the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Erich Speckin Forensic Document Analyst

Posted by Jeff Id on September 20, 2022

Based on the identical nature of the anomalies, it is my opinion that this subset of ballots
originated from the same source at some point but not the same source that printed the other ballots where the images have no visible issues.

Smoking hot report on more proven large-scale vote fraud from yet another auditor. I’ve written it so many times, it starts to hurt but yet again, IT IS NOT THE MACHINES, this is ballot manufacturing. I know this from the statistics, others are now reviewing the ballots themselves.

This video explains the issues found very clearly:

65 Responses to “Erich Speckin Forensic Document Analyst”

  1. Joshua said

    Lol.

    So now the Arizona audit got swallowed by this vast conspiracy? It never ends, does it? Just always gets bigger and bigger. I notice that Durham had been swallowed by the conspiracy as well. Seems to be growing exponentially. Before long it will include more people than even live in the country.

    I have to say, y’all are impressively credulous.

  2. Joshua said

    That dude Moseder is a trip. The Great Reset, mid-term varient… It’s all there! Beautiful.

    • Joshua said

      The absolute best part of this breaking news of ballot fraud in PA?

      IT WAS CONFIRMED!

      BY AN EXPERT!!

      AN EXPERT!!!

      AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!!!!

      it MUST be true!!!!!

    • Jeff Id said

      “Erich Speckin” is the guy you need to ignore. I’ve requested a copy of his data, as long as it is legal. I’ve done a bunch of image processing over the years so I’m interested in that.

      Won’t that make a fun pile of posts for you to ignore.

      • Joshua said

        I loved the appeal to expertise.

        It’s perfect.

        As is your selective logic.

        • Jeff Id said

          You are ridiculous. All I did was point out that the dude making the video is not the one making the claim.

          Id 1: Josh 0

          • Joshua said

            My point is that you linked to a video where the dude makes a big deal about the expertise of an expert.

            So as I said, your logic is highly selective. It’s just hilarious that after ranting about appeal to authority, and about how “the left” always appeals to authority as opposed to the right, you link to a video where the guy (presumably not of “the left”) makes an appeal to authority.

            But consistent logic doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

          • Jeff Id said

            “My point is that you linked to a video where the dude makes a big deal about the expertise of an expert.”

            That was not your point. Your point was that I was making a big deal about the expertise of the expert as though it was an argument by authority. This is false and that is why you are wrong.

            Oddly enough, the guy in the video is discussing someone who’s income depends on accuracy of review of documents. Again, this doesn’t make him right, but it does mean that he has his income source on the line as well as a background in review. Perhaps you should read the linked document instead of watching the bobble-head video.

          • Dude, post an intelligent rebuttal! NOt a moronic taunt!

  3. Joshua said

    Jeff –

    > Your point was that I was making a big deal about the expertise of the expert.

    No. That was not my point. I was (1) ridiculing the dude in the video you linked and (2) highlighting how your logic is entirely selective: You ignore the many instances where people not of the left appeal to authority in your silly conclusion that appealing to authority is a left wing trait.

    If I wanted to provide examples of YOU appealing to authority I would reference your constant appeals to your own authority. It’s not like they’re hard to find.

    • Joshua said

      Notice here (and check the sequence).

      The absolute best part of this breaking news of ballot fraud in PA?

      IT WAS CONFIRMED!

      BY AN EXPERT!!

      AN EXPERT!!!

      AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!!!!

      it MUST be true!!!!!

      So I was mocking his appeal to authority, and by extension evidence that refutes your silly theory built in nothing other than anecdote and motivated reasoning.

      Wrong yet again. Do you ever tire of being wrong so often?

    • Jeff Id said

      See, that’s where your logic fails. You say you were ridiculing the poster and then in the same sentence claim my logic is selective. You can’t associate the two and simultaneously claim you didn’t.

      fumduxology.

      • Joshua said

        Let’s try this again.

        I ridiculed the dude in the video (for his lame appeal to authority), AND your selective logic in ignoring how often non-left wingers appeal to authority, to build your lame theory about how appealing to authority is an attribute of “the left” as compared to the right.

        There’s no reason why laughing at his lameness and laughing at your lameness need be mutually exclusive.

        Another comment from you, and more being wrong.

        And btw, for all I know appealing to authority COULD be disproportionately prevalent on “the left.” I don’t know, but what I do know it’s that easy to find on “the right,” that you ironically do it yourself, and that you don’t have empirical evidence in support of your lame theory.

        • Jeff Id said

          “And btw, for all I know appealing to authority COULD be disproportionately prevalent on “the left.””

