(05-05-2021 09:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 09:39 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 09:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 06:59 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And then you have this nonsense. This is why you don't hire an unqualified firm for this type of work...especially a biased on!

What’s behind Arizona’s bizarre, haphazard, and highly partisan “audit” of the 2020 election

Did you really just question the legitimacy of UV lights on the authenticity of the ballots? Either A you have never used UV lighting to determine fraudulent money or documentation or B your head is so far up your azz that if you were to fart you’d blow your brains out. C You really don’t care what results are found as long as they fit your agenda and narrative.

In the diamond industry UV lights are used to confirm paper documentation daily.

The only people who would question using UV lights would be because it exposes fraud.

Moving forward Brokenwing you might try engaging your brain before typing misinformation.

You do understand that the use cases you listed for UV light use UV reactive markings, which they have said the ballots don’t have.

So what exactly are they looking for?

Are you suggesting, like your comrade Tommy Psaki, that they are destroying ballots with UV light? Go ahead and answer this because it seems to be what y’all are claiming.
If so for what purpose?

I’m asking what they are looking for. In English. It’s a simple question.

OK. Fair enough. They are examining the paper for creases, folds, ink marks and other possible anomalies from what I understand. Possibly more than that.

You seem to have a problem with them using UV scanners. Why?

Now answer my question. Do you think they are trying to destroy ballots by using this UV light? What other problem do you have with them using this technique?