reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mark Cook, an election cybersecurity subject matter expert in threat assessment and common sense mitigation, introduces himself: he’s been working on elections nonstop for about six years and has forty years of IT industry experience. He states that he has evidence he hopes to show that there are backdoors built into electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes. He references a demonstration clip, saying, “backdoors built in to electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes,” and notes that the testing labs miss this, leaving the systems blindly certified and supposedly safe. He highlights audio he believes was clipped from a recording, insisting that the content shows voting systems are vulnerable: “that allow flipping, changing of votes,” and that testing labs are blind to these issues. He says, “I can demonstrate this to you even while I'm still here in this building.” Cook argues that there is a lack of government transparency, claiming, “the testing labs all miss this, then they're blindly certified, and then we're told, it's shut down our throats, that everything is safe and secure.” He describes the entire system as “built on a pyramid of lies,” and asserts that it must be stopped. He offers to educate and show problems, insisting he can do so, but emphasizes the need for a common-sense approach. He emphasizes practicality and accessibility, arguing that the problem can be solved with straightforward methods: “We're literally filling dots out on paper. We're counting the dots, adding the dots up, and whoever has the most dots wins.” He calls for a change that keeps elections under the control of the people and avoids simply “kicking the can down the road.” He reiterates that the resolution is not complicated and frames the solution as a simple, transparent counting method using paper records rather than electronic manipulation. In summary, Cook asserts the existence of covert backdoors in electronic voting systems, criticizes testing labs for blindly certifying these systems, condemns what he calls a “pyramid of lies,” and advocates a return to a basic, paper-driven, dot-counting approach where the person with the most dots wins, to restore public control over elections. He offers to provide demonstrations and education to support this view.

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 Microsoft certified security expert provided evidence of a Dominion vote counting machine in a swing state with a wireless card connected to a thermostat's wireless network. The IP address traced back to a city in China, linked to a Chinese corporation involved in questionable dealings with American politicians. There is a thick binder of documented evidence showing foreign access and interference in the election, including public statements from the FBI and DHS warning about Iran's involvement. The evidence is undeniable, and those questioning it should argue with the FBI and DHS. The photographs and IPs provide conclusive proof of foreign interference in the voting systems.

Hans Von Spokowski: I'm Hans Von Spokowski with the Heritage Foundation. I'm Jason Sneed with the Honest Elections Project. Trent Englund: I'm Trent Englund with Save Our States. Hans Von Spokowski: And we have been working hard to guarantee that we have honest and fair elections. Some people Trent Englund: want to radically change elections with a new confusing process called ranked choice voting, which should really be called rigged choice voting because it disenfranchises voters and can lead to political activists trying to game the system to allow marginal candidates to win elections. Instead of just voting for one candidate, their top choice in a race, voters are forced to rank all the candidates from their first choice to their last choice. Then those preference votes are counted and if no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, officials begin rounds of elimination. Candidates with the least support are eliminated and the voters who selected that candidate as their number one choice or top choice automatically have their votes changed to their second choice and another round of vote tabulation occurs. This process continues until one of the candidates ends up with a majority, but the winning candidate may be the second, third, fourth, or even last choice of most of the voters who initially cast ballots. Hans Von Spokowski: In a recent local California school board election using ranked choice voting, that's exactly what happened. But because ranked choice voting is so complex, nobody caught the mistake and the wrong winner was certified and installed in office after multiple rounds of vote counting. It took an outside audit to finally uncover the truth, and now the real winner has to sue to be recognized. That's just one problem with ranked choice voting. It also takes more time for voters to rank all of the candidates in a race and to fill out their ballots. Trent Englund: That means longer lines to polls. The ballots themselves are more complicated to fill out, creating more room for errors and mistakes that may get mail in ballots thrown out. It requires more complicated and expensive voting equipment and puts more strain on poll workers who have to manage a much more complicated election system. Jason Sneed: There's evidence that it discourages people from voting in the first place. And if voters don't rank all of the candidates in an election, their ballots run the risk of being thrown out and not counted in later rounds of vote tabulation. It took eight rounds of vote tabulation in the New York City mayor's race in 2021 over two weeks before the winner was determined. But the votes of more than 140,000 voters were thrown out and not included in the final count because they hadn't ranked all of the candidates in that race. It's no wonder then that some places have tried ranked choice voting only to repeal it. Trent Englund: Aspen, Colorado experimented with ranked choice voting in 2009, then voted overwhelmingly to get rid of it after only a single election. Voters in Alaska are organizing a campaign to repeal ranked choice voting there, which barely passed in a referendum election in the first place. And in Utah, where state lawmakers have allowed cities to experiment with ranked choice voting, many are expressing serious concerns that ranked choice voting is a bad process that doesn't deliver on its promises and implements a confusing, chaotic voting system. Hans Von Spokowski: Voters want elections to be easier, more secure, and more transparent. Trent Englund: Ranked choice voting makes voting harder and is the wrong choice for our elections. Ranked choice voting is a solution in search of a problem.

