(05-06-2021 11:29 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 10:45 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 07:42 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 10:59 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

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

The real question is do you understand? obviously from that remark you have no idea what UV lighting can detect. It must be nice to just throw random crap against the wall to see what will stick. You may actually go to a lab and get some real time schooling before you type your next forensics report.

All the use cases you listed use pre marked UV reactive artifacts to leverage a UV light to verify authenticity.

AZ ballots don’t have any UV watermarks and the printers don’t use yellow dots.

So do you have any actual relevant use cases for UV light, or are you just running your mouth?

Are you really this slow? You need to do some UV lighting research so you can actually understand all the things it can do.

So you don’t know what they are looking for. Got it.

From all the garbage spewing out of your mouth the question becomes what are you afraid they might find.

Like I said before UV lighting can detect a lot of things that are not consistent with the original ballots. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.