There are no conspiracies, there are no conspiracies, there are no conspiracies.. and

[spooked911]

the media and government would never conspire to keep it covered up:

Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pisBdNLmo-A

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. priceless: you've posted this to exactly the right forum

So, specifically what election conspiracy do you allege, and what supporting evidence for it do you find in this documentary or elsewhere?

(Election conspiracies do occur, so you could come up with a perfectly reasonable answer -- although probably not based on this documentary.)

[spooked911]

2. just watch the film and then we can talk

OK?

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. pardon me, but I watched the film when it first came out

So, quit stalling. :)

[spooked911]

4. ok, but then I was not sure why you asked what the conspiracy was

obviously it was to steal the 2004 election, and the film amply went over the ways it was done and probably done.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. and yet you're not willing to commit to any of them in writing?

Look, my post was very straightforward. I asked, "So, specifically what election conspiracy do you allege, and what supporting evidence for it do you find in this documentary or elsewhere?"

Based on your answer, I'm tempted to infer that you didn't find any supporting evidence worth mentioning. Would you care to try again?

[teddy51]

6. You either didn't watch this same documentary that I did or you are simply

ignoring all the facts that have been presented by the many people in this video. I take away from this that both the 2000 election and the 2004 elections were stolen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. and yet you can't present any supporting evidence whatsoever?

spooked, if you don't care enough to marshal an argument, but merely believe deep in your heart that every honest person would agree with you if only s/he watched the movie, why even post on a discussion board? Aren't you a scientist?

(edit to fix typo)

[teddy51]

8. The supporting evidence is in the video! n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. having seen the movie, I disagree

But then, you already knew that.

[RegieRocker]

72. Disagree with what? There want long waiting lines? You just say

"i disagree with no justification to all stated facts in the video". Mute.

[deconstruct911]

9. Well

I don't really care about the video transcript, but I do look forward to your critique.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. what do you want me to critique?

If no one is willing to state any plausible basis for being persuaded of anything by the documentary, then (1) there is no apparent purpose in critiquing it, and (2) there is considerable reason not to bother: I can be accused of cherry-picking secondary arguments, and/or even of misrepresenting its basic thesis.*

Now, if you saw something in the movie and wondered if it might be true, or to what extent it was true, I'd be happy to tell you what I think. I even agree with some things in the movie, although my take-away seems to be lightyears from spooked's.

* ETA: I intended to add: a documentary doesn't even have to state a "basic thesis" -- so all the more reason for me not to start chasing the goalposts.

[teddy51]

12. In the video... ES&S and Diebold have very close tyes to the Republican party.

ES&S and Diebold were responsible for counting 80% of the 2004 election. Diebold was sued by the state of California, and consequently paid out 2.6 million to settle the case (so accepting quilt) without really admitting it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. OK, this is evidence of what, specifically?

It's at least somewhat true that ES&S and Diebold have close ties to the Republican Party. It's also true that a wide variety of ES&S and Diebold systems have security holes. The security holes are non-partisan; anyone could exploit them. It's conceivable that amidst the non-partisan security holes are some partisan hacks. However, that logical possibility doesn't constitute evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, which is what spooked seemed to 'learn' from the documentary.

As for your last point: what, specifically, was Diebold sued about? That would obviously have some bearing on what they were, as you put it, accepting guilt for. I'm fairly sure that they weren't accepting guilt for stealing California for Bush in 2004.

If you want to make the case that Diebold marketed bad equipment with bogus talking points, fine, I agree.

[spooked911]

35. generally, if you know the film and have an issue with it--

it helps just to tell us up front what issue you had with it. That is what I would do, anyway. And it seems like a reasonable, straight-forward approach.

You could have said straight-up-- "it is a slick film that suggests vote fraud but doesn't really prove that it occurred".

Then we could have saved a bunch of time.

[spooked911]

34. What I was doing was sharing it and making a quick sarcastic point.

I guess I didn't consider that people here would be *SO* skeptical even of this, but I should have known better.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. "even of this"?