Catherine Engelbrecht and Greg Phillips from Truth to Vote have done an incredible job. They have uncovered more fake votes than anyone in the country. They have evidence on tape, and we appreciate their hard work. We need to prepare and keep those tapes handy because we will all need them as a country. Thank you for your fantastic and patriotic work.

Speaker 0: The election was stolen. A graph shows people who worked for ES&S, Hart, Dominion Voting Systems, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic, recycling through companies. People who worked at Dominion Voting Systems are entering the political sphere and taking over election offices; one county in Texas, after hiring someone who worked for Dominion, went blue for the first time. The speaker walks through information: Dominion using “Serbian technology with Chinese characteristics.” Huawei Bank is involved; there’s no public board saying Bank of China funds anything, but research on Roaming Networks—a relatively unknown Serbian company until 2013—shows it signed a value-added contract with Huawei Bank. Huawei is “the Bank of China.” Roaming Networks built ICT infrastructure and data centers in Serbia, with owner Nenad Kovac identified as the enterprise partner. Some Roaming Networks information may come off their site after this presentation. Dominion Voting Systems has a corporate office in Serbia; a screenshot of the office and a developer on their site is noted. A Serbian legislative leader said, “I know Dominion Voting Systems back in November. They have an office here.” Dominion started rapidly removing Serbian coders from their site/LinkedIn. Code is built in Serbia for a system used in the United States, using infrastructure funded by China, not just China but the Bank of China. A slide discusses Dominion’s enterprise partnership with Huawei, added to the restricted list on 05/16/2019. Roaming Networks references show Dominion Voting Systems using a pure flash storage solution in Dominion’s data center. A photo of Sacramento shows Dominion hardware coming from China, with a bill of lading from a Chinese supplier to Dominion’s McKinney, Texas office. Testing and approval of Dominion hardware show similarities with Smartmatic; the same hardware with different branding. They claim a “tail” behind the scenes—evidence of connections among ES&S, Hart, Dominion, ClearBallot, Smartmatic, with people cycling through these companies. People who once worked at Dominion are now entering election offices; in Texas, a county that hired a former Dominion employee “went blue” by accident with ES&S involved. The speaker calls out Gina Griswold for commenting on Tina Peters and Mesa, and Matt Crane’s role as Arapahoe County clerk and recorder, now head of the County Clerks Association; Crane’s wife previously worked for Dominion and Sequoia Voting Systems. The speaker asserts a public breach of trust requires an audit; if there’s nothing to hide, audits should restore trust. They argue, whether Dominion is the bad actor or not, removal of logs, altering code, and a “trusted build” are problematic, and emphasize the need for audits and investigations to restore trust in elections. Speaker 1: Indicators: a senior Dominion vice president’s name appears on patents; a software engineer involved in the Wayne County, Michigan tabulation center is connected to the software. Coincidences accumulate, suggesting there is a preponderance of evidence with affidavits across the country. The speaker asks which computer produced certain files analyzed yesterday; whether it came from the central count or precincts. Speaker 0: Answers with a non-answer, noting they imaged the main EMS and the tabulation system; servers in the county coordinate precinct information and house audit reports, cast vote reports, error reports, adjudication reports, and access logs. Thumb drives can contaminate the county and state systems if connected to a machine; it’s not unique to Dominion or voting systems but a general risk. They emphasize avoiding white noise and focusing on facts: Dominion is in Serbia; Huawei Bank funds the enterprise partnership and Serbia-based data centers; code is written in Serbia; imaging shows fingerprints of this. They call for audits, note deviations in Georgia (ballots appearing identical in different batches, a shredder truck before January 20 in Georgia, and a leaky arena water claim later proven to be a leaky toilet), and point to media silence. They argue against accepting the gold standard claim and highlight perceived connections to Soros-funded groups. They stress deviations in state and county behavior, urge audits, and compare the election system to a serial killer—unacceptable to let foreign systems run it. Speaker 2: Adds that with 100 indicators, a pattern emerges; reiterates the need to examine which files came from which computer, and questions the integrity of the central count. Speaker 3: Notes the risk of a non-internet-connected thumb drive introducing malware; emphasizes auditing all machines for that reason.

