TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 1 is interviewing Speaker 0 because Speaker 1 believes Speaker 0 is a musician. Speaker 0 says they are not a musician, but that they "make music." Speaker 0 also says they act and are a TV star. Speaker 1 clarifies they said "musician," not "magician," and Speaker 0 responds that they don't "think," they "know." Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to state for the record that they don't think they are a musician, and Speaker 0 says "not none of that." Speaker 1 points out that Speaker 0 then said they "do music," implying they are a musician, but Speaker 0 insists they are not.

Who determined the number 420,987,987 regarding failed signatures from the 2020 election? That figure comes from analyzing a quarter of the 1,900,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County. We had 150 trained workers review the envelopes based on the secretary of state's guidelines, examining each voter record individually. After analyzing 25% of the ballots, we extrapolated the data to arrive at the final number. It's important to note that this analysis only pertains to Maricopa County, which had over 2 million ballots in total, with around 1.9 million being mail-in votes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Proceed.

A respected and powerful Wall Street businessman wouldn't be suspected of fraud unless you knew the math. The speaker, who has taken calculus, linear algebra, and statistics courses, claims it took him five minutes to recognize the fraud. He then spent almost four hours using mathematical modeling to prove it.

Eric Spakine, a forensic chemist and document analyst with nearly 30 years of experience, presents his background. He has worked on various election cases, examining documents, computers, fingerprints, and voting systems. Trained by his father, a retired Chief Document Analyst for the Michigan State Police, and Richard Burnell, a retired deputy director of the National ATF Laboratory, Eric specializes in question documents, paper, and ink. He works at a private consulting firm in Fort Lauderdale, affiliated with a main office in Michigan. With a focus on documents, inks, and related data, Eric is ready to begin his presentation.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, scanner 5,162, batch 234, image 59, and scanner 5,162, batch 235, image 19. They point out similarities between the two batches, such as the same little tail on a vote and the word "Republican" written in the same way. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they haven't gone through all of them yet. They don't know the exact numbers of the total batches, but they believe that the duplicates occurred. The speaker concludes that the entire batch of ballots has been scanned multiple times.

The speaker discusses the issue of inspecting ballots for signatures. They mention that the Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from looking through a ballot to verify a signature. They also point out that many ballots have two different patterns of the letter "s" written for the signature, even though some of them don't even have an "s" in the voter's name. They state that out of the 104,820 ballots reviewed, 20,232 had mismatched signatures, which accounts for 20% of the total.

Speaker 0 questions why someone would change their signature after 30 years. They mention that the person has now changed their signature on a website, and wonders if it is strange.

An expert was asked their opinion on the validity of election numbers certified by the secretary of state and the governor. The expert stated that if they were an executive at a publicly traded company, they would never sign off on those numbers, citing the risk of jail time and financial penalties from lawsuits. They concluded that they would never have certified the results and would have resigned instead.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

There are two batches of votes being examined. The speaker points out that there are identical markings on different ballots, suggesting duplication. They show examples of the same markings and even a dot in the same spot. The speaker mentions having a total of 62 images, but didn't go through all of them. The numbers of the batches are not remembered, but it is clear that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.

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.

The expert testified about inserting pixels into an image, but the program used is questioned. The image's original state is the focus, with technical issues raised. The opposing side challenges the basis of the technical claims made, emphasizing the common use of such technology in everyday life.

The speaker was contacted to assist with examining ballots during the audit in Maricopa County. However, they were only able to examine photographs of the ballots, not the actual ballots themselves. They noticed that many of the ballots had a counterfeit protection system (CPS) code, but the photographs were not clear enough to determine what the code said. The CPS code is a series of yellow dots that can determine when and where a document was printed. It is visible to a trained eye or with magnification, but not to the naked eye. The code can provide information about the machine and date of printing. However, without access to the actual ballots, the speaker cannot draw any conclusions.

I am Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with experience in over 2,000 cases worldwide. I specialize in examining questioned documents for authenticity, alterations, and ink age. I was called to Arizona to analyze election-related printing processes, machine copied marks, and CPS code with my team.