You mean, in your universe, it's sort of axiomatic that Kerry beat Bush, no evidence required? So if anyone is "*SO* skeptical even of" that, it's sort of like questioning gravity?

I have to try some of this. The next time some Truth Movement aficionado asks a question, I'll riposte, "Stop asking questions. That's passive-aggressive!"

No, I won't. That's just lame.

[spooked911]

17. Why do I get the feeling that you'll reject whatever I say about vote fraud?

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. because you haven't said a damn thing?

Usually, poorly informed conspiracists at least try a few salvos of truthiness before blaming their failure to make a decent case on the bad character of the people they're talking with.

Really, I've been putting up with this nonsense for years. For heaven's sake, fish or cut bait. If you want to serve up "Hey, the movie seemed good, I don't really know," I'll give you a break. As it stands, I'm just calling bullshit.

[spooked911]

25. Look, I think the movie is pretty clear about the fraud, for chrissakes

if you have specific reasons to doubt what they are saying, please just tell us. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. if you can't "spell out" what you know, then why do you think you know it?

Again, aren't you a scientist? Why would you ever think "Hey, watch the movie" is a defensible "argument"?

I find it so bizarre. Wouldn't it make sense for the truth movement to have a stake in critical thinking and looking beyond appearances? If "Hey, watch the movie" is the standard, then won't you always lose to whoever has the biggest movie budget? Isn't that exactly what you of all people should be arguing against?

One example, though, would be the county in Ohio where 600 some people voted but over 4,000 votes were scored for Bush.

By referring vaguely to "the county in Ohio," you've taken that from false (or maybe mostly false) to embarrassing.

Then the extreme disparity in the exit polls-- the red shift, etc.

I love that "etc." I'd love to see you walk through that.

The open secret that exit poll true believers won't tell you is that the exit poll results palpably make less sense than the official returns.

Do you know the exit poll result in New Hampshire? Do you believe that it was accurate?

Dude, I'm asking questions. I assume the reason that seems "coy" to you is that you don't know the answers. And that is not my fault.

[spooked911]

36. please see my other recent replies

*I* find it bizarre that someone who is critical of such a film would be so indirect in stating the problem they had with it.

This happened with the UFO video I posted recently. Zappaman said it was crap, etc, but the only reason he would give me is because I posted it.

It's really a bit silly to expect the poster to go over *everything* in a 80 minute film that was convincing. MUCH EASIER is for you to render your opinion on the work, if you have one, or point out specific flaws.

What you're doing is some sort of weird passive-aggressive game that mostly seems to waste time. And this is something many of the OCTists tend to do. Why?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. this is not a game at all

My overriding problem with the film is that it gives people the impression that the 2004 election was stolen, yet it doesn't present any persuasive evidence that the 2004 election was stolen. That has been borne out in the course of this thread.

You're the one posting opinions you can't back up. How have you convinced yourself that I'm the one wasting time? :shrug:

It's really a bit silly to expect the poster to go over *everything* in a 80 minute film that was convincing.

See, as I said before, this is why there's no point in my going first. I could point to 20 different blunders in the movie, and you could accuse me of cherry-picking. Watching you pick is more interesting: you haven't yet pointed to anything in the film that is convincing, at least as evidence that the 2004 election was stolen.

[zappaman]

40. No, Spooked

I said it was crap because it is crap.
Creepy music and some guy saying "it looks real to me" is all you need to be convinced.
I know the difference between entertainment and information.
The only thing noteworthy of you posting it is it just once again shows that you believe every conspiracy out there.

[teddy51]

42. So you didn't take anything away from the video that might lead to believe that fraud

may have taken pace in some of these elections? Hmmm now I find that interesting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. wrong movie

spooked and zappaman are referring to a discussion in the UFO thread.

I don't know if zappaman has even watched this movie. However, I will point out that you're egregiously moving the goalposts. No one should have to watch a movie in order to believe that "fraud may have taken place in some of these elections." That's axiomatic.

This is a typical Truth Movement dodge: (1) Assert X. (2) When someone questions the evidence for X, say that they're in denial about the possibility of X, or demand that they prove that X was false, or say that they're trying to suppress valid questions, or some similar attempt to deflect attention from your lack of support for X.

[teddy51]

45. My mistake. n/t

[spooked911]

50. the problem is that you've spent about about 20 posts here complaining about us

and hardly any time on your questions.

What are your specific questions or doubts about this movie (granting that they do not show "proof" of fraud)?

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. stop misrepresenting my posts and get serious

I haven't once used the word "proof." How do you expect to get away with putting it in quotation marks? That's a risible attempt to move the goalposts.

And, yes, again, it's very much characteristic of Truth Movement polemics. (1) Assert X. (2) When people point out that you've presented no factual basis for claiming X, accuse them of demanding proof of X without an investigation, or say that they are setting the bar too high, or some other diversion from your failure to present a factual basis for X.

If you can point to specific evidence in the movie worth discussing, you really ought to. I finally coaxed you into mentioning the exit polls (and someone else lured you into citing 4,258). If you can't point to specific evidence in the movie worth discussing, then there is really no need for me to identify further "questions or doubts," since you're effectively acknowledging its irrelevance.

[spooked911]

56. OK, the film shows prima facie evidence of electronic vote fraud, but

doesn't prove electronic vote fraud was used to steal an election beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which is a different standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, imo.

The problem I have here is I really don't know what kind of standard of evidence of vote fraud you are looking for. Obviously you aren't convinced by the film, but it's not clear if you think the film is lying or just doesn't meet some level of proof that you've set.

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. "prima facie evidence" of which you cannot give a single example?

How blindingly obvious can this be, spooked? If you can't cite any evidence whatsoever, it really doesn't matter what my "standard of evidence" is. I understand why you want to make this about me, but it's lame.

[spooked911]

62. of course it's about you, since you are asking for this

and I'm not sure what exactly you want.

As I already said, I think ALL the evidence in the film supports the thesis of electronic vote fraud.

Some of that evidence would be (off the top of my head, pardon me if I get some details wrong):

1) political connections of Diebold and the Diebold CEO promising to deliver Ohio to Bush
2) the extreme secrecy and strange behavior of Diebold people
3) the extreme ease of hacking an electronic voting machine
4) the exit poll disparities in 2004 and 2006 (yes, I know this is controversial)
5) the firing of the Utah county election chief for questioning Diebold's machines (indicating Diebold has powerful connections)
6) witness accounts of vote flipping
7) the Clint Curtis testimony
8) Clint Curtis' polling of precinct and disparities with known votes
9) the man who worked at the law firm who leaked documents showing Diebold had plans to rig elections
10) the resistance to getting machines that produce a paper trail
11) the fact that many experts are extremely worried about electronic voting

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. it's about your OP; you don't have to stand by it

(1) Basically moot and/or wrong. The Diebold CEO didn't promise to deliver Ohio to Bush; even if he had, very few Ohio counties used Diebold equipment -- and Bush didn't do especially well in those counties.

(2) I'm not sure what this means, or what specific bearing it has on 2004.

(3) Debatable (have you ever hacked an electronic voting machine?), with no attempt to relate it to the 2004 election. It's rather easy to shoot people, but that fact generally isn't used to argue that people have been shot without some other line of evidence.

(4) I'm glad you know it is controversial, but since you're nonetheless presenting it as persuasive evidence, I have to wonder why. Any reasonable observer would have to conclude that the 2004 exit polls were not, in general, highly accurate. They might nonetheless be usable as evidence of fraud, but I'm not sure how.

(5) I generally think Bruce Funk did the right thing, but I have no idea how this story could influence anyone's view of the 2004 election.

(6) Makes no sense. Why would anyone deliberately hack a machine to visibly flip votes? I can think of some hypothetical possibilities, but I don't see how they fit with a massive-fraud scenario.

(7) What in Clint Curtis's testimony do you think is pertinent to the 2004 election? If someone actually wanted to hack a voting machine, s/he wouldn't need Curtis's code.

(8) I have my doubts about that, but for now it suffices to note its irrelevance to the 2004 election.

(9) Huh? You might want to check yourself on that. Do you think there are documents in which, say, the Diebold CEO says, "Yo, how many votes do you think we can shave in Auglaize?"? Interesting if true.

(10) Fact: there are people on DU, with solid election integrity credentials, who worked against paper ballots in New York because they thought the state should keep lever machines instead. There are likewise people who would rather take their chances with Direct Recording Electronic equipment than deal with printing and securely storing paper ballots. I disagree with them, but I don't see how the mere fact of resistance to paper trails can be construed as evidence that the 2004 election was stolen.

(11) Absolutely, many experts are worried about electronic voting -- but most of them don't claim that the 2004 election was stolen. Do you know something they don't? I'm not getting that impression.

The exit polls are about the only thing here that even look like evidence that the 2004 election was stolen -- until one looks at the exit polls, at which point they aren't. These points simply can't be connected to constitute a solid (or even mildly provocative) case that the 2004 election was stolen. Worse, trumpeting these points as evidence that the 2004 election was stolen encourages experts to believe, if anything, that concerns about electronic voting machines in general are wildly overhyped. I do not thank people who make bad arguments in good causes.

[spooked911]

70. OK

I'm glad you know so much about this, and your points are fine, taken in isolation. But there is a bit of a cognitive dissonance at work here.

See, we have this really powerful company that makes vote counting machines, and they do some really shady stuff, and are partisan, and everyone is worried about that partisans who run the elections easily can hack the vote, and we have Clint Curtis who says he was asked to hack votes, and there is abundant evidence of voting disparities. All in all, the evidence shows a very disturbing picture.


Now, as far as the film, I initially was very moved by it, especially the early scenes involving long lines in Ohio and so forth. And yes, you could say it is a slick and manipulative piece trying to make a very tendentious point about vote manipulation. But I don't see what the film makers are getting out of this; I don't think they are getting rich from the film. I think they are honestly concerned about the state of the American democracy.

The nature of the film was to present some of the most damning stories indicating vote fraud, but not to go into each story into incredible detail. This is to expected for that medium, with a standard film time limit.

I am well aware how every little detail indicating a conspiracy, can be debated and/or finessed and/or mocked and haughtily dismissed by partisans who do not wish to admit the conspiracy. That is what I have dealt with on this board for about seven years now.

I am not sure where you fall exactly, but you do show the pattern shown by 9/11 OCTists of being very focused on the details of the leaves on the trees but missing the sight of the forest.

There is no doubt in MY mind, that many mechanisms were used by Bush to tamper with voting in Ohio in 2004. Now, how much of this was electronic vote manipulation is unclear to me. I should note that the film was done in late 2007 or 2008 and some things have come to light since then. For instance, this article gives some important information as to how the 2004 Ohio vote was rigged electronically.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2011/4239

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. "there is abundant evidence of voting disparities"?!

Excuse me? I'm not sure what that means, but abundant evidence of anything having to do with actual votes is pretty much what I've been asking you to present.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, you're making a common conspiracist blunder here. If Diebold has an insidious partisan agenda, then why are its voting machines and data systems easily hacked by outsiders regardless of partisan affiliation? Of course Diebold could be both insidious and inept, but I don't see any way to infer the insidiousness from the ineptitude.

All in all, the evidence shows a very disturbing picture.

Standard-issue goalpost shift. We haven't been discussing whether there is a "very disturbing picture."

I am well aware how every little detail indicating a conspiracy, can be debated and/or finessed and/or mocked and haughtily dismissed by partisans who do not wish to admit the conspiracy.... very focused on the details of the leaves on the trees but missing the sight of the forest.

As I've said since the beginning of the thread, the point of having you select the evidence that you consider strong is that you cannot plausibly accuse me of cherry-picking "little detail(s)." If indeed we're discussing individual "leaves" instead of the "forest," the question is: why on earth can't you even find a tree?!

And, again, while I don't expect to startle you into self-awareness, I don't apologize for trying.

