Why Clint Curtis is a fraud....

[DubyaSux]

***********************************
Edited to add:
My apologies for the name mistake.
Mea Culpa
***********************************

But anyhow, he's not good enough to pull this off.

His method is both bush league (no pun intended) and unworkable.

First, he had to write this in C++. Otherwise, you would need to install all the Visual Basic runtime files and that would be undoable with even crappy election official monitors. Furthermore, the checksum routines in the GEMS system to make sure it's a valid file would never pass.

Now, for the technical part of why he couldn't do it...

He says he reads candidate data out of the database and indexes an array. Well, I opened up the Colorado Gems database and looked at the candidate table. It is indexed on the KeyID, but the values were around 400 up to 600 (the numbers could be higher or lower in other areas - there's no way to know). For his "array" to work, he would have hundreds of blank data points and as far as he is concerned, they are valid candidates because he claims to be going by ID. So, NULL would have won the election. Either that, or you would have to scroll through 400 candidates to get to the one you wanted. Now, if he were to say he tracked by ID and used names, that would be one thing. But he didn't. He said the placement of the candidate was based on the ID. This makes his entire story bullshit. Imagine if the candidate ID's were in the millions as long type integers allow? He'd run the computer out of memory.

Secondly, nobody with any type of real programing experience at a level to pull this off would use an array to begin with. You'd use a CMap object and manage everything through a collection of those data objects. It's cleaner, faster, more robust, and pretty much impervious to crashes and memory leaks (as long as you cleaned up your mess. If not, anybody running the compiler in debug mode to test would see all the compiler memory leak warnings pointing right to the culprit).

In any case, either method would have been caught. The initializing and deletion of the CMap objects would be plainly obvious to any developer because of their required location (constructor and destructor points), and a fixed array would have made experienced developers laugh their asses off.

It's obvious that he knows a little about some higher level programming language, but I wouldn't trust him to program my VCR if this is the best he can do.

Lastly, his entire method is flawed. Even if you were to assume all his crap were true, it's unworkable for more than two candidates. You'd have sequences so complex (with the hidden button concept, which is probably bullshit as well as I've never figured out to hide a button without disabling it, but I could be wrong. He could create his own window object to do it, but that's not a button), you'd look like those kids at the arcade in the mall trying to dance to the flashing lights for points.

It's true I am one of the few democrats that don't believe systematic fraud won numbnuts the election, and it's because of these types of issues. It's implausible beyond belief. The things that would have to go correctly and perfectly on a mass scale to rig an election while avoiding getting caught is unimaginable.

It wouldn't break my heart for Bush to enjoy a long healthy life in a jail cell the Hague sent him to for his war crimes instead of the White House, but complex conspiracies didn't get him reelected. Stupid freeper types got him there - not smart ones.

I agree with Bev Harris other points regarding this issue (there's something you won't see much) because that simply adds to the implausibility. This guy is a fake - no doubt about it.

[jamboi]

1. Duh, Madsen didn't program anything. Duh. n/t

[jamboi]

16. Okay, now that the title is at least correct. Curtis wrote a prototype. VB

is perfect for a rapid development prototype. Used all the time.

[DubyaSux]

23. You can't run it..

....without installing all the overhead files. A C++ file could be one file. Visual Basic is not. It would take many files to interface with the database and show a Graphical User Interface. Nothing wrong with VB - I use it all the time. But impossible to use as he suggests.

[jamboi]

25. Its just a proof of concept. n/t

[electropop]

121. Which part of 'prototype' do you not understand?

How precise a model does it have to be to look good to a politician? The guy may be a fraud, but the case you make has no bearing on the question. Lift your nose from the source code and look around. If you haven't seen the massive evidence of fraud, you don't want to see it. Yes, I know it's scary for a Republican (which you obviously are) to consider the possibility that his 'President' is a criminal. But you and all of America are in grave danger until he is defeated.

[DubyaSux]

128. Explain to me again...

....of why I'm a republican? Because I don't agree with you on this particular subject? Is that the new litmus test? Or is there some secret democrat handshake I'm not aware of?

[aquart]

134. There might be a Democratic handshake among Democrats.

I haven't seen it, but there might be.

[KansDem]

145. Of course, there's the Republican handshake...

[DubyaSux]

156. I was looking...

....for the secret one. Please read.

[electropop]

181. I apologize

We are all a bit nervous about the tinfoil-hat issue, and I know you are just trying to make sure we don't make ourselves look like fools. I do think that there is massive evidence of fraud, regardless of the the Cutis affadavit's veracity (or lack thereof), so I can get annoyed when I think somebody's ignoring all the other evidence. I let myself fall into the trap of stifling dissent like a rethug, and I regret that.

[DubyaSux]

183. Apology accepted...n/t

[ddd3]

108. Look here for latest developments and answer to many of your questions!

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/response-to-bev-harris-questions-on.html

The whole story re: Clint Curtis

"I was concerned that folks might confuse Curtis' story with the broader picture Madsen was painting, and I have seen no supporting evidence to suggest that the two stories are in any way related. Not to say they aren't. I just have seen nothing to suggest they are..."

Please use the above link to see MUCH MORE info summarized, including the differences between Curtis' affadavit and Madsen's article.

[Turn CO Blue]

171. Here's a somewhat related question...

Tom Feeney went to the trouble to defend his name and to denounce Clint Curtis and his allegations about the FDOT billing scam in several letters to papers...but I didn't happen to find (in my googling) that Mr. Feeney mentioned Mavis Georgalis in his letters, who made the exact same allegations.

So Tom Feeney really expends energy to SMEAR Clint Curtis' name in his rebuttals - but not Mavis Georgalis, when she not only made the SAME allegations about FDOT, but actually made more headway with her allegations and suits. Why no smear of her?

The speculation part: Could it have gotten personal between Mr. Curtis and Mr. Feeney?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Razorback_Democrat]

8. LOL n/t

[DubyaSux]

15. Of course it is...

...and I still like you even if you hate me. I have enough room in my heart for everyone - even of they disagree and don't like me for it.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DubyaSux]

26. Ahh.....

....the 'ol "you must be a freeper" tactic because I can show scientifically how you may be getting played by someone...the one time I actually agree with Bev Harris. Is she a freeper too?

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. I think you would have been received better if you had read

that Curtis only created a quick prototype. Just to show that it was possible.

[emcguffie]

150. recreated a prototype

I don't know if he first created a program or a prototype, but YEI took whatever he did. He just recreated this prototype to show what it could do, I think to demonstrate the way he did it.

He no longer has it.

[Razorback_Democrat]

3. I think you mean Curtis

but with your scathing thesis (of which I disagree) I'll let you flame Madsen for his programming skills, or lack therof

[DubyaSux]

12. I stand corrected..

..on the name mistake. Now, please take my thesis to task. I'm eager to hear the technical problems with it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Masden is a reporter.

He ain't a geek and I do not remember him ever stating that he knew C code from morse code.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shraby]

6. I understand vb runtime is in the Windows program already.

By the way, how did you get into the Colorado Gems program anyway?

[DubyaSux]

19. Not true...

...no overhead files are preinstalled. In fact, to run VBA scripts as Bev Harris suggests, you need to install Microsoft Office. Why anybody would install Access on an evoting system that doesn't require it is beyond me.

[Must_B_Free]

53. the tabulation program IS an Access application

that's why it was so easy to break into.

I agree this Curtis story is crap. If you are going to effectively steal votes, you don't do it manually at each terminal; you do it at the tabulator.

Case in point - you can only vote once, so it would require participation of many election defrauders, each one voting on each different machine to run the theft method as described by Curtis.

Secret plans involve as few as possible.

[pointsoflight]

7. Do you think if you repost this enough, some will start to believe it?

[Razorback_Democrat]

10. Now now

we're all friendly!

I agree with you though;)

[Cronus Protagonist]

107. He's probably trying to convince himself

And it's wholly unimpressive.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[prof_science]

9. So sad.

:eyes:

[karlrschneider]

11. "Masden"? Who is that. And how do you happen to know how the

checksums are accomplished in the GEMS software? I won't even to start commenting on the rest of your "analysis" for now...

[lthuedk]

13. Get a good attorney.

[righteous1]

14. Uh oh hope ya got your asbestos bloomers on

[jsamuel]

17. As I stated in another thread

Regarding the Clint stuff:

If true (which has not been shown yet - wait for the hearing tomorrow), it will provide 3 MAJOR benefits to our case.

It would establish:

1. Motive
2. Ability
3. Intent

Now we should not hang our hopes on this. We should still persue the recount and listen to Arne. There are many avenues still left open, this is just one of them. Feel free to disagree, but I think we here at the DU are a talented bunch. We can keep our eyes on more than one ball at a time. And if this ball goes foul, we will take our eyes off of it.

[Pepper32]

84. Agreed. Very reasonable post. n/t

[senseandsensibility]

18. I get it!

You're trying to tell us something! This forum had turned into the Comedy Forum, and you're doing some improv here for a very specialized audience? No offfense; keep the day job!:P

[righteous1]

21. I know your looking for substantive challenges to your theories

as am I ,but i'm afraid that's just not going to happen. Many people lately have been much more interested in attacking the poster than the post. It's a crutch for ignorance and a sign of a lazy mind

[Razorback_Democrat]

24. Now now, the mods have spoken

we are friendly here

the original poster is a fine person

his theory is all wet

[senseandsensibility]

27. Oh yes

doubtless the poster will be VERY disappointed by the lazy responses to his extremely well thought out and convincing post. I see what you mean.

