>Did you Qs have a chance to look into the data eluded to with my last questions?
alluded to
The sauce is inadequate, anon.
It doesn't say who inspected the ballot or how.
It doesn't say what state that piece of paper is from or the date.
It doesn't provide any links or other info that anons could use to independently confirm the claim.
It may even be true, but it isn't adequate sauce.
I like the watermark story a lot, been following it all day, but the various tweets have differed in describing what actual technology is employed. And nobody has come up with a very good explanation of how DHS could have forced all states to implement watermarks. Hack the ink suppliers surreptitiously?
Anyway I do like the watermark idea but the sauce has to be tasty.
EGGzactly.
One tweet said non-radioactive isotope.
Another tweet said radioactive isotope.
Another tweet said something that appears in UV light or bleach (that would not be a radioactive isotope).
Someone else showed a video magnifying the ballot paper from some state and it had text ELECTION on it in mirror image.
Another magnification showed micro dots.
Any or all of these might be employed.
I just thought it was weird that nobody seemed to have the actual scoop but lots of rumors were flying and taken seriously by most, without considering HOW the anti-counterfeiting measures could have been applied or detected.
I'm just saying…. call me a skeptical engineer. I like to think a layer or two deeper about HOW something is done.