For instance, this article gives some important information as to how the 2004 Ohio vote was rigged electronically.

You are stating it as fact that "the 2004 Ohio vote was rigged electronically" even though you have presented no supporting evidence whatsoever. If that seems reasonable to you, then it is little wonder that my requests for evidence seem to evince a character flaw.

The article to which you linked likewise presents no evidence that the 2004 vote was rigged -- although I'm not surprised that you would be fooled, since some smart-sounding people seem to say otherwise. It's not even clear exactly what Stephen Spoonamore is alleging. One interpretation is that the web server in Tennessee could generate whatever vote totals it wanted, and forward those to the Secretary of State's office. Formally that is true: of course someone could hack the web server to say that Bush was winning with 99.94% of the vote, or whatever. But it is is irrelevant, because the election results ultimately are the aggregate of each county's vote totals, which are determined by county election boards and then forwarded to the SoS. Nothing in Spoonamore's analysis demonstrates the capacity to tamper with the county tabulators, much less the capacity to tamper with the low-level results that were being tabulated. So Spoonamore hasn't even demonstrated that it was possible for the Tennessee web server to tamper with the election results.

Still less has he demonstrated that any tampering occurred, in Tennessee or elsewhere. The article asserts that there was "a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush." If that were true, it would be worth documenting -- and it would probably be easy to document, because many people were watching the Ohio vote totals very closely. I've seen no evidence for that assertion, nor any other evidence of tampering. (A possible exception is if one construes some isolated miscounts in Cuyahoga County as possible tampering; regardless, there is no reason to attribute them to a maleficent Tennessee web server.)

[spooked911]

75. My point is that if one is dismissive of the whole idea of electronic vote hacking

then each little piece of evidence can be easily dismissed for not passing some measure of proof. This is your tactic.

On the other hand, my point about seeing the forest -- the "disturbing picture"-- is that it makes all those individual pieces of evidence more likely to be true.

I can see what you are doing here-- it is classic official story proponent strategy.

But right now I am not going to get down in the weeds and argue every little detail about this. Sorry.

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. that's just another standard-issue goalpost shift

How have I been "dismissive of the whole idea of electronic vote hacking"?

then each little piece of evidence can be easily dismissed for not passing some measure of proof. This is your tactic.

Assessing evidence isn't a "tactic." It is not possible to reject every hypothesis by chopping up the supporting evidence into sufficiently small pieces -- and anyway, I was using the "pieces" as you defined them. If they are "little pieces," that is only because you couldn't find any bigger ones. (If I "used" this "tactic" against anthropogenic global warming, I would get nowhere.)

Your basic problem isn't that "each little piece of evidence" can't single-handedly prove your hypothesis; it's that most of the pieces are flatly irrelevant to your hypothesis, as I demonstrated point by point.

...my point about seeing the forest -- the "disturbing picture"-- is that it makes all those individual pieces of evidence more likely to be true.

That's incoherent, at best. When the pieces of evidence are irrelevant to the hypothesis, it doesn't really matter whether they're true. But what you really seem to be saying is that you give more credence to "evidence" that fits the "picture" you are already predisposed to see. That's not entirely a bad thing (I wouldn't give much credence to a lab test that indicated that I was pregnant), but here you seem very strongly in the grip of your priors -- so much so that you have no clue how to go about convincing someone who doesn't already agree with you.

I can see what you are doing here-- it is classic official story proponent strategy.

But right now I am not going to get down in the weeds and argue every little detail about this. Sorry.

In other words, you've got nothing, and it's my fault, because I'm so darn sneaky. :shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. basically what I'm getting from this

is that the existence of a movie constitutes prima facie evidence that the movie's argument is true -- unless the movie supports The Official Story, in which case its existence constitutes prima facie evidence that the movie was faked.

Am I being too harsh? Someone talk me down here.

[spooked911]

49. God, what an attitude

"the existence of a movie constitutes prima facie evidence that the movie's argument is true -- unless the movie supports The Official Story, in which case its existence constitutes prima facie evidence that the movie was faked."

Uh, no.

The EVIDENCE in the movie was prima facie evidence for vote fraud.

All the evidence in the movie to me, was convincing. So why should I point out one or two things?

The official movie is what the mainstream media says, which time and time has been shown to be filled with lies.


What you seem to be missing is that evidence of a crime does not need to adhere to scientific PROOF.

You also seem to be missing the basic idea that you can tell us any problems you've noted, and then we can discuss them.

As for me, I believed the whole movie. Sue me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. "All the evidence in the movie to me, was convincing."

Really? Then why shouldn't you "point out one or two things"?

If I asked my geologist friend to present evidence that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, she might have to think for a moment about where to start, because she knows of so many lines of evidence. But I'm quite sure she would be able to present evidence. I'm quite sure she wouldn't whimper about the unfairness of being asked to present evidence, or my bad attitude for asking.

What you seem to be missing is that evidence of a crime does not need to adhere to scientific PROOF.

What you seem to be missing is that I've repeatedly asked you for evidence -- which you have repeatedly refused to provide -- and haven't mentioned "scientific PROOF" at all.

I doubt that I will be able to startle you into self-awareness, but I won't apologize for trying.

ETA:

As for me, I believed the whole movie. Sue me.

:eyes:

Even if the movie was flawless -- especially if the movie was flawless -- you ought to be able to say something better than this.

[spooked911]

48. Ranking military officers, experienced airline pilots, and the governor of AZ all saw alien craft.

The CIA and govt clearly have tried to cover it up.

You're in total denial. Or worse.

Lame.

[zappaman]

51. LOL

:rofl:

[spooked911]

54. why is that so funny?

seriously.

[RegieRocker]

74. Seek mental help immediately.

[RegieRocker]

73. You're the one the hasn't said jack shit.

[teddy51]

19. You know he will reject anything that suggests Election fraud, but you and

I ( and many others) are convinced that there was fraud taking place. Funny how so many errors in the 2004 election seemed to favor Bush... Actually amazing more than funny.

And to add, the testimony of Clint Curtis under oath that he wrote software for Congressman Fenny that would change votes is all BS to I suppose.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. [citation needed]

Funny how so many errors in the 2004 election seemed to favor Bush...

Nice handwave. Again, there is a certain elegance in your attempt to portray my call for evidence as a character flaw, but it seems kind of wacky to me.

As for Clint Curtis, I think his testimony is plausible. I'm mildly curious whether you know what he said. Do you think that Curtis's demo was used in an actual election? Do you think it was used to steal the 2004 election?

[RegieRocker]

60. You shouldn't waste your time on this capo dost.

No matter what evidence you show them they will just discount it. The bottom line is there is a delete key and it would be easy to make sure evidence did not exist. This capo dost is using the "No body no murder" B.S.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. "it would be easy to make sure evidence did not exist"

Look, if someone says, "Sure, there's no evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, but I believe it," there isn't much I can say except "OK, good luck with that."

But spooked has claimed that the movie presents persuasive evidence. So, even if it would have been easy to steal the election without leaving evidence -- which I don't think is true -- the question remains: is spooked right?

Calling me names doesn't alter the problem. At most it obscures the problem.

[RegieRocker]

64. Didn't call you a name. Just stating you're hard headed.

Maybe this will help.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/vote-tampering.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. FYI, "capo" is a noun

Not that that really matters -- just a further diversion.

As for your link, it's irrelevant. No one here (as far as I know) contests that electronic voting machines can be tampered with.

[defendandprotect]

14. Yep, "Conspiracy-free America" --- but looking back at this I think it explains HOW we got Obama ...

Obviously they knew that more attention than they wanted was being given to

computers and to the myriad ways they were stealing the elections --

think they felt they had to cool it to some degree --


ALSO -- we need to pay much more attention to LARGE COMPUTERS used by our coprorate-

press -- which gave them new powers back in the mid and late 1960's to PREDICT and CALL

elections -- to PREDICT and CALL winners and losers -- to PREDICT and CALL Electoral

College votes and to CALL STATES for presidential candidates!


Hard to miss that no one trusts our corporate--press -- yet, somehow these same people

think they can be trusted during elections -- and trusted re 9/11 and all of the other

RW political violence we've had over the last 50 and more years!!

Sure they can!!


And, on another level -- we still have a Democratic Party SILENT on computer voting and

the damage it has done --

Evidently, they treat it as a "taboo" subject ... because they are frightened that if

Dems got the idea that our elections weren't honest, they wouldn't come out to vote!!!

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at that it's so ridiculously unbelievable!!

[teddy51]

15. Gahanna, Ohio - Ward 1-B

Total number of people who voted - 638

Total number of votes tallied for Bush - 4,258

Hmmmmmm Simply amazing.

I should make clear that this was during the 2004 Election for President.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. have you checked the Franklin County returns?

You can go here (if you prefer, here's a direct link to the spreadsheet) and check them. I'll wait.

Now, I'm not saying that you're totally wrong. But if you think this is evidence of an attempt to steal the election, that's near enough to totally wrong as makes no difference.

[spooked911]

22. Can you please just state your point?

It's not at all clear what you are getting at.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. see, I have two points

The narrower point is that George W. Bush received 365 votes in Gahanna 1B, not 4,258 votes.

The broader point is that people who purvey conspiracist factoids often are unwilling to lift a finger to check them, even if someone else does 95% of the work. I cannot convey to you how bizarre I find this. I feel that I understand someone like Richard Hayes Phillips, who spends thousands of hours trying to collect evidence of fraud but doesn't recognize the extent to which he is depending on faulty assumptions. But people who seem resolutely unwilling to do any work whatsoever, yet are convinced that they have discovered something -- I don't grasp that. How could it be possible to discover something without doing any work?

ETA: Now, we could talk about where that 4,258 number comes from, and the implications for the election fraud debate. But if you don't even care enough to look at the election results, how on earth can we have a serious discussion about the election fraud debate? That's a high degree of inability to self-correct.

[spooked911]

26. OK, thanks

look, you must realize that people have limited time, for various reasons. They can easily grasp a concept such as that black box voting systems can be easily manipulated, so will latch on when a documentary film maker puts out a "fact".

Not everyone has time or the incentive to track down a primary source.


Everyone does this, no matter whether they support the official media narrative or the conspiracy explanation.


Everyone has to figure how much they want to accept a certain source of info.

At the same time, *everything* can be subject to some sort of criticism, even official sources, and this can all be debated endlessly. As it is here, for 9/11.

The fact is that people who have seen at least some of the evidence of the 2004 election smell a rat.

Everyone can form their own opinion. I think the evidence indicates fraud via a variety of mechanisms including electronic vote manipulation.

And you think what?

Finally, where did the 4,258 number come from?

[LARED]

28. Finally, where did the 4,258 number come from?

Did it ever cross your mind to investigate this yourself?

It seems to me someone as curious as you are regarding conspiracies you might actually investigate where false information came from just to understand who conspired to put out false information, If indeed that was what happened.

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. exactly: "Did it ever cross your mind to investigate this yourself?"

And sorry to belabor the pet peeve, but I really don't understand how people can call year after year for "investigations" of this, that, and the other, yet not lift a finger to investigate for themselves.

The 4,258 figure is not false, per se. I would like to give some people who claim to be interested in this subject a further chance to do some research and analysis before I say more about that. Of course, if that isn't going to happen, I can dive in at any point. I think there's an obvious reason to be skeptical, at least, that '4,258 Bush votes in a precinct with under 700 voters' is evidence of fraud.

[zappaman]

31. "Did it ever cross your mind to investigate this yourself?" Too true

much easier to just believe every video you see on youtube or whatever crap you read on whichever bullshit site then to actually look something up yourself, eh?

[spooked911]

32. If I had the time, I would

I don't have the time; I have freaking hundreds of things to do, and so I prioritize, ok??? If one of you would be willing to explain it, I would be grateful.

[zappaman]

41. you don't have time?

busier these days I guess?
Maybe you should make the time like you did in the old days?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[LARED]

46. True, it is a matter of prioritizing

The best I can surmise your truth seeking process works like this

Step one.

Does this new information support my theory?

Yes, = High priority, because this is "truth", Post whatever nonsense you discovered because it is of the utmost importance.


No = Bottom of the pile. because this is not "truth" so ignore and hope it goes away.

This would actually be not a horrible process if not for the problem that ascertaining truth based on reality based facts seems to be divorced from truth seeking in your world.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. 4,258

In the unofficial canvass, Bush indeed got over 4000 votes in Gahanna 1-B -- which was, of course, obviously impossible. The Board of Elections investigated, and found that the poll tape and five separate result tables (three in the machine, two in the cartridge) showed that Bush got just 365 votes. It appeared, then, that the result had been garbled when the cartridge was read. The manufacturer (Danaher) was able to replicate the error, which it attributed to a "communications block" when the data was sent faster than the laptop could process it. You can read about it in pages 11-12 of the county board's Report to the Community.

Now, we can't directly verify all parts of this story. What we can do, if we so choose, is to exercise common sense. People who follow elections know that unofficial canvass reports are produced. The chance that someone could have netted an extra 3893 Bush votes in Gahanna 1-B by hacking the machine was basically zero: a discrepancy of this magnitude would not go unnoticed (and didn't). That's a formidable objection to the conclusion that the machine was hacked.

Now, it's nonetheless possible that the machine was hacked. I'll let you come up with an hypothesis, if you like. But I think the smart money is against it. If you read the professional literature in election forensics, no one will ever cite 4,258 as a 'smoking gun,' because the professionals are smarter than that.

[spooked911]

57. OK, thanks

that was a useful and informative post.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. yes, I understand why people would fall for a slick documentary

But I don't understand why you, as a scientist, aren't trying to do better.

I think the evidence indicates fraud via a variety of mechanisms including electronic vote manipulation.

However, since you've failed to present any such evidence, that opinion isn't worth much in the arena of rational discourse.

You may actually know of evidence of what most of us would construe as fraud -- although I really doubt you have solid evidence of electronic vote manipulation.

[spooked911]

33. why do you do this?

I told you my opinion. I asked for yours. Yet, you play coy.

I think there was good evidence laid out in the film, I don't need to repeat it here.

I am super busy, and there are thousands of topics worthy of my attention. If I had to, I would track it down. I don't find it so critical to do this right now.

What I don't appreciate is the time-wasting games that go on here. State your position so I know where you are coming from, and cite some evidence that you think is weak, and we can discuss that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. I told you my opinion

I doubt you have solid evidence of electronic vote manipulation. (In case that's too ambiguous for you, I don't think such evidence exists.) I think you are blowing smoke. Nothing coy about it.

I have no idea why my reaction to your blowing smoke puzzles you. This is your effing thread. Isn't it sort of odd to be reacting like a wounded puppy because I ask you to support your views?

[spooked911]

55. please, then, define "solid evidence of electronic vote manipulation"

so I know what the bar that I have to meet is. OK?

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. umm, how about

evidence that experts in the field would at least take seriously?

As I said above, the basic problem here is that you haven't presented any evidence, so hitherto you've made it quite irrelevant where I would set "the bar."

[spooked911]

63. I presented the info in the FILM as evidence!

I am not sure why that concept is so hard to understand for you!

Now, if you think that there is no solid data in the film, then just freaking say so!

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. until very recently, you hadn't "presented" anything more than the link

Does anyone really think it would have been more edifying if, instead of asking you the questions I asked in #1, I had posted, "Aw, screw it, that movie sucks"?

[spooked911]

68. it wouldn't have been more edifying, necessarily

but it would have saved a lot of time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. no, it would have been completely irrelevant -- as it is

The OP is yours, not mine. Why you thought it was a good idea to post a link to that movie is still not entirely clear, thanks to quite extensive evasion on your part, but it was something that any reasonable reader could be expected to wonder.

[spooked911]

21. Exactly!

Doesn't get much more obvious than that

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. see #23 above n/t