[reality_bites]

109. and a embarrasment to DU

[Razorback_Democrat]

147. I wouldn't presuppose that I "knew" what would be an "embarrassment"

to DU!

How is it that you are able to speak for DU so confidently?

[koopie57]

22. well

You really don't put forth a persuasive arguement. I'm thinking that your knowledge is limited and C's is so extensive your not able to absorb it.

[jsamuel]

28. Your post DEBUNKED IN ONE WORD

Prototype

[trudyco]

29. As Jamboi said - proof of concept n/t

[MarkusQ]

30. I would agree, except...

...for your penultimate point:

It's implausible beyond belief. The things that would have to go correctly and perfectly on a mass scale to rig an election while avoiding getting caught is unimaginable.

This is true of the sort of convoluted webs that Madsen, et al spin. But it could have been (and, I suspect, was) pulled off by simple tricks such as not giving enough resources (poll booths, voting machines, etc.) to predominantly Democratic precincts. If that is the limiting factor in how many people get to vote (and it appears that it was) shorting them 10% on the resources can change a 5% loss into a 5% win. Not fancy, but cheap, easy, and very effective.

--MarkusQ

[DubyaSux]

31. That..

...is a perfectly plausible scenario. I can beleive and do believe that a signifcant amount of THAT type of nefarious behavior exists and played a huge factor in this election.

But not evoting fraud. And this guy claimed to work for somebody who implemented it.

[Razorback_Democrat]

35. You guys sure are sure there was no fraud

I'm going to let it all pan out myself

the hearings tomorrow will be a good start

[MarkusQ]

100. Not at all

I am not at all convinced that there was no fraud. Quite the contrary. But I am convinced that the way to uncover it is to stay grounded in well established facts and work inexorably outward one the basis of well justified conclusions. That's how you do it in finance, that's how you do it in science, and that is sure as heck the way to do it in politics.

Hopping around among wild accusations via tenuous connections to unrelated possibilities doesn't get you anywhere. Never has, and never will.

--MarkusQ

[SomthingsGotaGive]

192. It's hilarious that you and i agree on so much.

You say you are a republican and nobody say boy when you dissent.

Me i get called every name in the book.

maybe i should just say I'm a Republican and everyone will think I'm extremely moderate and level headed.

:evilgrin:

[shraby]

48. You still didn't answer my question...

How did you get into the Colorado Gems program?????

[ibegurpard]

49. I want to know that too?

:shrug:

[mccoyn]

126. There is a sample on the BBV site.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Search for "Computer Guys: Be your own ITA certifier."

[eomer]

32. I read the affidavit differently

The way the affidavit reads to me it seems like Curtis didn't have touchscreen voting software from any vendor to work with. It seems like he created his own simple e-voting application for demonstration purposes. He also created a sample database for that application to use. Now he has a demonstration e-voting application.

Then he inserted the fraud code into his own demo e-voting application. He did this by putting invisible buttons hidden in the screen.

And he did all the above in Visual Basic.

He doesn't say that what he did was a final implementation.

I disagree with a number of other points you make but won't go on since I think you've got the whole premise wrong.

[Razorback_Democrat]

42. That's my understanding of it too

from the affidavit's reading and the reporting on this

it was a prototype

not the program that did it necessarily

if it is true it shows intent to commit fraud, known as a conspiracy when 2 or more discuss it

Federal conspiracy=RICO charges

Feeney could have a lot of explaining to do

oh, he's on the judiciary committee so don't expect too much from the congressional hearings other than an airing of the laundry and maybe a crack in the door

[ParanoidPat]

174. I'll gladly sign an affidavit attesting that.......

.......Dr. Hugh Thompson created a "prototype" VBS 'hack' for the actual GEMS server software that is in wide use around the country. He did so to prove that you didn't have to even have a copy of Access on the computer and that you could do it in under 30 seconds just by launching notepad, typing a seven line script, saving the text file as a .vbs file and double clicking the file to launch it. The results of those actions changed the totals in the table that reports the results and eliminated any trace of the script having been run.

It was done as a "proof of concept" to be demonstrated to members of the California Secretary of State's office, the Voting Systems Panel, the Attorney Generals Office and a State technologist. He did so at the request of Bev Harris and BlackBoxVoting.org.

With MY affidavit you now have evidence that Bev Harris who reportedly "hacked" the Diebold server and "stole" the software to the voting machines, hired a hacker for State elections officials in California and met with them on numerous occasions. It's right on the Secretary of State web site, I better grab copies while it's still there. Look at all the reports of problems in California. They're everywhere! Look at all the posts here that say she's only in this for the money. They all say the same thing so it's gotta be true! Didn't someone say she "sold" Clinton cigars??? Wait!! Isn't that Jim March guy a (GULP) REPUBLICAN? I know Bev knows how to hack an election and I can PROVE it! I have video of her showing Howard Dean how to........shit! How high does this go? Howard Dean is obviously in on this! Didn't he schedule a speech opposite the hearings in Washington today? That bastard was trying to take the focus off the hearings! More PROOF!

I offer you an affidavit, tons of background documentation, witnesses, and even video of her showing a high placed government official how to hack the actual GEMS server. What do you say? Wanna go public with this story? After all, I'm giving you a lot more 'evidence' than he is. :)

Just a thought. :evilgrin:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

193. But unless your dog gets shot right after you send me the affidavit...

I'm not going to pay any attention.


But of course you never have to prove it though.

[papau]

33. why would a compiled program necessarily need other programing

files to run?

Last I looked there was still an option to end up with one big standalone program.

[Must_B_Free]

55. That's how VB works

it relies on system libraries and others, if not installed.

What you are probably thinking of is that you can package all the needed runtimes into the setup application (was setup.exe, more recently setup.msi)

[papau]

111. thanks for the info -

a packaged program run with a self wipe would seem to be as quiet and untraceable - or as traceable - as a compiled program that did not have to install runtime libraries.

:-)

not that it would be that hard to do a build that took whatever runtime code one needed and included that in the program. It would no longer be a "VB" - just code.

I did machine code in the 50's and assembly in the 60's - as well as the usual Fortran, Basic, Cobol, Mad,etc. - and just do not see the difficulty of a load and go.

But your point was just that the stated method - VB - would do not trick. I see your point

[regularjoe]

34. I've seen a number of posts from programmers

that don't agree and I'm not prepared to take any one expert's words as the end of the story.

Also, Curtis didn't say they used the program he developed. He said that he developed a prototype and that it became clear to him from his employer and Mr. Feeney (sp?) that they intended to develop something that would do the trick. It is possible they found someone else that was more willing to cooperate.

As for the specifics of which language and how it is compiled, installed, run, embedded, etc. that is all speculation based on the prototype Curtis made. If a final version were used it could have been quite different. It could have used a completely different interface (other than invisible buttons). There are a lot of possibilities. Admittedly just because they are possible doesn't mean they happened. However, the mere fact he signed an affadavit saying he was approached about making such a program and found out it was NOT to research the possibility of fraud in order to prevent it, grants enough credibility to warrant further investigation.

regularjoe

[truehawk]

46. H*ll he could write it into the bios

[keepthemhonest]

36. this does not mean that they did not ask clint to do this task for them.

They(rep) may be like the rest of us who don't really know enough about computers to know who could really accomplish such a thing. I Think it is plausible that they asked him to try to do this and maybe he tried and maybe they did not even use his prototype.

[eomer]

41. And he may have been totally capable

of writing a final implementation in C, C++, Java, who knows?

Just because he wrote a prototype in VB doesn't mean that's the only skill he knows.

He was asked to write a prototype and, like many developers, chose VB to do so because it's a quick way to do a prototype.

[jsamuel]

37. One thing to keep in mind: Clint DID NOT TAKE THE 200,000 DOLLARS

He could have gotten the 200,000 dollar reward, but he turned it down. So, keep that in mind.

[Razorback_Democrat]

39. To be fair

I think he'd have to absolutely prove fraud to collect

He's said he doesn't want it though

that's good enough for me for now

[ParanoidPat]

131. Do you have a link that says he was offered the money.......

.......based on the 'weight' of his 'evidence'? :shrug:

I've only seen where he claimed he would turn down the money if it was offered. :evilgrin:

Those two situations are NOT the same. So, keep that in mind. :)

[ibegurpard]

38. PROTOTYPE

All in caps to get your attention. There is often more than one prototype because of flaws, which (I assume you know what you're talking about) you have pointed out.
I don't believe he said his program was used to defraud this election.

[Razorback_Democrat]

40. Thanks!

Prototype is right

[ibegurpard]

43. Well, it's like saying

that someone asked me to invent a new kind of can opener and since the can opener didn't work I must be lying about them asking me to invent it.

[keepthemhonest]

45. exactly, good analogy n/t

[jsamuel]

47. Exactly - his program was not used to rig this election

BUT, if his story it true, it shows:

1. Motive
2. Ability
3. Intent

That is just about all one needs to START an investigation.

[stella2cat]

143. you're absolutely right

I don't think folks outside the IT world have a deep grasp of how software gets made. Curtis describes his product at a very generic and basic level and Dubyasux is dissecting it as a finished product

[truehawk]

44. I don't think he would want to post functional election stealing code

Curtis has an employment history as a programmer.
If you were ask to do such a thing, what would you do?