The speaker explains that they were asked to investigate President Obama's birth certificate due to suspicions of fraud. They clarify that their investigation was not about where the president was born, but about the authenticity of the document. They express their hope that the document would be valid, but after examining the evidence, they conclude that it is a fraudulently created document. They mention the criticism they faced for questioning the document and emphasize that their goal was always to uncover the truth. They introduce a video presentation that reveals evidence of forgery in the birth certificate, including identical angles in date stamps and copied elements from another birth certificate.

We provided our data to Dr. Walter Dougherty, a qualified expert in computer sciences and engineering. He reviewed the declarations and analytic data we presented and concluded that there were 99.99 signatures that could have been introduced into the 2022 election due to the broken system. This information is detailed in exhibit 4. Dr. Dougherty will explain the scientific math he used, which is industry standard.

The speaker, a well-versed American patriot, has been aware of the sketchiness of the election systems for about 15 or 16 years. They have been working with a group of people who have uncovered some significant findings. In 2018, the Dallas election had irregularities, which prompted the Texas governor to form a panel to investigate. This panel hired a cybersecurity group to study the irregularities, specifically on Dominion Machines. Over the past two years, this group has reverse-engineered the process of stealing an election using this equipment. The speaker has been associated with them since August and has been actively supporting their efforts for the past 4 or 5 months.

The speaker states that their investigation into President Obama's birth certificate has concluded that it is a fraudulently created document. They express their initial hope that the document was valid, but as evidence stacked up, they had to follow the evidence. They mention working with document examiner Reed Hayes and forensic digital technicians from 4 Labs in Italy. They show examples of forgery in the birth certificate, including copied words, letters, and date stamps. The speaker emphasizes that their investigation was not about Obama personally, but about the document itself. They conclude by saying that the findings are new, profound, and disturbing.

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.

The speaker discusses the investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate. They mention working with forensic document examiners and digital technicians to analyze two birth certificates from Hawaii. The speaker claims that nine points of forgery were found, including copied words, letters, and date stamps. They focus on the similarity of the angles of the date stamps on both birth certificates, suggesting intentional alteration. The speaker concludes that the birth certificate belonging to Johanna Ani was used as a source document for Obama's birth certificate. They emphasize the significance of these findings and the disturbing nature of the situation.