          It is.

          As I said so many times, I’ve made no such appeal. I even requested the data myself so I could verify it.

          How many times can you be wrong in a single thread. <<<<<—– this is rhetorical, you don't have to keep doing it.

          • Joshua said

            > this is rhetorical, you don’t have to keep doing it.

            It’s a reference to your ridiculous posturing about how often you’re right about things (and ignoring how often you’re wrong).

            You don’t have to keep doing that. It’s rhetorical.

  4. Joshua said

    Beautiful –

    > the guy in the video is discussing someone who’s income depends on accuracy of review of documents. Again, this doesn’t make him right, but it does mean that he has his income source on the line as well as a background in review.

    As distinguished from scientists whose income depends on publishing papers about climate science?

    Lol.

    Come on. Admit it. This is a Poe, right?

  5. Joshua said

    > It is.

    So there we go….argument by assertion. I can’t say it’s surprising to see you employ that.

    > As I said so many times, I’ve made no such appeal.

    Of course you did. You appealed to your own authority (and expertise) many times. It’s funny that you’re so awed by your own expertise that you can’t even see your appeal to it. You just assume that your expertise makes your opinions dispositive.

    Let’s go through this again. I doubt it will have any effect, but why not try?

    You obviously have a great deal of contempt for the tens of millions of Americans who you call “the left.” You call them “morons” and all of that. So being human, you’re naturally inclined towards attributing negative attributes to them even when there isn’t a true signal in the available evidence. Call it motivated reasoning or confirmation bias or tribalism or whatever you want. It’s just a human trait. Perhaps some people are immune to that tendency, but clearly the number of people who are is far, far fewer than the number of people who claim to be so. And in this process, you ignore all the available evidence as to why humans would reason in pretty much the same way irrespective of political ideology. Don’t worry, a similar mode of thinking is commonplace and banal. And it’s obviously very prevalent on “the left” as well as on “the right.” Particularly when people are as heavily ideologically identified, as you clearly are.

    The way to at least attempt to control for that cognitive bias I’m speaking of is to conduct empirical analysis. It’s not perfect but at least it helps. The worst thing to to with respect to that cognitive bias is to simply run with anecdotal observations to conclude some kind of absolute law of “nature” – as you repeatedly do. Your process is, of course, unfalsifiable. Not only do you fail to base your conclusions on a sampling process to ensure representativeness, you also ignore myriad potential observer biases, and you even go further to ignore your potential to “fool yourself” as Feynman spoke about. The easiest person for you to fool, Jeff, is yourself.

    • Jeff Id said

      Appealing to your own authority? WTF dude. That’s called thinking for yourself.

      Those who vote Democrat are very very lost. It is flat stupidity at this point. Not my fault. That you can’t figure it out, fits very well with the fact that you can’t figure anything else out either. Like for instance, 20 sigma off the bell curve being impossible.

      You make lots of accusations but have literally zero solid facts to make your arguments.

      • David A said

        Indeed, a troll personified. “Appeal to authority” means an assertion that a person is correct just because they have a degree or expertise in a field. Mentioning that a person is educated in the field they offer a perspective on, is NOT an appeal to authority, but is an appeal to listen and address the assertions made.

        Joshua, try quoting the assertions made in the main post, and then explain why they are wrong. Otherwise you are simply a troll.

        • Willard said

          > “Appeal to authority” means an assertion that a person is correct just because they have a degree or expertise in a field.

          Not really, David. It’s like saying that some photo is faked because you’re some kind of imaging guru. Something Jeff indeed said not far from here.

          You might have a better change to claim that not all appeal to authority are invalid. At least it’s true.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff has also referred to his authority as an expert who “does math,” and to his expertise in voter fraud as a function of his extensive experience investigating it.

          • Jeff Id said

            I believe i claimed experience. I have a lot of that.

            Appeal to authority is — bill barr said there was no fraud, i believe hiim.

          • Willard said

            An invalid argument from authority is – J* is a Freedom Fighter, I know this from the psychometrics and I am Very Good at psychometrics.

            A valid kind of argument is – according to what we know about Freedom Fighters they say things like this:

            One thing we have to realize is that we are completely free now, [teh Donald] freed us. The social contract has been broken. We are no longer obligated to play by any set of rules and it will be to our detriment if we do.

            https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2021/01/08/the-future-of-america/#comment-276493

            J* is free from any kind of rational obligation as it would slow him down.