Seriously?

Why don't you correspond with him and then get back to us?

By the way, Chuck Herrin posted a sample program on his web site, remember the white hat hacker? It lacks a few things too.

I have a friend from my collage days that could go in and program things in machine language and hide it just to play practical jokes. The Dec 10 used to whistle or bark at me.

[PaulaGem]

50. I believe I saw this covered somewhere...

vb can be compiled or made into and activeX control.

Runtime isn't allways necessary.

[Viktor Runeberg]

52. Sorry friend

First, his VB program was a proof of concept. It's standard to write such proofs in a scripting language and then go back and code the final project in C++ or whatever.

Second, when you say "He says he reads candidate data out of the database and indexes an array. Well, I opened up the Colorado Gems database and looked at the candidate table. It is indexed on the KeyID, but the values were around 400 up to 600 (the numbers could be higher or lower in other areas - there's no way to know)."

My friend, when you're working with relational database tables you can generate an array on the fly (say, a "join" between two tables), and index on any field, not just whatever the default id field is for the row. If it's possible looking at the GEMS database to see which value in a particular field represents the Republican contender, and which value the Democrat, then you can create an array - usually just held in RAM - and do all sorts of manipulation on it, to arrive at results that are then read back into the original database tables as alterations. This is just so basic to so many types of programming involving databases.

So why, my friend, are you pretending to know anything about programming if you don't even have enough knowledge to understand what "reads candidate data out of the database and indexes an array" means? And why are you posting it here? Is it a psychological need, or are you employed in the disinformation business? Otherwise it's hard to understand why you put this stuff out like you do.

[JohnnyCougar]

56. I hear you loud and clear, Viktor. Loud and clear. n/t

[Must_B_Free]

57. Correct me if I'm wrong

I thought I read that at the voting machine, you do some secret stuff then it causes a 51-49 margin in favor of the desired winner.

So how do you propose this plot be implemented on election day? ]

How many voting machines have to be manually "defrauded" by this easter egg? How many consipracy participants have to be let in on the secret and trained what to do ?

As it was described, and with the technical aspect aside, this method of election fraud is unplausible because it relies on too many participants and too much manual intervention.

[Viktor Runeberg]

61. The method as described

The method as described would require that for a significant proportion of the voting machines you need to have one voter per key precinct (i.e., leaning heavily against your candidate) to go in towards the end of the day and trigger the easter egg in the normal course of voting. Or one election worker with access to all the machines in the precinct.

However, it would be simple to extend the method and have a second program on the central tabulator that engage in further manipulation just in the case that a particular easter egg had been triggered on any voting machine. The downside of this second method would be if there were any independent tabulation from individual machine counts, while the first, in a paper-trail-less election, would be impossible to spot with independent tabluation, since key voting machines already have their records altered by the end of the day.

When you have people on one side who've been convinced that the other side would ban the Bible if elected, it's easy enough to recruit people with (1) the commitment to carry out the act and (2) no credibility even if they have a change of heart and start talking about it.

[Must_B_Free]

66. Not persuasive

"have one voter per key precinct (i.e., leaning heavily against your candidate) to go in towards the end of the day and trigger the easter egg in the normal course of voting."i

Again - only one machine and only 49%-51%, the rest of the actual votes could easily swallow tat scant lead.

"Or one election worker with access to all the machines in the precinct. "

and a lot of time and privacy to execute these easter eggs? Not likely.

"extend the method and have a second program on the central tabulator that engage in further manipulation just in the case that a particular easter egg had been triggered on any voting machine."

Which supercedes the need to go through all the trouble to do it at the voting terminal. This is what Bev&co (BBV) suspect, but not at all what Curtis has suggested or testified to in his document.

"When you have people on one side who've been convinced that the other side would ban the Bible if elected, it's easy enough to recruit people with (1) the commitment to carry out the act and (2) no credibility even if they have a change of heart and start talking about it."

And yet noone has come forward.

I think Curtis is a red herring to try to distract from the real evidence that has been found so far.

[blackspade]

123. however

Keep in mind that this method could be combined with the small number of voting machines in democratic and minority precincts.
If there are only one or two functioning machines at each precinct, you only need one or two "voters" to alter that precinct.
Another thing to note, The precinct where I voted in Louisville, KY had one scanning machine for four precincts. any code loaded in this one machine could therefore alter four precincts.

[mccoyn]

130. Read the Afadivit.

"Again - only one machine and only 49%-51%, the rest of the actual votes could easily swallow tat scant lead."

Item 10 in the afadavit says: "it became clear to me that Mr. Feeney was well aware that by artifically reducing the margin of victory of the opposition party in areas where they were the strongest, the overall outcome would then favor his candidate."

I'm not saying that it wasn't implausible for other reasons, but the afadavit suggests that Mr. Feeney even knew the counter arguement to what you said.

[Viktor Runeberg]

58. And you say

"Secondly, nobody with any type of real programing experience at a level to pull this off would use an array to begin with. You'd use a CMap object"

Je-a-zus. This is a very simple operation that's required. Arrays are in standard use, and very dependable. You can do years of professional database development - as I have - and never have heard of a "CMap object." But you can't hardly get past go without knowing how to manipulate arrays - which I guess some professor of yours talked you out of learning how to do? That's nice. But what happens when you get out in the real world and join a programming team on a project that already depends on sophisticated multi-dimensional array manipulation?

Never mind that. The fact that the demo used a different style of programming than the one you worship at the temple of doesn't change a thing about the fact that the technique demonstrated in the project is one of a number of relatively simple and dependable ways that would get the job done. I don't get hired based on trendy programming styles, but on my long track record of building database systems that work dependably for years - with lots of arrays, and not a single "CMap object."

[Must_B_Free]

59. Looks like CMap is a hash, not an array

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vclib/html/_MFC_CMap.asp

Microsoft calls these "dictionary objects" in their ongoing quest to steal through new nomonclature.

[Viktor Runeberg]

62. Thanks

I was thinking it might be one of these - a "concept map," which is a really cool concept, but would be absolutely not the way to dependably rig an election, because they're sort of fuzzy.

Hashes have their uses. Wasn't aware of a movement to discard arrays in favor of them; both are fine methods in their place.

[Must_B_Free]

70. there is no such movement to discard arrays for hashes

and I wasn't aware that anyone suggested there was.
For non techies, an array is simply a list; a hash is a list of name-value pairs.

In working with a list, you have to go through each item to get what you want. With a hash, you simply say "give me the value associated with this name".

[DubyaSux]

79. Exactly....

...and my point.

There is not an experienced developer that would use an array when either a CMap in C++ or collection library in VB would be used (in this particular type of application). Otherwise, you'd be managing potentially millions of array points with only a dozen of them containing data. You could run the machine out of memory if the KeyID's were high enough.

Not even a bad "hacker" would contemplate that methodology.

[googly]

106. Multi-dimensional arrays are as old as hills...I used them back in 1962

in Fortran, then in atleast dozen other programming languages I used in a programming career spanning 35 years.

[understandinglife]

54. BradBlog: CREW investigating Curtis' claims

"D.C. Ethics/Law Group Working with Curtis.

The BRAD BLOG has learned that a D.C. Ethics watchdog group has met with, and is now investigating the claims made by Clint Curtis in an affidavit that we released exclusively here yesterday.

According to a spokesperson Naomi Selligman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Curtis was referred to the group by aides on Capitol Hill after they recieved and reviewed Curtis' affidavit.

From Selligman's email to BRAD BLOG:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), www.citizensforethics.org is a legal watchdog group dedicated to ensuring integrity in public officials through the legal system. Recently, CREW wrote the complaint filed by Congressman Chris Bell against Leader Tom DeLay, for which DeLay was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee.

Seligman confirmed the email by phone, and has informed The BRAD BLOG that Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay has since sought to have CREW found in contempt of Congress for their role in having drafted the complaint against him."

Quoted here in case you are not able to connect even to the secondary site:

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com /

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[understandinglife]

104. Brad on Bev and Curtis

See the following link:

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/response-to-bev-harris-questions-on.html

[understandinglife]

105. duplicate; deleted

[DancingBear]

60. Just one time again - for me?

A former average Java/VB guy, now happily building furniture and (even better) blissfully forgetful of all things code:

How did you get into the Colorado GEMS database????????

(It would help your credibilty if you'd answer).

[DubyaSux]

65. Easy....

.....download it from www.blackboxvoting.org. There's nothing new about it's availability.

[eomer]

67. I see you're still here

Can you answer the point that Curtis created only a prototype?

That seems to make all your other points irrelevant.

[DubyaSux]

83. The prototype?

Why would someone create an application in VB that requires extensive setup and configuration, along with no feasible method to deploy it in public, but "mean" it for something else?

Furthermore, if it's just a program to alter numbers, what does it have to do with voting?

Lastly, why would they want the CDs if he demoed it?

You are suggesting GM protoypes the newest minivan, but releases a compact sports car. That is an apples and oranges comparison which is NOT a prototype.

Someone stated earlier that "it's standard practice to prototype in VB" before going on to C++ code and that's the most absurd statement I've seen so far. VB is great for a lot of reasons and protyping GUI's is one of them. But it's useless to prototype complicated business logic if you're going to use another langauge.

The poster has no idea what he/she's talking about. I've been doing this for many years and have never heard of anybody prototyping an entire system in one language if it were targeted for another.