The speaker claims to have found the source of ineligible voters being added to voter rolls: an organization called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), led by David Becker. Becker was allegedly involved in a scandal as a US attorney and later worked for left-leaning organizations. The speaker alleges that with George Soros' money, Becker created ERIC, which contracts with states to access DMV records and other sensitive data. According to the speaker, ERIC's membership agreement prohibits disclosing citizenship status, yet they add names to voter rolls and circulate the information. The speaker further claims that this information is then given to the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which received funding from Mark Zuckerberg.

Speaker 0 notes that Wisconsin was the first state where the evidence he and his associate Chris had put together for Peter was presented under oath in a senate committee. The presentation occurred before the Wisconsin senate committee on election integrity.

Dr. Walter Doretti, an expert in computer science and engineering, presented his credentials and experience during a hearing. He mentioned his education at Oklahoma Christian University and Harvard, where he obtained master's and doctorate degrees. With 37 years of teaching experience, including 32 years at Texas A&M University, he has also worked as a consultant for various corporations and government agencies, including classified projects. Dr. Doretti specializes in analyzing election data, particularly from the 2020 and 2022 Arizona elections, as voting machines are essentially computers and election data involves math. His expertise directly relates to the previous presentation by Ms. Bush.

Work for the department of justice. Been there, like, twenty three years. I'm an analyst. I'll be acting deputy chief of our office for a few months starting next week. I work closely with all the federal law enforcement agencies and the US attorney's offices As a gospel. The prosecutors and stuff. The thing is it's what you're saying because I do deal with so many of the agencies, like the Bureau of Brisons, the Marshal Service, the FBI, US attorney's offices. It's like

Eric Spakane, a forensic chemist and forensic document analyst, testified that there were about 25,000 ballots not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. He said the printing process and appearance are completely different than what you would get from a first generation PDF printing. He explained that in Maricopa County there were approximately 5,012 or a little over 5,000 different ballot permutations and combinations due to different races and districts, and this is multiplied by two because there is a Spanish version for each ballot. In total, about 5,000 different ballots are created ahead of time and are created in PDF. These PDFs are prepared in advance for mail-in ballots and for early voting, which uses vote on demand, allowing someone to vote in a downtown location using a ballot from their area. He noted that PDFs are high quality, and when printed they should look roughly the same as the PDF, but he found that the quality of these ballots degraded when printed, compared to on-demand or third-party provider printing. Spakane stated that in the group of ballots he examined, the election subcontractor Minion produced ballots for each zone or district involved in the area he looked at in Maricopa County. He reiterated that there were about 5,000 approximately different ballots, reflecting the various races and jurisdictions (e.g., two different senator races, multiple house races, and all permutations and combinations). He claimed that about 25,000 ballots were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot, and that the printing process produced marks that did not align with the perfect lines and breaks seen in the PDFs. He observed that early voting ballots and election-day ballots from various polling locations showed printing with breaks in all the same places around an oval, indicating imperfections in the lines at the same spots on every ballot. Speaker 1 stated that these 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone represent over double Joe Biden's 10,457 vote mark. He framed this as a comparison to the election results. Speaker 2 claimed that in July 2021, and even in June earlier, they suspected that there were 25,000 plus counterfeit or inauthentic ballots. He attributed this to propaganda by the GOP’s attorney and other conservative operatives who allegedly planted the seed that “you can't trust that.” He asserted that everyone up there knew this in advance, even before the hearing, and criticized those involved for not reacting to prevent duplication in 2022, saying they did nothing and allowed it to be done again.

