TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

When I started recording ballot numbers and names from mail-in ballots, I noticed they were in sequence, which is unusual. The envelopes had no date, just "November 0-2020." When I questioned this, I was told not to interfere. The ballots were all from the same street in Detroit, with similar signatures and no date stamp. They weren't in the system and were being entered manually. It seemed suspicious.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the absentee ballots. The ballot numbers were in sequence, which is unusual for mailed-in ballots. The speaker also discovered that the envelopes lacked a date and the ballots were all from the same area. The signatures were similar, and there were no date stamps. Additionally, the ballots were not showing up in the system and had to be entered manually. When the speaker questioned these issues, they were met with resistance from the supervisor. Despite wanting to stay in the room, the speaker chose not to challenge further.

A person was questioned about their destination while standing near the curb. They became anxious and explained that they were transporting blank ballots to a satellite location approximately 7 miles away. When asked why the ballots were not in a container, the person admitted that it was their fifth trip of the day and they had been delivering them in this manner.

The speaker witnessed 24 large cardboard containers of ballots being loaded onto their trailer. They noticed that the envelopes had handwritten return addresses and one was marked as registered mail. The speaker was initially not concerned about it but found it strange when they were made to wait for six hours in Harrisburg without being allowed to unload. They were then instructed to drive to Lancaster without unloading in Harrisburg, which didn't make sense to them. The transportation supervisor refused to give them a ticket or a late slip. The next day, the speaker discovered that their trailer was missing. They found it unusual and decided to speak up about the situation.

The speaker expresses surprise and confusion about something they see. They use strong language and ask what it is. They also comment that the situation is strange and difficult to understand.

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.

There appears to be some ballots arriving, as indicated by a police car escorting two vans. Let's take a look through the window to see the election workers in Philadelphia, as this is one of the few angles available to observe them.

The speaker describes irregularities observed in absentee/mail-in ballots. They claim that the ballot numbers and the last names on the ballots were in sequence, which should not happen with mail-in ballots because those ballots are supposed to arrive at different times and cannot be sequential like 2-2-3-2 next to 2-2-3-3. This pattern triggered the speaker’s concern, leading them to think something was wrong. The speaker states they began noticing that the numbers were almost adjacent to each other, with one hovering around the middle. This prompted them to raise questions about the process. They then asked the supervisor for clarification, but the supervisor reacted angrily, saying, “you’re not letting us do our job. You’re disturbing us.” Feeling hesitant to push the issue further for fear of being kicked out and wanting to stay in the room due to a lack of other observers, the speaker chose not to challenge the process more than they already had. They allege that the sequence of ballot numbers came from the same area, specifically Goddard Street in Downtown Detroit, and that the signatures on those ballots were all alike. The speaker notes several additional anomalies: envelopes had no date stamp, only the word “November 2020” without a more specific date, and there was no second or third numbering visible. They observed that none of these ballots were coming up in the voting system; instead, they were being entered manually. The speaker claims that the poll book or the system would not reflect these details, implying that the ballots were processed outside the normal electronic recordkeeping. In summary, the speaker alleges a pattern of sequential ballot numbers and similar signatures associated with absentee ballots from a single street area, envelopes without proper dating, and manual entry into the system rather than through standard digital processing, with the supervisor resisting questions about these irregularities.

The speaker, who has experience with ballots, describes their observation of pristine and clean ballots. They noticed a slight eclipse on the bubble for Joseph R. Biden, which appeared on 107 out of 110 ballots. Every vote on every ballot, including referendums, was exactly the same, which the speaker finds statistically impossible. They believe these were preprinted ballots and suspect that some test ballots from before the election were mixed in. Out of 800 ballots, less than 40 were for Trump and 7 for Jorgensen. The speaker emphasizes the unusual cleanliness of the ballots, as there were no creases or signs of wear. They question how these ballots were not folded and express disbelief at the anomaly.

Trucks from a company called Runbeck were continuously delivering ballots for several days. The speaker is unsure of the exact duration but mentions that they were still coming in on their last day, which was the 10th. Runbeck is a high-speed scanning company that handles the scanning and printing of duplications, possibly including military ballots. The speaker is uncertain about the purpose of scanning the ballots off-site and whether they were printed or scanned. They mention that the high-speed scanning happens at Runbeck and that there were no observers present. The speaker also raises questions about the origin of the ballots and suggests asking county employees for clarification.

The speaker observed that when people received Republican straight ticket ballots, they often ignored them or circled Donald Trump's name and put them back in the envelope. The speaker noticed USPS boxes filled with these ballots on the floor. They questioned the legitimacy of the process, as it seemed impossible to count all the votes accurately. The speaker mentioned that only a small number of ballots were counted at a time, with each pile containing no more than five ballots. They expressed concern about the removal of many Trump vote ballots.