[eomer]

88. From the affidavit

"Yang told Mr. Feeney that we would attempt to build a prototype for this program so he could see it, test it, and show it to others."

The prototype that Curtis built in VB did exactly that and the CD was delivered for the purposes stated.

Are you saying you've never heard of building a prototype in VB with the intention of later building the actual deliverable in, say, C++?

[eomer]

89. Furthermore...

you wrote:
"But it's useless to prototype complicated business logic if you're going to use another langauge."

What complicated business logic? The logic here takes about 3 to 5 lines of code.

[DubyaSux]

90. No...

...I've heard of building shells in VB for GUI (Graphical User Interface) review purposes, but not complex business logic that involves database connectivity and manipulation. No. The cost of rewrite is too great when you can just do it all at once in the langauge of choice.

This "proof of concept" argument is ridiculous. If the intent is to switch numbers around with hidden features, that doesn't require a prototype or investment. Any idiot with a fair amount of programming experience can do that. There is nothing to prove.

What needs to be proven (hence, a prototype) is that you can get a system to do that in real life. Installing a VB program in front of a dozen election officials - both democrat and republican - is not going to happen. Installing one compact file with the same name, size, and checksum value while nobody is looking? That's a completely different matter. Completely implausable as so aptly stated in post 57, but at least remotely possible (at one precinct anyhow).

[eomer]

91. No, the purpose of a prototype is very often to show

a non-technical person how something would look from the outside. Many prototypes don't even really work - they just look like they work.

The purpose of this prototype was, as the affidavit says, "so (Feeney) could see it, test it, and show it to others". The stated purpose was not to prove the things you list. It would be a perfectly valid thing to write a prototype to prove those things but that's not what Curtis says he was trying to show. The program he wrote accomplished the goals he described.

[DubyaSux]

94. Huh?

...you've implied something that is not stated in the affidavit for your purposes.

If you're talking about seeing it and showing it to others, the end user would see - nothing.

They'd see buttons on the screen. They wouldn't see the hidden ones and wouldn't see results. They'd see nothing of any use.

Now, if they TEST it, it would incorporate business logic and that takes a great deal of code to handle multiple candidates using ID fields from databases.

Look, this has been fun...really. I wanted to bring this up just to show that people can say anything and people beleive it because they want to beleive it.

But this ain't it. When Bev Harris chokes on something, you know it really has to smell like shit. This guy is a fraud that is pimping money, has no clue what he's talking about, and using the most implausible method to implement election rigging.

As far as the central tabulators being hacked, I beleive that theory is flawed for a lot of reasons, but it's the best scenario (and probably the only scenario) even remotely feasible in real life. If you want to beleive that freepers are smart enough to rig the election through multiple evoting companies, that's where to start. No way can I discount that as handily or easily as this particular subject.

But I think Bush won because freepers are stupid - not smart. Bush got more votes because the bumbling redneck asshats that don't have any kids to send to war don't have the brains to pay attention to the important issues of today. So, they went with the current war president - as happens almost every time.

[IAMREALITY]

96. Oh Really

"But I think Bush won because freepers are stupid - not smart. Bush got more votes because the bumbling redneck asshats that don't have any kids to send to war don't have the brains to pay attention to the important issues of today. So, they went with the current war president - as happens almost every time."

Oh so that'sss why bush won. Silly me, here I was the whole time thinking it was because of mass fraudulent activity and corrupt behavior combined with mass voter surpression. Thanks so much for setting me straight now.

Here I thought you were just trying to debunk a theory of fraud, not knowing you were actually out to debunk the fact that fraud took place at all.... My bad.

[DubyaSux]

98. Maybe you are correct...

...this is probably not the place for a personal opinion.

My apologies.

[jamboi]

125. You're mixing up the proof of concept/prototype with a working application

proof of concepts are barely tested, just to make sure the presenter isn't embarrased.

[crispini]

138. I think a bit of language clarification might help here.

People in this thread seem to be using "prototype" and "proof of concept" pretty much interchangeably. If you look them up in the dictionary, they probably do mean pretty much the same thing, but for working discussion I think it's more useful if you use them to mean two different things.

At my office we use "prototype" to mean something mocked up, a shell, with no logic, usually just a UI, that doesn't really do anything real but looks good. You might build a cheap and dirty prototype to give to a sales guy to take out into the field, and it wouldn't do much more than show the customer how their application might look & feel.

We use "proof of concept" as a more rigorous term to denote a real test that demonstrates that something will actually work. So, you do a proof of concept to show that your developer can write something that can hit your customer's database, or access a certain type of server, or something.

The Curtis thing is pretty clearly a prototype but NOT a proof of concept, IMO.

Anyway, carry on ... just thought that might be of use.

[DancingBear]

87. Thank you n/t

[Whirled Peas]

101. I did not find GEMS anywhere on blackboxvoting.org...

...would you kindly post exactly which page the COlorado GEMS database appears on?

Thank you.

[mccoyn]

177. Its buried in the front page.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org /

Search for "Computer Guys: Be your own ITA certifier."

[thedutch]

63. Sorry

You dont know what you're talking about. At least on these points.

1. there is no builtin hash check of the binaries (at least in v. 1.18.15.0). NIST supplies the checksums, but it's up to the users to verify the binaries. I know because I've been patching the prog for awhile now and there have been no problems. Get a debugger and try it out.

2. VBAJET32 is in the IAT (import table).
< http://www.processlibrary.com/directory/files/vbajet32/ >

""" vbajet32.dll is a module that contains application programming interface (API) functions to load the Visual Basic for Applications development environment. """

[DubyaSux]

73. Oh geez...

vbajet32.dll is just one of a GREAT many files needed to get VB or VBA apps to run if they want access databases. That particular .dll gives a VBA application the ability to make OBSOLETE jet/dao database calls.

That technology, while still used, has been superceded by RDO (which became obsolete) and ADO/ADO.NET - the new de facto Windows standard.

And I don't know what I'M talking about???

To run Visual Basic on a system, you'd need an installation CD. Gee, that's really discrete. Plus, if you try to put your file on a system that replaces a newer one, the Windows File Protection System (on Windows 2000 and greater) would start barking for the installation CD.

And you're patching these systems? That's the strongest evidence yet that maybe I need to rethink my logic....

[eomer]

76. Still missing the point

It was a prototype.

The actual implementation may have been written in assembly for all we know.

Why haven't you responded to this point?

[thedutch]

81. You don't need

a stand-alone app, one which would require a number of other libraries to be loaded. just patch in a call to one of the functions in vbajet. check out some papers on what crackers call "code injection" and you'll see what I mean. and who cares if it's depricated: it's used in the prog.

and yes, I have patched it. like I said above, get a debugger and see how easy it is.

seriously, do some homework

[mccoyn]

178. The drivers have to be there.

If the election software uses an access database, then all the files required to use an access database are on the computer. If the election software doesn't use it, they might not be there but the hack doesn't need them anyway.

Depreciated doesn't mean it no longer works. There is something called backwards compatibility, which Microsoft strives for.

Finally, its just a prototype. Your grasping for straws and it is making you look worse when each one is disproven.

We can all agree that this program wouldn't rig the elections, but Curtis implies this in the Afadavit when he says it is a prototype. He certainly never claims it would be able to.

[anamandujano]

64. This is at least a good example of how bushroveco could

obfuscate and tire everyone out. Not speaking to the veracity of the post since I can't.

[Must_B_Free]

68. It certainly is

it's a bullshit gift horse with no evidence and the logistics of the claims don't make any sense.

The fraud was at the gems database - the safety check was to steal enough that no automatic recounts could be filed to reveal the actual counts vs. the fraudulent ones.

Its so obvious - they had to wait until about 5:00 PM so that the general trends were identified, so they could know how much to steal. That's why 2000 and 2004 mysteriously deviated from the exit polls and went the other way in the evening.

[tandem5]

77. yeah...

thats a good explanation as to why they didn't muck with the exits... they needed them to be accurate too.

[shraby]

69. For the third time...HOW DID YOU

GET INTO THE COLORADO GEMS DATABASE, AND once in there, what did you do to it, and why were you in there???????

One more thing..as far as activating a vote swap at the polls, it could have been as simple as having a poll worker helping a voter while voting and having to reset the machine by touching a couple spots on the screen. The poll worker needn't know it swaps the votes, they'd just been trained to reset a vote for someone so they can start over on a messed up ballot or something.

[thedutch]

71. ill respond for him

its on BBV.org, same place you get the GEMS binaries

[Whirled Peas]

102. I have not found GEMS on BBV.org, could you...

...please show me where it is? Perhaps link to the exact location?

Thanks.

[crispini]

139. The BBV.org site has been pretty extensively trimmed down

since they've had so much load on it / problems with attacks. A lot of things that were up there once, aren't anymore.

[mccoyn]

179. Its on the front page.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org /

Search for "Computer Guys: Be your own ITA certifier."

[glugglug]

72. No runtime files needed...

If the voting machines are using WinXP, the VB runtimes are already there as part of the default Windows install.

Making the button invisible is also pretty easy. Change the Style to "Flat" and make the foreground color (the border) the same color as the window and you can't see that the button is there. Even easier is for the buttons to not actually be "button" controls -- a static "Label" is actually a control to which you can respond to the onclick event.

[Must_B_Free]

74. are they using XP?

