On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:43:48 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 11/23/16 1:09 PM, STOP DAPL wrote:
On 11/23/2016 11:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:44:08 -0600, STOP DAPL
wrote:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...lenge-results/





"Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any
evidence of hacking, the pattern needs
to be looked at by an independent review."

Translation: We have no evidence, it's just a feeling.........


That was my immediate reaction but, the statistical anomaly is puzzling.
Past things I have seen indicate that the computer machines have a
lower error rate than the other two (especially to the extent that
things like creases, etc., make it necessary to hand count the optical
machines). It could just as easily be that the computer is more accurate
and the problem is with the paper ballots and optical scanners.
It is also "possible" that the computer had a "programming anomoly"
- either a bug or a hack - that caused it to mis-report.
Not saying it did - or that there were any voting problems in the last
election - but any time a computer is exposed to the "wild" (i.e
connected to a public network) the possibilty of hacking cannot be
totally discounted.