the driver faced hours of waiting, lack of slips, and unclear purpose for moving the load; the driver states that this was the only time he transported mail-in ballots and expresses a belief in the importance of honest elections for Americans.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with duplicate ballots. They point out specific similarities, such as a tail and the word "Republican" written on both. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't go through all of them. They highlight the occurrence of duplicate ballots and mention the batch numbers and image numbers that match. The conclusion is that the entire batch was scanned multiple times.

In this video, the speaker discusses the potential illegal votes in the 2020 election. They highlight the significant increase in mail-in ballots compared to previous years. They point out that only a small percentage of these ballots were rejected, suggesting a lack of proper verification. The speaker emphasizes the scale of the issue and expresses concern over the negligence in checking the legitimacy of the ballots.

The speaker claims that a video shows a van dropping off boxes of ballots at the TCF center. They put the video on their website and tweeted about it, resulting in the suspension of their Twitter account. The video shows a lead car and an escort car arriving, with people inside adding something each time. The van enters twice. However, a local reporter who was present all night denies any fraud or wrongdoing.

The video discusses evidence of foreign interference in the election, showing how votes were manipulated and which computers were involved. The speakers highlight the importance of cybersecurity experts uncovering the attacks in real-time, preventing potential election manipulation. They express gratitude for the proof of interference and emphasize the significance of having this information. The speakers marvel at the detailed documentation and consider it a miracle to have such insight into the attacks.

The speaker discusses how the vote total may have been altered through the HAMMER program and ScoreCard software, affecting the election outcome. They mention a computer glitch in Michigan that favored President Trump, suggesting similar issues in other states. They question the sudden appearance of thousands of ballots for Biden, deeming it statistically improbable.