The speakers observed irregularities in the ballots, suspecting that they were not filled out by hand but rather printed. They noticed that the bubbles were perfectly filled and not aligned correctly. The paper used for the ballots was very thin, with some ballots having more than 50% missing or torn off. This raised concerns as it seemed intentional and could affect the voters' intent. The speakers emphasized that someone else was determining the voters' choices, effectively voting on their behalf.

The speaker raises the question of the whereabouts of "Jessie's trailer" and its route after leaving, in relation to 24 pallets of ballots. The speaker's London Centre intelligence team estimated the ballots, tying it to a story of ballots appearing in counting rooms at night, tracing back to "Jesse's mass transportation." Investigations are ongoing beyond Bethpage. The speaker clarifies that the Bethpage Center is a bulk mail center, not a place to process individual mail pieces, implying the ballots were bundled and ready to be counted. Depending on density, the 24 pallets could contain 144,000 to a quarter-million ballots. The investigation suggests multiple trucks were involved. The speaker claims that ballots appeared and were counted, but do not necessarily match voter records. The speaker believes there is evidence of a massive transfer of completed, curated ballots ready to be injected into counting centers.

On October 21st, the speaker witnessed unusual events that they believe cannot be a coincidence. They claim to have seen thousands of ballots with return address 68 being loaded onto their trailer in New York, headed for Pennsylvania. Initially, the speaker thought it was "awesome" to be involved in the presidential race. However, they became concerned and questioned why they were transporting completed ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. As a result, they decided to speak up about what they witnessed.

- The discussion centers on ballot processing in Maricopa County, with several shipments arriving after the initial belief that counting was near completion. Speaker 0 notes that the Wednesday before the Friday they quit voting, and ten days before they quit tabulating, more truckloads of ballots came in, leading to the question: “how can you not know how many ballots are still out there?” - Speaker 1 asks for clarification: “They thought they were done.” The conversation confirms multiple times that those running the counting rooms believed they were almost done, or would be done, on Wednesday morning, then Thursday morning, then Friday morning, and the process extended into the next week. - Trucks bringing ballots arrived on the third, fourth, and fifth days, continuing throughout the last week. The last day mentioned is the tenth, with ballots still arriving. The company involved is Runback, described as doing high-speed scanning and printing of duplications and military ballots. There was no observer presence at Runback, and Speaker 0 indicates she had not been called to work there; she does not know exactly what Runback was doing (printing vs. scanning). - It is stated that all high-speed scanning occurs at Runback, and the ballots go to Runback. There is uncertainty about off-site scanning and whether Dominion equipment was involved. Speaker 0 clarifies: “They were duplications, the ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines. They were ballots that came in from military and overseas.” The number of additional sources for ballots beyond military/overseas is unknown, and Speaker 0 suggests this is a question for county employees to explain. - About the counting process: Speaker 0 confirms that the ballots went through tabulation machines and that adjudication work took place for those late arrivals. They observed the ballots being processed, but did not know the exact totals for certain days. - Daily volumes are described. Speaker 0 estimates: one day a shift might handle 90,000 ballots, and some days had similar volumes across three shifts; other days had fewer. There were days when as few as 15,000 ballots were processed. The “back door” arrivals are contrasted with the front door, with Speaker 0 noting that all back door ballots were received through back entries, not the front door. The remaining ballots in the latter part of the period continued to come in and be tabulated, with ongoing full-time shifts through the eighth, ninth, and tenth days. - The episode concludes with Speaker 1 seeking further explanation, and Speaker 0 indicating that some of the details were not fully known and that a county employee should clarify where the incoming ballots came from during the latter part of the period.

A lady with blonde braids placed a table at 8:22 AM. The same person who cleared the place out under the pretense of stopping the count also put the table there. Four suitcases came out from underneath the table. A man in red pulled one of the suitcases out. The question is, why are these ballots separate from the others, and why are they only counting them when the place is cleared out with no witnesses? The machines can process about 3,000 ballots an hour, and there were multiple machines for two hours. The question is, how many ballots went through those machines in those two hours when no one was there to supervise, consistent with statutes and rules?