[DubyaSux]

78. You're wrong about XP...

....as I also do Installshield scripting and installations. The msvbvm60.dll file might be on there (I don't have a clean machine closeby to check), but none of the GUI component files are there (MSCOMCTRL.ocx, etc).

However, your idea about the hidden button is a good one. Unfortunatly, a standard button does not have a "forecolor" property and furthermore, when touched, would leave the little focus band around it.

I like the premise however.

[eomer]

80. Diebold touchscreens use Windows CE

Making most of the technical points being made about VB wrong because they're talking about desktop versions of Windows, not Windows CE.

But more importantly, they're irrelevant because the program Curtis wrote wasn't one to be installed on a voting machine, it was only to illustrate a concept.

Original poster won't acknowledge this point for some reason. Will you?

[Must_B_Free]

82. a label could respond to mouseover

with no focus.

but this is all farce. See post #57

[DubyaSux]

85. I'll agree...

...the affadivit really meant "labels" and it's a semantics issue.

As stated before, I agreed I could be wrong. But in progrqamming, when we say a button, we mean a button that has standard properties and methods.

[tandem5]

75. Making definitive statements about ongoing leads...

stifles further investigation. It is important to read all the material available to make certain your criticism is warranted.

I do not understand why people are speculating about Curtis' statements when the full text of his affidavit is available. Read it.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Samantha]

92. Do you know what bothers me about these so logical posts?

They are too logical. People who write threads such as this are where I was two or three years ago. I dismissed many, many things as unbelievable because they simply were too illogical.

We are not dealing with a logical, intelligent group of people. Once you realize this, ask yourself this simple realistic question: do corrupt politicians ever hire incompetents? If your answer is yes, do not rule anyone or anything out simply because he or she utilizes methods that are not logical. This is not a logical political world we are dealing with: it's a corrupt, and sometimes even stupid, one. Go from there.

[DubyaSux]

95. The problem...

...is you can't have a conspiracy of this magnitude and have it go so perfect, that no mistakes are made and nobody found out.

For this to work, it would have to be implemeted from the inside with countless people who made no mistakes and no desire to sell their story to the media. Murphy's law would have ceased to exist Nov 2, 2004.

Although technically possible, it's not realistically possible. But people like this guy who wrote the affidavit feeds this fire so he can sue the hell out of people.

Follow the money. It always ends up there.

[Razorback_Democrat]

93. You know, instead of saying why he is a "fraud"

for which you have no evidence

Why don't you find some aspect of electoral irregularities that you do support and write about that?

Let those who have access to Curtis and his story check out the veracity of his claims.

As for you, I know very little other than what I've read.

Let's give it a rest and find something to work towards!

[DubyaSux]

97. I can't...

.....for two reasons.

One, I do write a decent amount of statistical software. However, I have neither the time or energy to gather all the baseline data needed to evaluate the current election results. Exit polls are neither a baseline or a control. They are a random sampling that could be skewed from here to eternity. From what I see, the evoting equipment did perform well. even though I don't study the numbers, I have heard less about irregularites regarding touchscreen equipment as opposed to optical scanning equipment.

The bottom line is, setting the results aside, I can't see where the truth in numbers are. Without that, there is nothing to analyse.

Secondly, as much as it makes me wnat to drive a nail in my forehead, I beleive Bush won because he got more votes. It's that simple. It gives me much less faith in my fellow man, but it is what it is.

I would prefer to help put up a stronger contender next time. Kerry was the better man this time, but he didn't excite people. If Clinton could run again, he'd be the first 14 term president (ok - not really. But you know what I mean). We need another Clinton. Not another conspiracy theory.

[papau]

112. Exit polls are neither a baseline or a control.- ????? - why not?

I grant the size of the project - but exit polls are a reference point that can be assumed to be a a baseline or a control. It is either that or assume the vote is without fraud and exit polls are "skewed from here to eternity"

And the without "error" - very major error - has already been proven wrong as to vote totals - and it is a small step from major error to fraud.

[BradBlog]

113. DubyaSux, drop me a line...

...via Email, with the major points you have to suggest that Curtis is a fraud.

I'm preparing a FAQ of sorts to answer to many of the questions I've seen out and about to post at BRAD BLOG tomorrow, and I'd like to be certain to answer to any of your concerns.

If you can be as concise and specific as possible, it'd be appreciated.

Email address at the blog.

Thanks!

BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

[DubyaSux]

115. Sure...

...I'll try to put something together today. I'm not afraid to put my thesis up to further technical scrutiny.

[BradBlog]

120. Appreciated and...

...not to rush you, but as things are moving quickly (as you may have noticed) in this case sooner is better than later. I'd like to get my "FAQ" posted soon, but I want to make sure to look at any of your notable concerns when I do as best as I can.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

[lthuedk]

136. THESIS? You levelled a charge.

To level a charge you must have proof. Or layers of defense lawyers.

[BradBlog]

191. And yet you never sent it...

...You had all these great details to demonstrate that Curtis was a fraud, I asked you to send me the details to look into, you said you would send it, but then never did.

Oh, well. I'm sorry to see you weren't able to find anything to debunk Mr. Curtis' story. You seemed so adamently able to demonstrate he was a fraud previously.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

[SomthingsGotaGive]

195. You are disgustingly smug here

for someone that refuses to give a genuine reason for not helping prove your claims.

Every single claim Curtis makes goes to his credibility.

As ParanoidPat stated she could show you a proto-type but Curtis Says it was for Feeney.

Prove that.

If he or you are liars then everything else is pointless.

Your smug response above shows your true character.

Even if you had somehow been vindicated one would hope you would act more professionally.

However judging by your reporting on this issue I should expect no less.

[DubyaSux]

196. Well...

...since you think I just fell off the tomtato truck, allow me to explain...


Ummm...nevermind. See post 194. That pretty much sums up my reason.

[DubyaSux]

198. Besides...

Aren't you the guy that said:"Debunking the substance of Curtis' story is more useful to everyone than getting stuck on some archane technical concerns make no sense anyway if one bothers to ponder it"?

So, does this mean it make sense now?

[jamboi]

124. Hopefully you'll include the long list of programmers who've checked out

Curtis' stuff and endorsed it too.

[mccoyn]

180. Don't make DubyaSux your only programmer source.

As a journalist I'm sure you are aware of the danger in that.

[jamboi]

99. Hear, hear! n/t

[truehawk]

103. Hear Him, Hear Him

[Rhapsody in Blue]

110. Hidden buttons already in use; don't need co-conspirators

Boredtodeath already posted an example from the Diebold manual instructing how to activate a Cancel button by pressing in a "hidden" spot on the touchscreen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=119385&mesg_id=119611&page=

An image of it is in the Bartcop site referenced, http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=341907&mesg_id=341907&page= (scroll a third of the way down).

Also, surely I'm not the only one thinking this, but ..... you do NOT need any election supervisors, poll workers, etc, KNOWINGLY involved in this nor any "operatives" coming in at some point to manipulate the machine. It's built in as part of the required calibration, or even recalibration of the machine if a "mistake" is discovered. In other words, the activation of the vote-switching would be incorporated as part of the routine setup of the machine, before voting starts. Gathering hundreds of co-conspirators to carry this out? ..... nope, not likely, and not necessary.

And lastly, if I'm following all of this correctly, I thought the claims being made apply only to electronic touchscreen machines. How or where did this get connected to the op-scan or any other systems? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think they're related - there's different methods of fraud going on there, IMO.

[lthuedk]

135. It would be great to get an all precinct/county list of poll workers

and randomly question them regarding any of their touchscreen activities.

[pgh_dem]

182. Hidden buttons and recalibration

I've mentioned this in a couple other threads, where I suggest that you could train poll workers in what they think is perfectly legal, responsible recalibration of the machines which actually triggers vote flips.
All that's needed to accomplish this a couple times during the day is to make the 'totally innocent' error of improperly defining the hotspots on the touchscreens, so that Kerry votes show up as Bush votes or non-votes on the confirm screen.
Two things could happen. A) The vote just goes in for Bush, and if it is noticed after the fact, can blame it on 'stupid voters' like the West Palm Beach Unintentional Buchanan Fan Club.
or B) The voters waste some time (thus lengthening the lines) trying to cancel and redo it themselves...finally having to ask a poll worker to help them (more wasted time)...the poll worker does exactly what he or she is trained to do, touch the top corner and some spot in the middle of the screen, say the "R" in president, which re-calibrates (flips) the machine. The voter and the poll worker screw with it a little more (more wasted time) and finally manage to get a vote to show up for Kerry. Then the happy voter and the oblivious poll worker leave the booth with 51/49 tally for bush (edit: doesn't have to be 51/49, if that would be impossible in a minority district..just shave it some to 38/62 instead of 21/79).
Voila, you get vote suppression and vote 'migration' in the same shot.
Finally, you report the totals at the end of the night, and with the magic of 'possession is 90% of the law', you create the impression that George Bush has an insurmountable lead.
With a huge lead, only self-financed crusader-types will even try to track down what you've been up to, so you've got plenty of time to scrub all the 'special' machines in the unlikely event that anyone gets their hands on one of them, they'll find a totally functional machine in which repeating the same recalibration has no effect on the vote totals. The scrubbing can take place in the guise of 'verifying' how smooth your machines performed on election day. Who'd know?

[Hamoth]

114. Hidden button?

That's like turd-crap easy. WE did it all over the DXB. That things a touch-screen device and we put in all kinds of hidden buttons and calls.