Jacqueline Greger testifies to a preliminary finding report on activities impacting Arizona’s election integrity, focusing on the 2020 and 2022 general elections. She outlines a multi-year pattern beginning in 2017, alleging that “accents points” were used to change vote totals and election results, with illegal transfers moving money to candidates through phantom entities and for-profit and non-profit PACs created by Brittany Ray Chavez. She claims that during the 2022 election, ballot scanners and printers at 70 precincts had their printer settings changed through computer infiltration after being tested the night before the election, leading to uncontrollable ballots being placed in Box 3 and allegedly driven to Runbeck’s office. Witness information from October 2020 is cited, including more than 100,000 filed-in ballots and more than 13,000,000 identified in two unmarked rental cars used to move ballots and cash to Runbeck’s office. Runbeck is described as operated by Robert Runbeck, with deeds for Runbeck provided in the materials. Greger asserts a planned strategy involving Hobbs and Fontes: Hobbs would receive the Democratic nomination for governor, Fontes would run for secretary of state to replace Hobbs, and both would be bribe recipients evidenced by “Britney deeds.” She argues the fix for 2020 and 2022 started in 2017 with appointments to election positions of individuals bribed through a mortgage scheme and money laundering via phantom appointments. She emphasizes “the problems with these documents are many” and connects money laundering to drug cartel activity and human trafficking, arguing cartel investment aims to place reliable figures in key positions to advance their objectives. The report titled Preliminary Findings of Activities Impacting Arizona’s Election Integrity with specific focus on the 2020 and 2022 general elections is introduced by Greger, who provides her background: she has a master’s in marketing and honors degrees in finance, accounting, statistics, economics, and business strategy; resident of Scottsdale since 1997; owner of Finebreder Insurance Agency; principal investigator with Harris Thaler Law Firm since 2019. The team, led by John Harris Thaler (a 32-year attorney), investigates racketeering and corruption across multiple states. Thaler’s past work includes uncovering laundering of cartel money through real estate in Illinois, Idaho, and Iowa; real estate agents, escrow companies, and title insurers indicted for racketeering; investigations into money laundering through Arizona real estate; and a broader operation intertwining narcotics trafficking, tax evasion, payroll theft, bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud, and election fraud. Greger states that more than 120,000 documents have been reviewed and that 47 filings exist in the report. She outlines a pattern of money laundering through single-family residences, inflated construction invoices, fake charitable donations, fictitious students in private schools, and fake bankruptcies. Wells Fargo and other banks are alleged to have opened accounts for phantom people; municipal and state systems in Mesa, including a private police force, are said to be compromised to support racketeering. She claims numerous forged or altered documents, including falsified deeds of trust and notary acts, with signatures forged or copied, often associated with Brittany Chavez and Donna Chavez. Key individuals and entities are named as bribe recipients and conspirators: Kathleen M. Hobbs and Patrick T. Goodman appear in a series of deeds with signatures and notarizations that Greger says are fraudulent; Brittany and Donna Chavez are identified as principal preparers of documents; the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and relevant courts are alleged to have been infiltrated to upload falsified documents and remove legitimate ones. Greger discusses targeted election service providers, including Runbeck, and asserts that “the county database” has “no integrity whatsoever,” with backdoor access enabling document upload or deletion. She describes bribes to judges, prosecutors, and public officials across the state, including 25% of active judges in certain jurisdictions, and claims that elections including the governor, attorney general, and other offices were affected. Greger notes investigations are not limited to Arizona; FBI, IRS, US attorneys’ offices, and attorney generals in California and New Mexico have engaged with the findings. She emphasizes that the final report will be a 300-page book with about 3,000 attachments, to be published as Report to the Governor, and that excerpts and documentation will be available at reporttothegovernor.com. She clarifies that she and Thaler do not represent political candidates or parties, and that Thaler had not voted or donated in 2022. She closes by describing the data’s potential utility for enforcement agencies and asks for questions; a constituent video is requested to be played.

I'm Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with extensive experience in examining questioned documents. I have worked on over 2,000 cases across 5 continents and my expertise has been recognized by various media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, America's Most Wanted, Forensic Files, and Good Morning America. Recently, I was asked to investigate election-related matters in Arizona, focusing on printing processes, machine copied marks, and the CPS code used for counterfeit protection. I traveled to Arizona with three colleagues from my office to conduct the analysis.

Eric Spakin, a forensic chemist and document analyst, examined ballots from the Arizona audit. He found that approximately 25,000 ballots did not match the official Dominion PDF printing, showing imperfections in their lines. This discrepancy exceeds Joe Biden's victory margin of 10,457 votes. Additionally, Spakin noted a statistical anomaly where 61 groups of 200 ballots showed over 90% support for one candidate, with 58 favoring Biden and only 3 favoring Trump. This suggests potential manipulation in sorting ballots. Arizona's early voting process allows ballots to be counted weeks before election day, raising concerns about election integrity and the need for safeguards to ensure accurate results that reflect voters' choices.

As a computer scientist specializing in election system security, I want to highlight the vulnerabilities in computerized voting equipment used in polling places. These systems can be easily compromised, allowing corrupt candidates or foreign adversaries to disrupt elections and potentially alter vote tallies without detection. The poor design and implementation by equipment vendors contribute to these vulnerabilities. Additionally, voter registration databases and systems reporting final results are attractive targets for disruption, with even fewer standards for securing them. It is unrealistic to expect county election IT managers to defend against cyber attacks by foreign intelligence services. We need to address these issues to ensure the integrity of our elections.

- "The electoral systems of The United States can be manipulated by foreign agents or third parties." - "Are you in danger, physical danger, if your true identity is known?" - "Yes." - "We configured the transmission systems and the tally systems." - "I was the national coordinator for voting machines." - "You examined the forensic image of the election management server, that was used in the Mesa County twenty twenty election." - "In the case of Mesa, Colorado, all evidence, all log, all of that was deleted." - "We saw both images, the old one and the new one." - "And the structure changed, the structure of the program changed as compared to the version 5.5." - "Whoever gave the authorization for the system to be updated would be the person responsible for all the files that were deleted." - "It's easy to rig an election with it, and it's hard to audit."

I am Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with extensive experience in examining questioned documents. I have worked on over 2,000 cases across 5 continents and my expertise has been recognized by various media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, America's Most Wanted, Forensic Files, and Good Morning America. Recently, I was asked to investigate election-related matters in Arizona, focusing on printing processes, machine copied marks, and the CPS code for counterfeit protection. I traveled to Arizona with three colleagues from my office to conduct the examination.

The briefing opens with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and chief investigator Mike Zullo describing their investigation into a birth-certificate document released publicly by the White House, stating that the inquiry was never about where President Obama was born but about whether a purported factual document was fraudulently created. Bob Corbin is introduced as a former county attorney, former board of supervisor, former attorney general for Arizona, and past president of the NRA. Media relations director Dak says the media has mischaracterized the investigation and emphasizes that technical evidence will be presented, including two separate experts on different continents reaching similar conclusions. Sheriff Arpaio says that in 2011 about 250 members of the Surprise Tea Party asked him to investigate President Obama’s birth certificate because they believed evidence showed it was fraud. He says he agreed to look into a possible government-forgery document and that from day one he stated he did not care where the president was born, focusing instead on the document. He says the investigation has concluded the long-form birth certificate posted on whitehouse.gov (April 27, 2011) is a fraudulently manufactured document. He also says people who questioned the document were maligned and criticized, and he frames the briefing as setting the record straight based on evidence. Arpaio says he will present an executive summary and then turn the presentation to Mike Zullo. Mike Zullo describes his approach as letting the evidence lead rather than aiming to clear the document. He says the mandate was to clear the document, but investigation results changed. He recounts contacting document examiner Reed Hayes, describing Hayes as having decades of experience and being court-recognized, and says Hayes said he could not clear the document and found something wrong with it. Zullo states that the investigation involved forensic document examiners and a European media forensic team, including Four Labs in Italy, and that he used a method intended to have independent experts from different disciplines reach conclusions. He says he and Mark Golar collaborated over years using digital analysis tools. Zullo’s presentation includes a video demonstrating comparisons between two long-form birth certificates from the state of Hawaii: one assigned to Barack Obama and one assigned to Johanna Ani, both described as births in Honolulu during August 1961, 16 days apart. The video claims nine points of forgery, stating that words, letters, and hand-placed date stamps were digitally copied from the Ani long-form birth certificate and pasted onto the Obama long-form birth certificate. It highlights matching angles of date stamps in specific boxes (including boxes 20 and 22), claiming two separate document examiners in different disciplines and continents agree the angles are identical across both documents. The video also contrasts this with Susan and Gretchen Nordyke being born five minutes apart with consecutive serial numbers and claims their date stamps do not show similarity in angles. The presentation further claims that specific “X” marks and related elements in the Obama PDF were taken from box 6D in the Ani long-form birth certificate, and that the box, the X, and the word above were taken together. Zullo says these findings are distinct from prior “digital forensics” issues involving a 7655 Xerox copier. He claims that attempts to replicate features using a Xerox 7655 copier with 2011 software were not exact, and he says he shifted methodology by obtaining an overlay video from Mark Golar. Zullo states that after adjusting a degree-and-a-half offset for the original certificate, the date stamps lined up perfectly, and he sent the analysis to Italy and Hawaii for independent assessment. He then says Reed Hayes and the Italian team concluded the document was inauthentic, with the Italian team concluding it was “a thousand times more probable” the document was inauthentic, and that greater sampling would increase that number. Zullo describes additional claimed matches: he says alignment of serial-number and text elements occurred across documents, and he says the concept of “textural juxtaposition” was used to describe the relationship between elements when moved. He says Reed Hayes concluded the Obama certificate posted on whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011 is “a fraudulently manufactured document,” and that evidence indicates the Ani certificate was used as a source. Zullo says he believes this is not explained by the Xerox copier and he attributes the investigation’s conclusions to multiple independent forensic findings. He then discusses investigative steps in Hawaii, describing a meeting with Jill Nagamini, a Deputy Attorney General for the state of Hawaii, and says the dialogue indicated no validation of the image itself—only validation of information supposedly on file. Zullo adds that he, and Detective Makowitz, attempted to clarify the situation by reviewing birth announcements and consulting records sources, but encountered refusals at Kapalani Medical Center and did not receive cooperation from organizations he approached. Zullo says Johanna Ani maintained that her birth certificate was in her possession since 1995 in a locked file cabinet and was only shown to Jerry Corsi about 10 days after the Obama certificate release. He says Corsi confirmed he took possession of Ani’s document at that time. Zullo states that he does not consider Ani a suspect because we are “in possession of the document” as a source document in their analysis, while naming Mickey Booth (the friend who requested that Ani show the document to Corsi) as labeled a suspect by others but also stated as “not a suspect.” In additional technical claims, Zullo says the state of Hawaii did not create the PDF file because they do not create PDFs legally, and he says evidence pointed to manual creation and alteration. He claims there were issues related to date stamps, clipping masks, pencil markings concealed under a mask, unique ghosting around letters, anti-forensics steps (starting as a PDF, printing it out, then re-scanning), erased metadata, and altered White House handout JPEG images that he says were edited with Photoshop. He says these findings led to the conclusion the document was “digitally created” and “not real.” Sheriff Arpaio concludes by stating he plans to turn the investigation over to the federal government and Congress this month, and he says he hopes Congress will pass a law requiring presidents should be vetted and hold public hearings. Arpaio says they will not answer questions due to sensitive information and thanks the media while reiterating that he believes the briefing has presented evidence about a “fake” birth certificate.

Speaker 1, an expert in handwriting and signatures, believes that it is impossible to compare signatures for consistency in less than 3 seconds. They have extensive experience in this field and consider themselves to be at the top of their profession. Speaker 1 also explains that comparing signatures means carefully examining the similarities and differences between two items, in this case, signatures. They mention that Arizona statute 16,550 states that signatures should be compared for consistencies or inconsistencies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the word "compare" is commonly used in their industry and has a clear meaning.