          • Jeff Id said

            Sounds made up.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            I haven’t read a whole lot of your posts, but already I’ve seen you explain how your opinions are of high quality by virtue of your experience and expertise across a pretty wide area. Election fraud, image processing, statistics, tax law, business practices, climate science, blah, blah.

            You do that to appeal to your authority, to your expertise.

            You see, appealing to authority is not necessarily fallacious. There’s a logic and a common sense to it. Where it becomes fallacious is when someone argues that an expert’s opinion is necessarily correct because they’re an expert.

            The difference would between something like (1) saying that Barr’s opinion on law should be valued over that of someone who knows nothing about law because he’s an expert in law, and (2) saying that Barr’s opinion on law necessarily is correct because he’s an expert on law.

            The reason why that second example is fallacious is that someone could be wrong on a topic where their expert, despite their expertise. Like someone who thinks he has absolute “proof” of voter fraud because of his experience in looking at voter fraud and his experience in “doing math.”

            You know what I mean?

            The problem there is that someone like that could be making mistakes that aren’t the result of inexperience in examining election fraud, or a lack of skill or experience in “doing math.”

          • Jeff Id said

            Joshua,

            I actually agree with some of what you wrote. Well done. I don’t agree that I’m not allowed to express my background in discussing an image for example.

            Am I, as the resident blogger allowed to tell you that I have experience with image processing, electronics, economics, climate, aeronautics, supply chain, mechanics, manufacturing, physics, programming and a few other things?

          • Jeff Id said

            I wrote ‘it sounds made up’, I don’t think your post deserved that. I’m going to rethink it.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            Of course you’re “allowed to.”

            What a bizarre notion – that you wouldn’t be “allowed to.”

            Yes, Jeff. You’re allowed to appeal to your authority.

          • Jeff Id said

            Josh,
            I am one of those rare morons who does like critique but you have to do better to keep my interest.

            Change is good, most of the time. If you can argue coherently enough to make me change, I will.

          • David A said

            Willard quotes my comment…> “Appeal to authority” means an assertion that a person is correct just because they have a degree or expertise in a field.

            And then Willard disagrees, while effectively saying EXACTLY what I said…

            “Not really, David. It’s like saying that some photo is faked because you’re some kind of imaging guru. Something Jeff indeed said not far from here.”

            And, like Joshua, FAILS to provide a quote where said assertion is made.

          • I believe i claimed experience. I have a lot of that.

            Yea, but at what? The only thing you have demonstrated experience in is juvenile ad hominems and infantile insults.

    • Dude, post an intelligent rebuttal! Not a moronic taunt!

  6. Joshua said

    Jeff –

    > That’s called thinking for yourself.

    You can think for yourself without referencing your expertise, as if that’s evidence that you aren’t wrong in your thinking for yourself – which is what you keep doing. Experts are frequently wrong despite their expertise.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about thinking for yourself that requires the kind of appeal to your own authority that you employ.

    Just as one can think for oneself without being so certain about being 100% correct – another pattern we see with you.

    Just remember, Jeff, you are the easiest person for you to fool.

    • Jeff Id said

      And yet still no data, only assertions made by others you consider to be authorities.

      • Joshua said

        I don’t neef data to outline and explicate the fallacies in your arguments.

        • Jeff Id said

          Kinda do bud. Otherwise you’re just self-flagellating.

        • David A Anderson said

          It would help if you quoted exactly what was said, that you consider an invalid “appeal to authority”

        • Joshua said

          David –

          > It would help if…

          You didn’t seem to need my help to conclude that I’m a “troll.” I think your request for “help” is bullshit. It doesn’t. Seem that you’re actually interested in engagemwnt.

          I explained with come specificity hown Jeff’s frequent self-refeences to his own expertise are an appeal to authority, if not necessarily fallacious appeals authority. If you’ve read his last 20nlosts or so you’ll find examples. I see little point in taking the time to provide them to you; you will note that Jeff doesn’t dispute he’s made numerous self-references to his expertise (and “experience” as a brand of expertise).

          One of the amusing patterns to watch in the blogosphere is how combatants throw haxknans forth “appeal to authority” or “ad hominum” and then (1) appeal to authority or (2) resort to ad hom, or (3) make it clear they don’t even really understand what the terms mean or the implications of when, whichever rhetorical frame is actually fallacious.

          And at any rate, this is all rather beside the point. Whether or not Jeff appeals to authority doesn’t have much relevance. He’s only one person and not a representative sampling. The interesting question is with respect to his lame-ass assertik that you can reverse engineer from an appeal to authority to find someone in “the left” and the fact that he makes such an assertion with. I actual grounding in empirical evidence of any sort. He merely reasons by personal anecdote which is weak and most likely just an expression of his emotions.

