Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Can The Voting Machines Still Count Backwards?

We recently ran into some interesting documents. Don't worry. They've been vetted. The book is called "63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read" Skyhorse Publishing 2011. (Okay, yes, Jessee Ventura's book, but, the documents are authentic.)

We spoke a few posts back about the Volusia Qunatum Worm-Hole event, where 16,022 votes were counted backwards for Al Gore in the 2000 election in precinct 216. We call it this because the official explanation of how negative votes can be counted in an election - where everything proceeds from zero and moves forward - requires exotic physics. That is, IF there was an official explanation. There has never been one, other than a single word, "glitch" a catch-all lie that, again, requires exotic physics to swallow.

Global Elections Systems (GES) machines were used. Remember the corporate blood trail: GES was bought by Diebold, whose voting division was renamed Premiere Elections Solutions, which was then bought by Dominion Voting Systems. There is a 65 percent chance you will vote on a Dominion system in 2012. Now, as said, the machines haven't changed, and the coding hasn't either. In fact, a trip to Hillsborough County elections proved that out: elections officials are still using GEMS software, the same software used by GES back in 2000!

Can it still count backwards, or have they fixed that yet? You ask this of any elections official where you live: watch the face go white, the lips pinch, sweat on the brow. Watch this face morph into a quizzical stare, as if to say "what on earth are you talking about?" In fact they might even say this to you "what on earth are you talking about?" You might even reference the Hursti Hack or The Princeton study, and they STILL are going to look at you with the dog whistle stare, the way your teenager does when you ask him a logical question.

Internal GES memos written after the Volusia Quantum Worm Hole , have surfaced. Here's a little taste of one written Jan. 18, 2001

"The problem is it's going to be hard to collect enough data to know what happened...."

Oops! Then later, same memo. 

"If this happens, punt. That would have at least prevented the embarrassment of negative votes which is really what this is all about. Then John can go to Lana and tell her it has never happened before and that it will never happen again."

Nice. Those same words "never happened before, will never happen again" are used by officialdom over and over again after these mysterious Machiavellian glitches. And you know the artificial intelligence scientists must surely be on this by now, because, these "glitches" sure do seem to have a political agenda, AND a propensity to hide themselves in the statistical wash of numbers.

Yeah "this has never happened before, and it will never happen again" (accept when it does two years from now and we feed you the same line of bullshit).

Everyone on the same script. The only thing they were truly concerned with back in 2000 was the embarrasment. Here's more. After they discovered that someone had uploaded a second memory card during the election at precinct 216, they had no idea who done it, nor why, only that for some reason, this resulted in 16,022 negative votes, only in the presidential race. And because this glitch was artificially intelligent, a new life form, it didn't change the vote totals, so that that number jibed with the number of votes "cast". (Only weird thing here is, this figure 16,022 is way more than the number of registered voters in precinct 216 but, oh well).

"There is alway the possibility that the second memory card or the second upload came from an un-authorized source."

Really? There is that distict possibility, yeah. Or, someone who was "authorized" done a bad-bad thing, for money.

GES machines were all over the state in 2000. So there should have been a revote followed by a major investigation. That should have happened, in a sane and honest world. It didn't. Why? No answer given.

You know the problem of negative vote counting capability hasn't been solved. It persisted through the 2004 election of Bush over Kerry. Tests in 2006 and 2008 confirmed it was still there in the mix.

Ask you elections supervisor if the machines can still count backwards. See what kind of answer you get.

No comments:

Post a Comment