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 speakers discuss the flow of ballots and the involvement of a company called Runback. Trucks delivering ballots arrived on the third, then the fourth, and the fifth, continuing for days. The last day of the speaker’s involvement was the tenth, and trucks were still coming in. The ballots were coming from Runback, a company that does high‑speed scanning and printing of duplications, and the speaker mentions military ballots being produced or processed by Runback, though there is uncertainty about exactly what Runback was doing. When asked whether the ballots were printed or scanned off-site, the speaker is unsure. It is stated that all the high‑speed scanning occurs at Runback, and that those ballots go to Runback. There were no observers at Runback, and the speaker had not been called to work there. The question is raised about whether the scanning was done on-site at the Maricopa County structure, but the response indicates that scanning was not on-site and occurred at Runback where there are very high‑speed scanners. The question of whether Dominion equipment was involved is addressed: the ballots being scanned were not related to Dominion. The purpose of scanning the ballots in advance of tabulation on Dominion equipment is then explained: they were duplications of ballots that would not read through the tabulation machines, specifically ballots that came in from military and overseas. However, the speaker notes there were more ballots than just those, with trays of ballots being brought in, and uncertainty remains about where the rest were coming from. The speaker suggests that the remaining questions about the sources of these ballots should be answered by the county employees. In summary, the discussion centers on: a sequence of ballot deliveries over several days; Runback handling high‑speed scanning and duplications off-site; uncertainty about whether ballots were printed or scanned and by whom; the absence of observers at Runback; scanners used were not Dominion; the purpose of off-site scanning was to duplicate ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines, including military and overseas ballots; and unresolved questions about the origin of additional ballots, which require explanation from county staff. The exchange ends with a note that the remaining questions about the ballots’ origins are for the county employees to explain.

On October 21st, the speaker witnessed a series of unusual events that seemed too coincidental. They saw thousands of ballots with return addresses being loaded onto their trailer in New York, destined for Pennsylvania. Initially, they thought it was exciting to be involved in the presidential race. However, as things got stranger, they started questioning why they were transporting complete ballots from one state to another. Feeling unsure, they decided to speak up and share their experience today.

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.

The speaker raises the question of the whereabouts and route of Jesse's trailer, which allegedly transported 24 pallets of ballots. The speaker's London Center intelligence team estimated the number of ballots. The speaker claims these ballots appeared in counting rooms in the middle of the night and were traced back to Jesse's mass transportation. The speaker states the Bethpage Center is a bulk mail center, not a place to process individual mail pieces, yet these ballots were bundled, processed, and ready to be counted. The speaker estimates the 24 gaylords could contain 144,000 to a quarter-million ballots. The speaker suggests Jesse was not alone and multiple trucks were involved. The speaker claims ballots showed up and were counted, but don't necessarily match records of who should have voted, and the stats don't add up. The speaker believes there is evidence of a massive transfer of completed, curated ballots ready to be injected into counting centers.

A series of witnesses describe a large-scale movement of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, claiming that hundreds of thousands of completed ballots were shipped and later disappeared. One witness asserts that “130,000 to 280,000 completed ballots for the twenty twenty general election were shipped from Bethpage, New York to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where those ballots and the trailer in which they were shipped disappeared.” The narrative emphasizes that the ballots were transported in a trailer from New York to Pennsylvania and subsequently vanished. Another witness recounts events on October 21, describing “a series of unusual events that cannot be a coincidence.” This person says, “I saw ballots with return addresses filled out, thousands of them, thousands, loaded onto my trailer in New York and headed for Pennsylvania.” While initially believing the task was beneficial for the presidential race and feeling it was “cool,” the witness later reflects, upon things getting weirder, on why they were driving “complete ballots from New York to Pennsylvania,” and states that they decided to speak up about it. A third participant broadens the scope, estimating “It could be a 144 to over, to a quarter million ballots.” This witness adds that the investigation indicates “there was a number, as in like a bunch of different trucks which engaged in this.” Reflecting on the potential impact, they note the magnitude of votes that could appear “the night of the election after midnight,” suggesting that an “artifact” would be necessary to explain this phenomenon. They further state that, when something is impossible to reconcile, “whatever remains must be the truth.” They claim that “the truth is ballot showed up. They were counted. They do not match necessarily the records of who should have voted,” and that “in some instances, the stats don't add up, and we continue to analyze that.” Collectively, the speakers contend they have evidence of “a massive transfer of of completed curated ballots ready to be injected into counting centers.” The statements emphasize a coordinated movement of completed ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, the disappearance of the ballots and their trailer, and allegations that ballots appeared, were counted, and did not necessarily align with expected voting records, with ongoing analysis indicating a substantial, orchestrated transfer intended to inject ballots into counting centers.

In the video, the speakers discuss the issue of 17,852 ballots that lack corresponding ballot images. Speaker 0 acknowledges the significance of this number, prompting Speaker 1 to explain it. Speaker 1 clarifies that while they can explain the number, they cannot explain how it occurred. They express hope that more information will be provided on Tuesday regarding this matter.

The speaker noticed a batch of absentee ballots that stood out because they were in pristine condition, unlike the others which were worn. These ballots had no folds and felt different. One ballot had a white eclipse in the bubble where it should have been filled. As they sorted the ballots, they realized that a significant number of them were exactly the same, with no folds. One ballot in the stack was also misaligned. Additionally, instead of the usual 100, this batch had 110 ballots, which was unusual.

An individual questions people collecting mail-in ballots, asking if they are official election personnel. The collectors confirm they take the ballots to the Raleigh County election site in the government building. The individual inquires if there are many ballots and expresses concern about the speed at which the state was called. They also point out that one of the collectors is not wearing a mask.