Software Engineer Says Evidence of Election Theft Is Convincing
Many people were surprised and alarmed by the sudden stoppage of vote-counting in numerous jurisdictions. We sensed there was something unnatural about such an act. Since then, several relevant facts have come to light:
1) Unexplained vote spikes for Biden in areas where vote-counting stopped.
2) Allegations that the S/W used for counting has a back-door whereby voting rates can be adjusted by a S/W algorithm designed to inject votes in a somewhat credible manner.
3) Some internet sleuths have discovered that the vote-counting-rate spiked during the “injections” of votes.
In other words, in precincts that had vote-counting machines where they were capable of counting let’s say 1,000 votes-per-minute, the vote-counting-rate also spiked to a counting rate of 10,000 votes-counted-per-minute. This information has been published by various alternate news-site, the only ones the people can trust for accurate information these days.
As a software and embedded-systems engineer for almost thirty-years, this classic S/W algorithm error jumps out at me instantly. To wit, under tremendous time pressure, as the algorithm authors must have been when they realized that President Trump was getting far more votes than their worst-case predictions anticipated, they were given a little extra time to adjust the algorithm in real-time when the vote-counting was halted.
During this time, it has been proposed that the algorithm authors adjust the formula to ensure a Biden victory, which requires that large numbers of votes be added to Biden’s total in a short period of time. The classic software programming blunder here is that the physical capabilities of the hardware on which the votes were being counted was completely neglected. And under the pressure and time-constraint under which the programmer(s) had to work, it is forgivable, from a programming standpoint, but not forgivable from a treason/sedition standpoint.
In other words, an analysis of the reality in which votes for Biden appeared faster than the h/w could produce them very strongly demonstrates that the votes did not come from said h/w. They came from the algorithm. But the algorithm had a bug in it which demonstrates human-hands were tweaking on the algorithm in such way and such time that there was no opportunity to test the changes. And the bug leaked out into the open when the vote-counting rate mysteriously spiked well above and beyond the h/w’s capabilities.
These types of bugs are common among programmers even at a senior level, when they rush their programming changes. Thus, my conclusion is that this programming error further strengthens the case that the vote was manipulated by human intervention as it was being counted. QED.
Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE