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.

The declarants' testimony mentioned by counsel for Lake is unclear as they relied on their memory and did not have the exact details of the signatures they rejected. The signature review process has multiple levels, allowing voters to cure their signatures. The initial reviewer's rejection does not guarantee that the signatures will be deemed inconsistent or not cured. Signature determinations are subjective, varying from person to person. Level 2 and 3 reviewers, with more experience and training, make their own determinations based on additional signatures. Ultimately, the law entrusts this process to the recorder, unless exceptional circumstances arise.

Signature verification has been a controversial topic in Maricopa County, often avoided in discussions. This was evident during the Arizona audit, where the county firmly opposed any scrutiny of signatures. The reluctance to examine these signatures suggests that there are discrepancies, as they do not match.

Speaker 0 presents text messages as authentic and not fabricated, stating that they are real and showing the date and time on their phone to prove it. They emphasize, “These are not made up text messages,” and insist the messages are real, noting they looked them up on their phone and that the date and time slide. They reference the phrase “Iron sharpens iron” and describe it as part of a dominance partnership. They explain that “Each hand washes the other” and that this is what Christ talked about as true partnership—reliant yet separate. They say that there is struggle and disagreement, but each side gets stronger and sharper because of the other, and that this is how they are describing their partnership. They reiterate that the messages are real and dismiss the idea of fabrication as “absolute nonsense.” They question what the point would be of making up messages, asking, “What would be the point of that?” Earlier in the message, they state they were very clear at the beginning of the entire thing: “no fakeness and no gayness.” They mention a hypothetical involving Charlie: if you didn’t get along with Charlie, you shouldn’t think you could simply drop a million dollars and rewrite history. They acknowledge that money might exist in such a situation, but assert that truth is on their side: “We have truth. That’s what’s on our side.” Overall, the speaker uses the presented text messages to illustrate a partnership described as mutual strengthening through interdependence, framed within a religious concept of true partnership. They underscore the authenticity of the messages, reject claims of fabrication, and contrast money with truth in their stance.

In this video, the speaker presents an example comparing two signatures. On the left is the signature on a valid envelope, while on the right is the signature on a voter registration card. The speaker points out that the signature on the envelope was accepted without being verified. Then, the speaker asks the audience to determine whether the signatures pass or fail.

I believe it was Florence who said that none of us think our signatures are consistent enough over time, especially since getting our driver's licenses. While some senators have shown interest in the process, there seems to be a lack of media attention and interest from the minority party.

Maricopa County has been resistant to discussing signature verification during the Arizona audit because the signatures don't match.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are familiar with the acronym GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). Speaker 1 says they became familiar with it in accounting 101 at Wharton. Speaker 0 asks what they were taught about GAAP, and Speaker 1 says they were taught that it is generally accepted. Speaker 0 asks if there is anything else, and Speaker 1 says that's all they remember. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has told them everything they know about GAAP, and Speaker 1 says basically yes. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been employed in a position that required them to apply GAAP, and Speaker 1 says no, not that they are aware of.

Speaker 0 states that whatever a machine tabulates is what it tabulates, and their hand-marked ballot remains the same. Speaker 1 claims ballot images were changed, and that's reflected in the totals, referencing report number 3. Speaker 0 says they've read the reports. Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 knows what they're saying is true. Speaker 1 says their life is on the line. Speaker 0 denies believing Speaker 1 and finds it insulting to have that put on the record. Speaker 1 apologizes, stating that wasn't their intent.

The speaker discusses the discrepancies in the date stamps and other elements of Barack Obama's birth certificate. They explain that the stamps on the document do not match exactly, indicating that it may be a forgery. They conducted extensive investigations and consulted forensic experts who concluded that the birth certificate is fraudulent. The speaker also mentions their attempts to validate the document with the state of Hawaii and Kapiolani Medical Center, but they were met with resistance. They emphasize the need for thorough vetting of documents presented by public officials and call for standardization of security paper for birth certificates.