          • Jeff Id said

            Josh, if you have been specific, I am still unaware of it.

            If you have been accurate, I’m also unaware of it. Pedandtry is not my style but I truly don’t mind being proven wrong the way most filks do so let er rip.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            You have talked about your expertise/experience in taxes, business, statistics, voter fraud, image processing, and climate science, if not additional topics, in just a recent sampling of posts.

            Are you really so addled that you don’t remember?

          • Joshua said

            And besides, once again, this is alll irrelevant to your empirical evidence free claims about some vast difference in how “the left” in this country reasons from how “the right” reaaons.

            It’s quite remakable that you characterize the reasoning of so many millions of your fellow Americans, along with calling them “shit-stained morons” too boot, without, apparently, any evidence.

            I guess when you’re so emotional, there’s no need to provide any evidence before making such sweeping claims?

          • Joshua said

            Oh wait – I guess your frequent referring to your expertise isn’t some kind of appeal to your expert status, as a way of saying that your expertise lends weight and credibility to your analyses and opinions.

            Right. It’s all just random. Coincidence I say!

            ‘Cause you’re on “the right” and thus your arguments are always evidence-based, and couldn’t possibly appeal to your authority in any way. And we know that’s true ’cause you said so. And you’re an expert, so it must be true.

            Lol. C’mon. You’re still doing the Poe thing, right?

          • Jeff Id said

            You don’t get the concept of argument by authority ir you don’t want to.

            If you care to explain why sea level is still a dead straight line despite every climate projection, have at it. We will see if my skills can keep up.

            Engineering is the worlds coldest sport. The god of physics is the ref and is as unbiased as a dead lithium battery.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            > You don’t get the concept of argument by authority

            Lol.

            You frequently refer to your expertise, across a wide variety of topics, to add weight and credibility to your opinions.

            It’s no different than saying that Bill Barr’s expertise, developed through decades of studying law, adds weight to his opinions on law – in particular in comparison to someone who never studied law.

            That is an appeal to his authority. It is just common sense. It’s just straight logic. It’s not fallacious reasoning.

            Barr’s expertise doesn’t mean that his views are dispositive. It just adds to the probability that his views are correct in comparison, say, to someone who is ignorant of the law and who never studied the law. To say his views are necessarily correct would be a fallacious argument, a fallacious appeal to authority, and thus the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

            You don’t actually make a counter argument. You just emotionally stamp your feet and say “NO!” and argue by assertion (a related fallacious mode of argument) – which I guess you think must be correct by virtue of your self-evaluation of your authority, which is obviously enormously high.

          • Jeff Id said

            Joshua,

            You would be right if I didn’t put the data online.

            But I do.

            You can show me I’m wrong . Turns out Barr made his statements with ZERO data as the FIB and DOJ did zero research and put zero data online.

            That is very different;

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            Do you have a clue?

            I referred to Barr’s expertise on the law, and you ignore that and act as if I was talking about voter fraud?

            Just bizarre. You just jumble evething together, no matter what, to confirm your belief in your own authority.

          • David A said

            Joshua says ,
            “You didn’t seem to need my help to conclude that I’m a “troll.” I think your request for “help” is bullshit. It doesn’t. Seem that you’re actually interested in engagemwnt.”

            You are a troll. You do not address the substance and assertions presented in the main post. You do not quote the assertions that you disagree with. You fail to quote examples of your assertions. Asking you to “help” by quoting exactly what you disagree with, is simple common sense, which you appear incapable of.

            Joshua continues… “I explained with come specificity hown Jeff’s frequent self-refeences to his own expertise are an appeal to authority, if not necessarily fallacious appeals authority.”

            LOL, if they are not fallacious, IE, “I have formal training in this area, and the opinion of X is wrong because in X field we don’t do X for the following logical reasons…
            Then what are you blathering about?

            Joshua continues…” If you’ve read his last 20nlosts or so you’ll find examples. I see little point in taking the time to provide them to you; you will note that Jeff doesn’t dispute he’s made numerous self-references to his expertise (and “experience” as a brand of expertise).”

            LOL, you are making the criticism ( very lamely) I simply asked you to quote the examples and how any reference to authority was fallacious. Again, if the mention of authority or formal education in a field is informative of the assertions one presents, then why the incessant pointless blathering on? It is your job to support your own assertions.