[princehal]

116. Interview

Curtis is going to be on AAR soon....

[eomer]

117. Thanks for the reminder!

I had forgotten and was going to miss it.

[ibegurpard]

118. Response from RoxanneJ, an e-voting activist from another forum

Formerly DemActivist on this forum, posted with her permission...her responses in bold:

"But anyhow, he's not good enough to pull this off.

His method is both bush league (no pun intended) and unworkable."

There is nothing on the internet or in the public domain for the original poster to make such a slanderous comment. DubyaSux cannot, nor does he, determine what the skill level of Clinton Curtis is. However, Curtis has been entirely forthcoming in publishing his credentials. DubyaSux, on the other hand, has given us zilch to show he is qualified to make these kinds of determinations. I say we all call for the CV of DubyaSux to be posted publicly before we give his comments ANY credibility.

"First, he had to write this in C++. Otherwise, you would need to install all the Visual Basic runtime files and that would be undoable with even crappy election official monitors. Furthermore, the checksum routines in the GEMS system to make sure it's a valid file would never pass."

A nice attempt at diversion here, but worthless. DLLs and executables can be written (and hidden) within any MS system. This is what makes the election systems utilizing MS Windows inherently insecure. The probablility of security leaks was exactly Clint Curtis' point - his assigned task, if you will.

"Now, for the technical part of why he couldn't do it...

He says he reads candidate data out of the database and indexes an array. Well, I opened up the Colorado Gems database and looked at the candidate table. It is indexed on the KeyID, but the values were around 400 up to 600 (the numbers could be higher or lower in other areas - there's no way to know)."

This shows the complete lack of skills possessed by DS. It also establishes an "inner circle" connection between him and Diebold. Where did he "open" the Colorado GEMS database? and how did he get access to it? Had he alleged he opened the Cobb County, Georgia database, he would have been safe - that was on the internet on the Diebold FTP site. But he doesn't make that statement.

"For his "array" to work, he would have hundreds of blank data points and as far as he is concerned, they are valid candidates because he claims to be going by ID. So, NULL would have won the election."

Not true, and shows, once again the lack of skills belonging to DubyaSux. Now, let's assume DS is right about "NULL" winning the election. Well, I say the July 20, 2004 primary in Georgia proves Clint's program may well be in use today - NULL came in third in the US Senatorial race.

See my dKos diary on this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/25/171147/04

QUOTE
Published in the AJC/Political Insider column on 10/27/04

On the Democratic side of the U.S. Senate race, 625,115 votes were cast. That means nearly 106,000 Democrats -- 14 percent of the total -- took a look at the eight-candidate field. And passed.

Denise Majette came in first. Cliff Oxford came in second. But None of the Above was a close third -- and nearly made the runoff (emphasis mine).


"Either that, or you would have to scroll through 400 candidates to get to the one you wanted. Now, if he were to say he tracked by ID and used names, that would be one thing. But he didn't. He said the placement of the candidate was based on the ID. This makes his entire story bullshit."

Ummm, DS, you need to expand your knowledge base to the ballot definition files. You are embarassing yourself here.

"Imagine if the candidate ID's were in the millions as long type integers allow? He'd run the computer out of memory."

DS throws out a strawman that equates to hyperbole and spin. This simply is never going to occur.

"Secondly, nobody with any type of real programing experience at a level to pull this off would use an array to begin with. You'd use a CMap object and manage everything through a collection of those data objects. It's cleaner, faster, more robust, and pretty much impervious to crashes and memory leaks (as long as you cleaned up your mess. If not, anybody running the compiler in debug mode to test would see all the compiler memory leak warnings pointing right to the culprit)."

That's the deal with computer programming - there are many, many ways to attack the same problem. As programmers, we all hope to come up with the most efficient method of solving it - but programming, in and of itself, gives all of us the ability to come up with good, bad and lousy solutions. Clint never suggested his solution was the only possibility. And frankly, admitted it wasn't even the best. All DS proves here is the allegation that the probabilities of election manipulation with computers are infinite and abundant. Thank you, DS, for making the point of the activists for them!

"In any case, either method would have been caught. The initializing and deletion of the CMap objects would be plainly obvious to any developer because of their required location (constructor and destructor points), and a fixed array would have made experienced developers laugh their asses off.

It's obvious that he knows a little about some higher level programming language, but I wouldn't trust him to program my VCR if this is the best he can do."


A needless piece of spin. But it's nice to see DS has joined the ranks of computer programmers laughing their asses off at the Diebold software. The problem is, the danger to democracy isn't funny.

"Lastly, his entire method is flawed. Even if you were to assume all his crap were true, it's unworkable for more than two candidates. You'd have sequences so complex (with the hidden button concept, which is probably bullshit as well as I've never figured out to hide a button without disabling it, but I could be wrong. He could create his own window object to do it, but that's not a button), you'd look like those kids at the arcade in the mall trying to dance to the flashing lights for points."

Hidden buttons are proven, in use and quantified. See my post at Bartcop with the proof of same. There are many more documented examples of hidden buttons in the Diebold system - one of which is used to "calibrate" the touchscreen in the middle of the election. Another is used to allow ADMIN access to the individual Touchscreen, it's datafiles and inner workings. I have it all on video and it's well documented in the user manuals.

"It's true I am one of the few democrats that don't believe systematic fraud won numbnuts the election, and it's because of these types of issues. It's implausible beyond belief. The things that would have to go correctly and perfectly on a mass scale to rig an election while avoiding getting caught is unimaginable."

Simply untrue. This bullshit has been countered over and over for DS and he simply ignores the debunking.

Boredtodeath takes his allegations apart at DU in this thread. But he ignores the questions completely.

"It wouldn't break my heart for Bush to enjoy a long healthy life in a jail cell the Hague sent him to for his war crimes instead of the White House, but complex conspiracies didn't get him reelected. Stupid freeper types got him there - not smart ones.

I agree with Bev Harris other points regarding this issue (there's something you won't see much) because that simply adds to the implausibility. This guy is a fake - no doubt about it."

Personal opinion completely unworthy of a response.

[DubyaSux]

127. LOL...

Who the hell is RoxanneJ? Another person with a solution in search of a problem?

The problem with debating a ghost I'd be talking to myself.

She said I was full of shit. Good. I don't care. Join the crowd. She could have said that in 4 words and saved all of us a lot of time.

Anyhow, nothing she says is true. Just because she says it is, doesn't make it true. I used the affadavit as a design model and followed Curtis's very specific design method. All the shoulda/woulda/couldas are addressed in his affidavit.

I started working up a little paper for the BradLog guy earlier this morning, but stopped after I got to thinking - why? Why in the FUCK do I want to put myself through these types of uneducated rants as represented by someone not even on DU?

You don't need me. What you folks really need, is an advocate that repeats what you need to hear. Instead of having me voice questions to be picked over by chatroom "experts", why not find a QUALIFIED expert that will tell you how clever Curtis's design is, how feasible it truly is, and how Curtis has saved democracy.

There has to be a million of those around. And they'll take your hard-earned money too.

[Zensea]

132. Some know who she is, some don't

:-)
The poster said who she is, actually.

[EMunster]

133. The dog ate DubyaSux's homework ...

...and the dog was later found dead.

Thread suspects feces poisoning.

[BlueDog2u]

137. You're completely out of line to talk that way, buddy

She showed in detail why your response was not worthy of respect.

[EMunster]

141. confused...

Are you...or is DubyaSux a she?

[BlueDog2u]

142. I'm assuming RoxanneJ is a she..../eom

[EMunster]

149. I can see now how it appeared...

I was not referring to RoxanneJ. My apology. I was actually making reference to Dubyasux.

Bradlog (upthread) asked Dubyasux to provide a detailed critique of Curtis's work...to support his "fraud" charge. Dubyasux said he would. My confusing post was commenting on Dubyasux's response to the forwarded RoxanneJ message. In that response he slipped in that he wasn't going to provide the information Bradlog asked for...my message was making fun of that...

[BlueDog2u]

152. Gotcha/ thanks! /eom

[DubyaSux]

155. No...

...that's not exactly what was asked for. I cannot do a detailed "critique" of anybody's work I haven't seen. In fact, there's no proof the original code ever existed (vaporware). In any case, that was not my point.

Secondly, in the spirit of honest and educated debate, I would gladly offer up my analysis of his programming prowess for publc scrutiny. In fact, all I would be doing in any write up for anybody is repeat what I've said here. Why should I do that work for you? 99% of the responses have not been "well, how do you explain..." questions that cluld put me on the defensive, but "you're a freeper asshole that don't know shit".

Furthermore, I don't owe you anything. If you think I'm the fraud, then I'm the fraud. If you think I'm the Easter Bunny, then I'm the Easter Bunny. There is nothing I could say or do to convince you otherwise.

It's clear that this is a sensitive issue that has nothing to do with informed debate. Almost everything (not everything) that has been a technical response has been flat-out wrong (including the "ghosts" rant). Everything else has been a personal attack because that's the easy response.

I think it's time that the mods shut this thread down because it's no longer constructive.

Clint Curtis is a programming God. It's obvious his claims of treason by an elected official can't be questioned. When I find an address, I'll post an address you can send all your money to. Because trust me, that's what this is about.

[ibegurpard]

158. Whether his program would work has nothing to do with it.

for the last time.
How does that negate his allegations that he was approached to come up with some kind of vote-rigging software?
You keep bringing it back to that and it's completely beside the point.
I have no idea whether it would work or not...but whether it would work or not does nothing to disprove what he is saying .

[Razorback_Democrat]

159. Now DubyaSux, why so defensive about the critique

you asked for one

find out where this poster posts and go there and challenge her

otherwise, quit complaining, it doesn't suit you

[DubyaSux]

160. There was no critique....

....stating that "awwwww, it;s simple to hide a few dlls and such" is both inaccurate and disingenuous. I got the colorado springs database from the bbv website and she seems clueless about that availability.

There are two things straight out the gate that are flat out incorrect, and it;s not worth my time to debate philisophical points with a ghost.

And no, I do not wish to go to some other site to pick a fight. DU works just fine for me thank-you-very-much.

[EMunster]

161. Whatever it was, you backed out...why don't we look at what you said....

your exchange with Bradblog:

Bradblog:

113. DubyaSux, drop me a line......via Email, with the major points you have to suggest that Curtis is a fraud.

I'm preparing a FAQ of sorts to answer to many of the questions I've seen out and about to post at BRAD BLOG tomorrow, and I'd like to be certain to answer to any of your concerns.

If you can be as concise and specific as possible, it'd be appreciated.

Email address at the blog.

Thanks!

BRAD BLOG




Your answer:

115. Sure...

...I'll try to put something together today. I'm not afraid to put my thesis up to further technical scrutiny.



Apparently you were.

After that gracious exchange with the very gracious Bradblog, you announce...

Your lame-o-out:

127. LOL...

I started working up a little paper for the BradLog guy earlier this morning, but stopped after I got to thinking - why? Why in the FUCK do I want to put myself through these types of uneducated rants as represented by someone not even on DU?


critique? thesis? What the meaning of "is" is? Whatever, the only person who thinks you've made a case for your charge is you. There are no other takers.

Rathering the messager won't work this time.



Bradblog's request:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=124885&mesg_id=127005&page=
Your reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=124885&mesg_id=127263&page=
Your lame out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=124885&mesg_id=129795&page=

[DubyaSux]

163. And here's a further reply....

....I owe you nothing.

I've already spent too many billable hours not defending technical details, but replying to "you said at post #129 you'd stand on your head naked in the middle of Central Park" crap.

Listen, and put this is your he-said-she-said crap:
I don't care. Honestly. I truly don't. If you have a more pleasant explanation you like, run with it. It truly is no skin off my back.

[EMunster]

166. "billable hours"? (you're not a programmer....himmm...You're a Lawyer?)

Ever been slapped down by a judge for frivolous suits? Oh, you know...those ones where you don't have a case at all and you waste everyone's time?


(Just Fyi:
As you contemplate other ways of tearing down Curtis, just know the dog is already dead.)

[DubyaSux]

167. Oh yes...

....of course. And I steal food stamps from the elderly (note: that is a sarcastic joke. I've just learned tha the only billable profession available is being a lawyer).

[ParanoidPat]

175. DS, I got about 7 gigs of files from someone but no Colorado_Springs.mdb

Where did you find this again? :shrug:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

186. and you forgot.

Of course his dog was shot, we're dealing with the BFEE after all.

To suggest evidence of the dog's shooting (Curtis's second dead dog)is required before you believe his affidavit is just disruptive behavior usually reserved fro "freepers"

[DubyaSux]

144. Uh-huh...

...I'm underwhelmed. Maybe she left out the part where my mom wears combat boots too.

Sorry, I really can't repond to that rant. I engaged this subject scientifically and with purpose. Debating rants - especially from ghosts - only feeds an appearance of flame-baiting - which this is not.

I've been on this board for a a while and don't feel the need to type everything that comes into my head. However, I think this subject is important and worthy of debate.

Geez, what WAS I thinking? :)

[Zensea]

146. Because you say it's a rant

doesn't mean it is a rant.

[BlueDog2u]

148. You've failed the rhetoric test

You allege that her response was a rant. It wasn't. You ranted back at her rather rather respond to the issues she raised. Nor have you even bothered to attempt to establish your own credibility in a rational an honest way. What are your own qualifications? To this non-technical outsider, it simply appears that you want to get into a pissing match with someone who happens to understand the technical issues at least as well as you do, and also happens to have a far more sophisticated understanding of the non-technical issues of simple this-worldly logic, than you do.

End of comment. I won't pursue this any further. I'm just expressing my own opinion that you lost the round for misbehavin'. But its not up to me to decide. Its for the entire community to judge.

[ibegurpard]

140. Well, she's not a ghost

and anyone who has been following the issue on DU for some time knows who she is. The link to her DKOS diary is included if you want to look further. Unfortunately, I'm prevented by DU rules from mentioning the forum I converse with her in.
I just wanted to know how you could get into the Colorado GEMS, I asked her and this is what she said.

[ParanoidPat]

164. If you only knew........

.......Thanks Roxanne! :evilgrin: :toast:

Hey DS, you might want to read Bev's book or check the DU archives under her screen name. All of her work has been fully vetted by Rubin, SIAC and RABA. Hint hint! :)

[emcguffie]

151. RE-created a prototype.

I'm repeating myself, because this is a long thread, and I had posted it way up there. I just listened to Curtis on Air America, and he said that YEI took all his work product. He didn't walk away with any copy of it or anything. They kept it. He has just recreated a prototype to show how such a program would work.

I don't know if that changes the conversation any, though, not being a computer programmer.

[ibegurpard]

154. No, it's actually a VERY germane point

that you don't have to understand a thing about programming to see. Dubyasux is deconstructing that program and trying to use that deconstruction as some kind of evidence that he is a fraud. Whether the program works or not has nothing to do with his allegations...that he was approached by certain people to come up with vote-rigging software.

[BlueDog2u]

185. Of course, you are completely correct

Dubyasux is threatening to bill for hot air. Quite a racket if you ask me.

[understandinglife]

119. Raw Story: additional info on Curtis from interview with him...

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=482

8 December 2004

‘Vote-rigging prototype could be used for optical scan machines’

By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

"The Florida programmer who alleged that a legislator commissioned him to write a vote-rigging prototype said Tuesday that his software could easily be used to change the totals of votes from optical scan readers as well." (more at the link)

Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[understandinglife]

129. Air America: Curtis interview available

http://airamericaradio.com/layout.asp?baseurl=Unfiltered/12-08-04/Unfiltered.wma

Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[EMunster]

122. Why DubyaSux is a fraud....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=124885&mesg_id=128764&page=

[Razorback_Democrat]

157. Great post! She chewed him up and spit him out! LOL

I can't say anything about the original poster, but I'm glad to see that someone debunked his logic, chewed him up and spit him out!

[Lerkfish]

169. notice how he does NOT respond to it?

interesting.

[BlueDog2u]

184. Right, he did not respond to it/eom

[SmallFatCat]

153. I heard Curtis on AAR, now I buy his story

I was impressed that he stuck to his story without embellishing it at all. I have been unsure about this whole prototype thing, but he seemed on the level to me.

I used to work as a programmer for a small company, and it all seems pretty plausible.

Now, what this all means is another thing. Is it enough to prove that a 'proof of concept' was commisioned? Surely a smart republican will just claim they were testing the security of the system and were satisfied that it couldn't be hidden in the source code.

[Lerkfish]

162. couple of points, and a question

1. I am not a programmer. You might be....but even if you are, are you good enough to program for NASA, or spy satellites or a defense contractor? Because as per another thread, Bushco has links and access to that level of programming. I would assume they'd have the wherewithal to accomplish nearly anything.
2. We have, to this point, a sworn affidavit from someone who DID work for the key people. Who are you? How are you qualified to declare him a "fake, no doubt about it"?

and a question: let's cut the bs, here....why is this IMPORTANT to you to debunk this?
If you say "to find the truth", then you should be working JUST as hard to see if its possible as you are trying to declare it impossible.

I personally am reserving judgement until I know more, but I would never say the guy was a fake based on what little I know.

MORE LIKELY, considering the sleaze level of the current dictator-tot, I find it MORE plausible they cheated than otherwise. I'm only not yet convinced this is PROOF of it yet.

[DubyaSux]

165. Good enough?

1) I don't know...I might not be good enough to work for my current employer as far as I know. I might not be good enough to operate my own small engineering business on the side either. So, to save off a bunch of arguments, no. I'm not even qualified to operate the DU spell checker. Feel better?

2) A sworn affadavit without any backing evidence could be a work of fiction with a notary public stamp. There is no way to prove or disprove what is said. As far as the rest, see #1. I'm not qualified to be anything else than an anonymous internet poster.

3) I don't like see good people being led into things they want to beleive in for profit. I think many people/groups are taking advantage of the good nature of people here by feeding them what they need to hear. Does it make them all liars? No. But after all this, there is not one shred of demonstrable evidence of fraud. The Ukraine has video out it ass, but all we have is bullshit affidavits like this. When Bev Harris and I agree on an issue, you can take it to the bank.

4) I never claimed it was technically impossible. I claimed that it is realistically impossible because you can't leave the process controls out of the equation. There are good and honest hard working democrats and republicans that would not allow an election to be rigged across 10,000 precincts as this method suggests.

5) Finally, in looking at his methodology in a sworn statement, he has no clue what he's talking about in the sense of producing something physcical. His level of expertise would not impress my 10 year old neighbor. Had he discussed in detail self-modifying code with buffer overflow migration technology, it'd be a different story. But he didn't. He discussed a method so top level (in terms of difficulty), my 10 year old neighbor could have done this.

As far as the sleaziness of the adminstration, you're preaching to the choir. But he can't get 3 different evoting companies and their 10's of thousands of employees to all contribute in the perpetration of treason without getting caught, leaving a trace, or selling their story. And it certainly wouldn't happen by using Clint Curtis.

[Lerkfish]

168. again, I point to your motive...

you say you don't want us to be mislead...because we're "good people"...yet you only started posting tonight, how do you know we're good people?
I don't know you, and I wouldn't spend this much energy making sure you weren't mislead...

I just told you I was withholding judgment until I knew more, but you go the extra mile and make ironclad assumptions based on misassumptions. As people keep telling you and you keep ignoring: you're attempting to apply a rigorous litmus to a PROTOTYPE proposal, which, btw, you have not seen the code on, compiled or not. Not sure how that qualifies you to declare it a complete fraud....eh?

I suspect you are the fraud here, and I say it decisively, because...well, because I say it decisively. That's as much as you got going for you in your declaration...

[DubyaSux]

170. Thank you for helping make my point...

...it was decisive and based on everything what you know to be true.

Which of course, is wrong.

I did not just start posting here tonight. I've been a member of DU for over a year, but don't feel the need to type every thought that comes into my head. I don't typically post to repeat a point already made (unless it was a really, really good one.

So, as usual, the truth is what you wanted it to be.

[Lerkfish]

176. points fly over your head like passing fighter jets.

you don't get them.

[3 DanO]

172. Not good enough!

Are you saying that Clint's solution to the assigned task was so bad that he would have been fired for producing it?

[stella2cat]

173. 5) If you were trying to get a message across to non-IT people

would you paint a broad overview or would you use lots of bs buzzwords
to make people think you were smart?

and can we spell physical? I don't think you can debunk him with your arguments.

[plasticsundance]

187. DubyaSux ... you said:

"And no, I do not wish to go to some other site to pick a fight. DU works just fine for me thank-you-very-much."

Then you said:

"You don't need me. What you folks really need, is an advocate that repeats what you need to hear.

So which is it? Does DU work as a place for you to post, or not?

You also stated:

There are two things straight out the gate that are flat out incorrect

Then a person as knowledgeable as yourself should have no problem refuting them, whether they're from a ghost or not. You accuse the person of being "flat out incorrect" without stating why, or addressing the very succinct issues of that particular post. You then show further disrespect by using a passive form of name-calling, i.e. calling the person a ghost. It shouldn't matter. C'mon, have at it.

You are the one making an absolute statement about Clinton Curtis. Others are then free to offer opposing viewpoints, but it is you that seems intolerant. When someone disagrees with you, you rely on your authority upon the subject, without referencing. Anyone that has worked on projects in the professional world knows that a team of people will disagree and the discussions might even get heated. It's called debating.

Now, RoxanneJ, the ghost, or whoever it was, effectively responded to your points, and was kind enough to itemize the remarks for reference. Hint: It makes it so much easier to follow the argument that way. In addition, I would have thought one so dedicated to debating the issue, you would have jumped at the chance to defend yourself, against what appeared to be an excellent response by RoxanneJ. Instead, you offer:

"Clint Curtis is a programming God. It's obvious his claims of treason by an elected official can't be questioned."

During the course of reading this thread, I discovered many DUers were actually withholding their judgment on the subject of Clinton Curtis, but you might have succeeded in pushing the balance and they're now leaning more towards Clinton Curtis. Perhaps, you're shrewder than one thinks, and this was your intention. If so, Clinton Curtis might owe you a debt of gratitude.

If not, it seems your unwilling to have yourself held up to the same scrutiny as what you hold Clinton Curtis. In fact, it might be argued that you're statement, as quoted above, appears to be what they call in psychology, projecting. Maybe you're the god that we should all listen to and take advice. You do realize how unfair to mischaracterize Curtis as such, so you might not mind if this same tactic is applied towards you.

[DubyaSux]

188. The problem...

...with the ghost's rant are technical. It's easy to say "well, the glory of programming is there is more than one way...blah blah blah" which is true if you're talking about designing her web site. But when trying to rig an election that interfaces with vendor databases, she's full of shit. I gave detailed reasons why Curtis's design would more than likely crash a system as only a start.

It's not that arrays can't or shouldn't be used - I use them every day. But in an indexed table that could have a dozen IDs marked from 1 to 12 (where his design might work) or 9000001 to 9000012 (which would probably crash his program by running it out of memory), it won't work. He specifically stated how he utilized an array to position votes and the voter. He stated that unequivically in his affidavit. In fact, had he used a RAM database (as any real developer would use if you're going to try to fool 300,000,000 people without getting caught), he wouldn't have needed all this numerical trickery. He could have simply swapped IDs instead of modiying numbers. The GEMS database are not autoincrementing. As long as they are unique, you can make them whatever you want.

Again, there is nothing wrong with an array, but it just isn't feasible in this context. You can huff and puff until the cows come home to make it an effective design, but it's not. No credible programmer trying to show how to hijack an election would do it.

Furthermore, the entire premise of simply showing hidden buttons (which is a bogus premise to begin with - they are invisible) and altered numbers without a real database is a complete bullshit proposal. This would be like prototyping a self-heating coffee cup by making a coffee cup. Why the hell would you prototype something a 5 year old could make? A prototype/proof of concept/whatever-you-want-to-call that does nothing but show buttons on the screen does not need to be prototyped. There is nothing to prove unless you wanted to prove you could draw a form on the screen. Which would further justify my opinion of him. It must be functional. That's what prototypes do. And he clearly thinks he created a workable solution (probably not totally functional because of the unknowns) as long as nobody saw his source code.

So, to do this, apparantly he used Visual Basic. A great language and my language of choice when I can use it. The problem is, there is no way to get it on a system undetected if it needs to use Windows common controls and database components. All these bullshit stories (well, .dlls and .ocxs can be hidden, renamed, yadda yadda yadda) attempt to invent a way for COM interfaces to work by magic. There is a reason you need to use regsvr32.exe to register activex components. Furthermore, you need to use that exact same binary compatible version of the file you've linked with your project (meaning, it can be a different version, but the binary compatibility must remain the same) in your application. THEN, the ghost ignores the Windows File Protection System which is the culprit which makes you put the original installation CD when you screw something up. Like putting your older bogus file in place of the latest version currently running. Windows 2000 and above, the system won't let you do it. The minute someone updated the main evoting file, his would no longer work because the WFP wouldn't allow it to run. He'd need to compile after the latest evoting executable.

This is why Wise, Installshield, and others are in business. You just can't do as the ghost said. But damn, she sounded pretty damn convincing, huh?

If some freeper is smart enough to rig an election, he sure is smart enough not to get an amateur to keep him out of jail.

And this isn't a debate. It's a flamefest. Fortunatly, the flames mean nothing to me because people don't really know who I am. And I intend to keep it that way. So, if you want to claim I'm unqualified, then I wholeheartily endorse your opinion. Please...spread the word.

"Maybe you're the god that we should all listen to and take advice."

Let me assure you, I am not. And don't take my advice. Make up your own mind. I countered with why this smells like a freeper plant speading false hope or a cash pimp and I got called the freeper.

Curtis has not refused any money (even though he said he would not take any, nobody knows whether he refused), but went to a place that offers it instead of a place with higher media visibility that offers nothing.

Why is that?

[ClintCooper2003]

194. Dubyasux sux

[stella2cat]

197. at this point I tend to agree n/t

[DubyaSux]

199. You forgot..

....to say my mom is ugly. At least get your personal attacks correct if that's the limit of your contribution.

[ClintCooper2003]

200. Dubya sux sux and sux and sux.

[tarheel_voter]

189. Why this post debunks itself

From top to bottom, the poster is wrong.

>>First, he had to write this in C++. Otherwise, you would need to >>install all the Visual Basic runtime files and that would be
>>undoable with even crappy election official monitors. Furthermore,
>>the checksum routines in the GEMS system to make sure it's a valid
>>file would never pass.

Ruling: Imprecise, Inaccurate, not correct. What about Pascal, C, and Perl? Checksum routines... hahaha... Please!!!

>>Now, for the technical part of why he couldn't do it...

Ruling: sorry my friend. Unless you have access to the actual source code written by Clint Curtis, you cannot make any determination here.

>>In any case, either method would have been caught.

Ruling: Speculative. There is no rule anywhere in current election laws that apply to this scenario... So who would do the catching?

>>It's obvious that he knows a little about some higher level
>>programming language, but I wouldn't trust him to program my VCR if
>>this is the best he can do.

Ruling: Personal attack, why don't DU rules apply to Dubysux?

[understandinglife]

190. Brad explains the 'mysterious fourth page' in the Curtis affidavit...

...and, I'm posting this here because this thread seems to have attained a resurective robustness, cycling to the top of the heap quite regularly ;-)

If anyone thinks Brad's post deserves a thread of it's own, go for it!

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/

"The 'Mysterious' Fourth Page of the Affidavit..
I've been trying to prepare a FAQ on some of the most frequently asked questions I've been getting about the Clint Curtis story. It's taking longer than I had hoped because so much else is currently going on. ..............(several paragraphs more)"

Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"