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.

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.

The speaker points out duplicate ballots in the video, showing examples where the word "Republican" is written the same way on different ballots. They have a total of 62 images showing similar instances. The batch numbers for the duplicate ballots are provided as well. It is clear that the same batch was scanned multiple times, resulting in duplicate ballots.

The speaker discusses the issue of bleed through on ballots and its potential impact on voting. They mention that if the bubbles on the ballot bleed through, it can cause an overvote or result in voting for a different candidate than intended. They refer to a newsletter from Maricopa County stating that they use VoteSecure paper, which is thick and has a special coating to prevent bleed through. However, the speaker points out that they have observed bleed through on actual ballots, which raises concerns. They mention the need for further analysis to determine the extent of the impact on votes. The second speaker seeks clarification and confirms that Maricopa County's newsletter stated they only use secure paper that does not allow bleed through. The first speaker affirms this and adds that paper experts have confirmed the thickness of the paper should prevent bleed through, but they have observed thin paper stock being used on Election Day.

I found that there were approximately 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and circles, unlike the perfect PDF printing. The imperfections were consistent across all the ballots, suggesting they were not genuine. These 25,000 questionable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's margin of victory by over double.

In my examination of the photographs, I found that there were approximately 5,000 different ballots produced by the election subcontractor for each zone or district in Maricopa County. These ballots were specific to the issues relevant to each area. However, I discovered that around 25,000 ballots were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and breaks in the circles or ovals, which were consistent across all of them. These 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone represent more than double the margin of Joe Biden's 10,457 vote lead.

There are concerns about duplicate ballots in the audit. The speaker mentions that there should be a lower count due to duplicates, but they are not seeing any reference to duplicates in the forms. Speaker 1 explains that duplicate ballots are created when the original ballot is damaged and cannot be processed. These duplicates should have a matching 6-digit serial number with the original damaged ballot, but they cannot find the matching originals. Speaker 2 confirms this, stating that they are finding duplicate ballots without corresponding serial numbers on the damaged originals. They are struggling to match the duplicated ballots with the missing originals.

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.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election using 150 trained workers. They followed the guidelines in the secretary of state manual and analyzed each voter record individually. The statistics from the first 25% of the ballots were extrapolated to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 acknowledges that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, with about 1.9 million of them being mail-in ballots. Speaker 1 confirms this and the conversation continues.

We found around 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not created from the usual PDF used for elections. The ballots are tailored to different neighborhoods and come in English and Spanish versions. These ballots are pre-made for mail-in voting and early voting locations. However, we discovered that the quality of these pre-made ballots was significantly lower than expected, indicating a potential issue with the printing process.

During the Arizona audit, Maricopa County made it clear that signature verification was off-limits. However, it's easy to understand why they didn't want us to examine the signatures because, in reality, they don't match.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the usual PDF format for the election process in Maricopa County. These ballots are tailored to specific geographical areas to account for different voting preferences. The ballots are created in advance in PDF format for mail-in and early voting convenience. However, the quality of the printed ballots in this case was significantly lower than expected, indicating a problem with the printing process.

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.

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.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

A scanner can only scan one dollar per second, but there are 4,000 ballots with the exact same time stamp of November 5th at 11:19:40. This suggests that these ballots may have been inserted and cannot be authenticated. The main question is whether this time stamp, which shows an unbelievable speed of scanning, is from the EMS system and not something we created.

In recounting votes, I've noticed that simply comparing hand counts to machine counts doesn't address the origin of the ballots being counted. Often, we don't even know which precinct a ballot came from, especially when dealing with two-sided ballots. We focus solely on the vote itself without considering the front of the ballot. Additionally, the image quality of these questionable ballots in Pennsylvania and Arizona is not being examined during the recount process.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to explain what they wanted to get from the board if they had been allowed to continue. Speaker 1 mentioned that since 2019, voters have no way of knowing if their vote was counted properly because they can't read the QR code. Even if the words on the ballot match their vote, the QR code remains unreadable. Speaker 1 believes the board panicked when they were about to discuss this issue.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the ballot numbers and names on absentee and mailing ballots. The numbers were almost consecutive, and some envelopes lacked a date. When the speaker questioned this, they were met with resistance. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures and no date stamp. None of these details were entered into the system, and they were being manually entered. The speaker suspected something was amiss but didn't challenge further to avoid being kicked out.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed 25% of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election and analyzed each voter record individually. They extrapolated the statistics from the first 25% to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 points out that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, and their group analyzed 25% of the mail-in ballots to arrive at the 420,987 failed signature verification number. Speaker 1 confirms this.

The speaker describes observing absentee/mail-in ballots and recording details from the ballots. They wrote down the ballot numbers and the last names of the person named on each ballot. The ballots appeared to be in sequence, which, according to the speaker, should not happen with mail-in ballots, since mail-in ballots come in at different times and numbers. The speaker recalls that when they noticed the numbers were almost next to each other—one in the middle, then another—they became suspicious. The speaker asked the supervisor about this, noting there was not even a date on the envelopes. The envelopes were marked November 2020, but there was no second number or other identifying date visible. When the speaker inquired about the date on a specific envelope, the response was hostile: the supervisors became angry and told them they were not letting them do their job and that the speaker was disturbing them. To avoid being kicked out, the speaker and the others in the room chose not to challenge the process further, since they did not want to be removed and there were only a few people present. The speaker also observed that the sequence of ballot numbers all originated from the same area—Guarded Street in Downtown Detroit. The ballots’ signatures looked alike, and none of the envelopes had dates stamped on them. The envelopes appeared to be missing a second or third date, or any date, and none of the ballots were appearing in the voting system. Additionally, the speaker notes that these ballots were being entered manually, and they asserted that none of these details would be present in the poll book or the system. The overall implication is that there was irregularity in the handling of these absentee ballots, with sequential numbers, indistinct dates, signatures resembling each other, and manual entry outside the expected process, raising concerns about whether the ballots were being processed consistent with standard procedures.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they heard Mr. Jared testify about a 20-inch ballot being used in the November 2022 general election. Speaker 1 confirms that they did. Speaker 0 then asks if a 19-inch ballot image projected on a 20-inch piece of paper, used in the Maricopa election, would be rejected when placed into a vote center tabulator. Speaker 1 responds that it would indeed be rejected.

I'm calling out the recent news story as a setup for a time hack. In Maricopa County during the 2020 election, they had 10 tally machines counting over 140,000 ballots daily. Yet, on election day, they claimed they needed 10 extra days to count, processing only 89,000 ballots the day after and then dropping to just a few thousand. A month later, they counted 140,000 ballots again. This indicates they are creating excuses and using various hacks to interfere with the election. It's crucial to maintain chain of custody for forensic audits, which is costly but necessary to prevent disqualification of evidence. We learned from 2020, and it's vital to preserve this information for future legal actions. Barcodes are scanned using a laser that checks columns for light reflection, translating them into binary code for computers.

I found that there were 5,000 different ballots created for specific districts in Maricopa County. Additionally, approximately 25,000 ballots did not match the official Dominion PDF ballot, with consistent imperfections around an oval on each one. These 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's 10,457 vote margin.

There are two different batches of votes being discussed in the video. The speaker points out that there are similarities between the ballots in these batches, such as a little tail and the word "Republican" written on them. They mention that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have time to go through all of them. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers of the batches, but they mention that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.