            Joshua goes on… “One of the amusing patterns to watch in the blogosphere is how combatants throw haxknans forth “appeal to authority” or “ad hominum” and then (1) appeal to authority or (2) resort to ad hom, or (3) make it clear they don’t even really understand what the terms mean or the implications of when, whichever rhetorical frame is actually fallacious.”

            Joshua, that is simply wasted space, and very poorly articulated at that. A broad generality with ZERO specific references to give detailed examples.

            Joshua goes on… “And at any rate, this is all rather beside the point. Whether or not Jeff appeals to authority doesn’t have much relevance.”

            Joshua, LPL, you are the one who continually and poorly makes the assertion without example or quotes, and wastes space avoiding the actual assertions of the post.

            Joshua then goes on to write a horribly worded paragraph, once again failing to give any example, quotes, or address the actual cogent points made and evidence presented in the main post, simply distracting from the main post in a troll like manner.

    • Joshua said

      > Kinda do bud. Otherwise you’re just self-flagellating.

      No. I don’t need data to make it clear that you’re employing fallacious reasoning, at least in the areas which I’ve discussed. All I need to do is show how your reasoning is fallacious. I haven’t said that your use of data is fallacious. I’ve criticized the assertions you’ve made without using ANY empirical evidence.

      The beauty here is that you frequently make assertions absent any supporting data.

      Is this all unintentional irony? Or is this a Poe? “Self-flagellate” much?

  7. Pouncer said

    A lot of resentment about the 2020 election arises from various challenges, in court, being dismissed before “experts” or others were allowed to present any analysis or evidence. Courts held that the chllengeRs lacked legal “standing” to complain. So, no evidence or testimony was ever entered or examined or cross-examined … Then shortly, the major media declared that complaints were “without evidence” and therefore, “baseless” and even “lies.” So resentment builds up like debt from a series of kited checks.

    ANYHOW, a person with DEFINITE rights of “standing” is a candidate himself, or herself. And an instructive situation in the famously (notoriously?) electorally correct state of Georgia has been reported in the unimpeachable New York Times. (“Criminal” and “Impeachable” being disjoint adjectival sets)

    I call this instructive in that it was immediately obvious to the analyst — in this case, the candidate– that “something is wrong”. Early voting results were completely, utterly, different from Election Day results. So she dug deeper and found other obvious problems. Her own precinct, in which both she and her husband voted for her that Election Day, showed her with ZERO votes. So she dug deeper still. And roped in “experts”, of course. But the experts were only necessary to work out how and what went wrong, not THAT it went wrong.

    My take away about the “instructive” nature of this is a general understanding that the RESULTS of voting in a fairly designed process should be indifferent to the METHOD of voting. Early voting, mail balloting, “drop box” ballots, touch screens, paper ballots, Polling Station voting on Election Day … IF all these methods are comparable — dare we say, equitable? — reflecting the will of the public, then the percentages for each should be comparable. And if not, then something is WRONG. Unfair. And it may take an expert to determine exactly what happened. But it’s enough to say that different processes that skew results badly are more likely to be reflecting a difference of the process itself, than of the preferences supposedly being measured. If you don’t share that understanding — if you assume that, say, mail ballots skew for fair reasons (from voters in the military under traditional “absentee” rules, maybe?) — then you also are unlikely to see the need for deeper or expert analysis.

    https://www.lopmatrix.com/dominion-botch-georgia-primary-election-overturned-after-awful-machine-count/


    This obvious fraud would never have been caught and the original [Election Night] results would have been approved by [County Election Officials] Raffensperger, if [the candidate] had not been in the precinct offices in District 2 on primary night. She took pictures of the precinct results and provided them to a local newspaper in DeKalb County. Those results showed that [she] had received zero votes in her home precinct!

    The big irony in all of this, and a likely silver lining for Georgia voters, is that this was a Democrat primary.

    • Jeff Id said

      It’s a great example. The thing about Georgia 2020 was that in an election Biden won had literally 400,000 more voters in Atlanta area. ALL 400,000 voted Biden.

      I listened to Breitbart on the way to work this morning and Alex Marlow says, well with Stacy Abrams “get out the vote” effort that 8 point lead in the polling for Republicans may not matter. I turned it of instantly.

      In Arizona, True the Vote testified to the senate that they tracked ballot mules from Stacy’s office to dropoff boxes — hundreds of times with stacks of ballots.

      It’s proven fraud on a massive scale and we still act like it isn’t there. I’m not saying you of course but I don’t know what it takes for people to figure out the sky is blue, but ostriching won’t change the reality. The stats are proof but the damned evidence of this activity is literally on video and cell tracking data.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: