Was it Stolen?

[BeFree]

I believe it was.

The evidence presented in the Election Forum bolsters the case that it was, indeed, stolen.

For those of you who do not believe it was stolen, ask yourself this: Could it have been stolen?

If you have researched the e-voting machines, as many here have, you come to the conclusion that, Yes, it could have been stolen.

Ok, now we are all on the same page. Where do we go from here? Knowing, as we do, that it could have been stolen, and knowing that the next election could also be stolen, how do you go about keeping that from happening again?

Some of us, using the mantra, 'It Was Stolen', are making an attempt to inform and educate voters. It happened once, it can happen again. Since we all agree it could have happened, we all agree it could happen again, right?

Since the absolute proof of the election being stolen has not yet come to light, our only course is to keep the fires burning. Some of you are throwing water on the fire, and that is NOT appreciated. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You know 2004 could have been stolen, and you know 2006 could be stolen. Either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Link to the water throwing?

I haven't seen any of it.

My opinion on the election is we shouldn't have to worry about it, so whether it was or was not is now moot.

BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. IT SHOULD BE A GIVEN. AMERICA. FAIR ELECTIONS.

[BeFree]

3. Hey Grannie

Look in the Election Forum threads for the firefighters. There aren't as many as there was a while ago, but they still lurk.

Also, now, in GD Politics is a good 'Stolen' thread running. "Bush is Illigitimate"(sic). Near the end the water buffaloes show up in force.

I like the way you put it: "We shouldn't have to worry about it." You oughtta come visit us in Election Forum. I think you'd be mucho appreciated.

Peace

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Thanks...I will visit

In my opinion, once the election is gone, it is too late. It would be more damaging to the country to muddle through the mess.

It must be transparent, fair, and WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

I never worried about it for 40 some years. What the hell happened??

[BeFree]

7. Yes, what the hell happened?

To tell the truth, I was always suspicious of the vote counting apparatus. Punch cards were my first indoctrination to the process, and I walked away wondering.

Now, most voting is done on electronics. Electronics with no back-up, no paper record, no nothing but faith, that every vote was counted as cast.

I do not have faith in the electronic apparatus. No one should. No one who is wise to e-voting has faith that all votes were counted as cast. No one.

The last election, close to 80% of the votes cast were counted by, or on, electronics. Too many stories of failures, miscounts and possible manipulations by secret codes running the electronics, has utterly destroyed any belief that the electronics, as used, should ever be used again to count our votes.

There's more, The Election Forum has tons of stories, facts and figures. Just ask, someone will be more than glad to help educate anyone.

[KalicoKitty]

2. I also truly believe the election was again stolen in 2004!

Vote rigging.....


The programmer claims that he designed and built a "vote rigging" software program at the behest of then Florida Congressman, now U.S. Congressman, Republican Tom Feeney of Florida's 24th Congressional District.

Clint Curtis, 46, claims that he built the software for Feeney in 2000 while working at a sofware design and engineering company in Oviedo, Florida (Feeney's home district).

Curtis, in his affidavit, says that as technical advisor and programmer at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) he was present at company meetings where Feeney was present "on at least a dozen occasions".

Feeney, who had run in 1994 as Jeb Bush's running-mate in his initial unsuccessful bid for Florida Governor, was serving as both corporate counsel and registered lobbyist for YEI during the period that Curtis worked at the company. Feeney was also concurrently serving as a Florida state congressman while performing those services for YEI. Feeney would eventually become Speaker of the Florida House before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002. He is now a member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

At an October 2000 meeting with Feeney, according to the affidavit and BRAD BLOG interviews with Curtis over the past three days, Feeney inquired whether the company could build a "vote fraud software prototype".

At least three YEI employees are said to have been present at that meeting; Curtis, company owner, Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and her executive secretary, Mike Cohen. Two other YEI employees may have come in and out at different points of the meeting according to Curtis.

Curtis says that Feeney "was very specific in the design and specifications required for this program."

"He detailed, in his own words, that; (a) the program needed to be touch-screen capable (b) the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment (c) the programming to accomplish this needed to stay hidden even if the source code was inspected."

Though there was no problem with the first two requirements, Curtis explained to the Congressman that it would be "virtually impossible to hide such code written to change the voting results if anyone is able to review the uncompiled source code"

Nonetheless, he was asked at the meeting by Mrs. Yang to build the prototype anyway.

Curtis, "a life-long Republican" at the time, claims that it was his initial belief that Feeney's interest was in trying to stop Democrats from using "such a program to steal an election". Curtis had assumed that Feeney, "wanted to be able to detect and prevent that if it occurred."

Upon delivery of the software design and documentation on CD to Mrs. Yang, Curtis again explained to her that it would be impossible to hide routines created to manipulate the vote if anybody would be able to inspect the precompiled source code.

Mrs. Yang then told him, "You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in South Florida."

Mrs. Yang then took the CD containing the software from Curtis, reportedly for later delivery to Feeney.

In other meetings with Feeny prior to the 2000 elections, it became clear to Curtis that Feeney had plans to suppress the vote in strong Democratic precincts. In the affidavit, Curtis claims that in those meetings Feeney had "bragged that he had already implemented 'exclusion lists' to reduce the 'black vote'." Feeney also mentioned that "proper placement of police patrols could further reduce the black vote by as much as 25%."

Curtis says that he submitted his resignation to YEI effective December 2000, but stayed on until they had found someone to replace him in February of 2001. He eventually became employed by the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT) after leaving YEI.

Listen and watch this:

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

Now Clint is dead!

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm

There have been soooooo many mysterious deaths since Bush first stole office way back in 2000!

Bush's ratings were in the low 40's back in November. Don't tell me he "won"!

[GuvWurld]

20. Where does it say Clint Curtis is dead?

I have not found anything on this. I have heard people talk about mysterious deaths but would appreciate a link or a summary of known names/circumstances. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. whoa, this conflict is easily resolved

When people insist that it was stolen -- and especially when they give bad arguments that it was stolen -- other people will continue to protest.

If your mantra is "It was stolen," then I don't necessarily consider that "inform(ing) and educat(ing) voters."

I really don't care whether you think I should be ashamed of myself or not. And I do not take orders from you, whoever you are.

"Was it stolen? It could have been stolen." Go for it.

[BeFree]

6. Easily resolved?

By you? When?

Choosing a mantra is tricky. I may have overstepped my bounds by ascribing such a mantra to the movement, but I feel it is an apt mantra for me. I Believe It Was Stolen. Your words, well read, have done nothing to sway me from my belief. You can't prove it wasn't stolen.

But answer this question: Could it have been stolen?

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. sure, it could have been stolen

at least in the sense that the hardware is intrinsically vulnerable. (And then there are all the other ways in which the election could be stolen.) Febble has shown a lot more patience than I can muster in going through scenarios and hashing out the state of the evidence for them, so I won't go there tonight.

I have no problem working with people who believe that the 2004 election was stolen. I even spend a fair amount of time looking for evidence (I won't say "proof") that it was.

But some of the arguments that the 2004 election were stolen make about as much sense to me as the argument that Bush is a space alien -- which, to be sure, I cannot disprove. Actually, I guess some of the arguments make less sense to me than the argument that Bush is a space alien, because some of them seem just plain wrong. (For instance, the claim is out there that exit polls are usually accurate to within a fraction of a percentage point -- and that claim is Out There.)

I will go out on a limb and venture that "the" movement mantra should be based on something we want for the future, not something we believe about the past. People will continue to disagree about the 2004 election, but people agree about wanting votes to be counted fairly. That said, I also welcome factually sound arguments that raise questions about the 2004 election.

[nashville_brook]

14. glad you're welcoming sound arguments

how do we submit them to you for vetting?

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. hey, if you disagree, say so, and I will do the same -- simple n/t

[kster]

9. I believe it was stolen

because there are a quite a few fireman around trying to stamp out the raging fire, but the fire is spreading and soon it will be out of control. To many people know that the voting machines can pick our government in secret and that scares the hell out of most people, thats why they will never be able to put this fire out.

[GuvWurld]

10. I believe it was intentionally made inherently uncertain

With roughly 30% of the votes unverifiable, it is simply not possible to know the true outcome of any election. This is intentional. Creating inherent uncertainty is one of the most commonly used tactics to support the Big Lie, this time, or in any fascist empire. This tactic serves well to keep We The People divided, which in turn facilitates the government's consolidation of power and control. Read Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution.

BTW, this also makes virtually all discussion of the 2004 "election" tired and useless. The relevant matter is the conditions that necessarily create this inherent uncertainty, and which remain in place to do it again for future "elections." If we are to overcome the government's intentional and malicious divisiveness, we need to build bridges within our communities. We will do this not by convincing people of the "truth" of the past, but rather by helping them see what is inevitable about the future. Then we can finally begin the peaceful revolution.

[kster]

12. Yes

"We will do this not by convincing people of the "truth" of the past, but rather by helping them see what is inevitable about the future. Then we can finally begin the peaceful revolution".


Knowledge is power ! 2006 votes will be counted and tabulated in secret by voting equipment that the government refuses to do anything about.

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. Wow!

Jus saw this discussion, but we're on the same wave length apt mantras! True er not, "It Was Stolen!" leaves the burden of proof on you. "Prove It!" places it on the thieves.

Some of you are throwing water on the fire.... Either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

Didya ever think that mebbie we're leadin' in a more productive direction?.!

On edit: Despite havin been round here a long time, I don't chime in much. Voting issues of sElection 2k is what brought me here. I'm certainly not an activist beyond "each on teach one." I jus have difficulty watchin a whole heap of wasted energy by folkz who genuinely care bout the same thing.

On the one hand, I reasonably convinced that Repubz stole some combination of FL, OH er NM in 2004; on the other, Repubz e-padding the * popular vote by several million is utterly fantastic. Without solid evidence we need to move forward with an attitude that incorporates our knowledge of the systems failings. "It wuz Stolen!" ain't it.

[GuvWurld]

13. Ain't it = Right on.

The position "It was stolen" invites disagreement and conflict. Even on DU. It is the same with "who really won." As I wrote up thread, current election conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes which are necessarily divisive and guaranteed to cause We The People to futilely fight amongst ourselves. The government counts on this very reliably. The alternative we must create is uniting to resist our common fascist foe.

[BeFree]

29. I believe it was stolen.

I will be proven to be correct. 'Will be' is the operative term. In the meantime, the question you have answered is: "Could it have been stolen?" Your answer is yes.

Enough said. Now, get with the program to make sure it doesn't happen again. Quit arguing with the activists. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. We don't need ankle biters. We need support to make sure it has no chance of happening again.

[yowzayowzayowza]

30. Yeaza Maaza!!

Iza be sorry Maaza. Iz goana goes ova hear an sitin me downa rite now. I aint goana be no problem no mo.

[BeFree]

31. Glad you are having fun

You seem to be quite adept at having it both ways. Quote:
On the one hand, I reasonably convinced that Repubz stole some combination of FL, OH er NM in 2004; on the other, Repubz e-padding the * popular vote by several million is utterly fantastic.

In your new thread, you say:
As a programmer of over 20 yrs I gotta say those are very unlikely scenarios. Tabulator hacks could leave traces in page files, remote access logs and telephony records. Nefarious code is risky as it persists far too long. Both methods could be discovered in a recount of the paper trail.

There was no paper trail that was recounted satifactorily, except for what, New Hampsire? Therefore you have basis then to your belief that hacks, or codes, could not have been done to steal 8 million votes. It could have very easily been done, and as a progrmmer you should know that. It is NOT utterly fantastic. Thats unsupported BS, and you know it.

I don't like it when someone comes on here, after all we've been through, and start telling us we are wrong. I don't like it. You are of no help, with your 'Utterly fantastic' BS.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. speaking of having it both ways --

Is this a topic we are actually discussing, or just one where you get to tell everyone how it is gonna be?

The New York exits showed Kerry winning by 30 points, more or less depending on what number you look at. The last three pre-election polls showed Kerry leading by 15, 17, and 18 points; the official returns had him winning by 19. Almost the entire state votes on lever machines. Whaddya got?

[BeFree]

33. Almost the entire state.

Tag team back to work, eh?

Exit polls: Where those M-E's, Got that link? Make it a good one, and not, please, Lugar's, again.

Lever machines are damn near totally illegal. Why is that? Is it because they can't be recounted and are prone to fraud? Skimming 10 percent, statewide, would be easy.

With a MOE of say 6%, the numbers you gave us about the pre-polls could have easily matched up with the smaller MOE's from good exit polling.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. OK, let's talk about New York

There is no tag team; I just get annoyed when people offer dogs as dogmas.

"Exit polls: Where those M-E's, Got that link? Make it a good one, and not, please, Lugar's, again."

I have no idea what that means. (What, you still think that the statement of Bush's representative at the Ukraine election was irrelevant to assessing what the Bush administration was saying about the Ukraine exit polls? but I digress.) Was M-E the same as MOE, and if so, what statistic(s) do you want margins of error for?

If you want to know where the 30 point Kerry win figure for New York comes from, you could take it from Steve Freeman's presentation in Philadelphia (he ended up with 29.7), or you could take it from exit-pollz.org (http://www.exitpollz.org/cnn2004epolls/Pres_epolls/NY_P.html), who in this case apparently took it from the Edison/Mitofsky evaluation report http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf at p. 22 (the Best Geo estimate was 31.3).

If you want an MOE for the exit poll result, well, TIA has it at about 3 points with a 20% cluster effect. E/M has a SEDF of 3.7, which is about the same as a 3.7-point MOE.

If you want the MOEs for the polls, you can download the whole file at http://www.electoral-vote.com/2004/info/allpolls.csv . More details below.

"Lever machines are damn near totally illegal." Umm, they will have to be replaced, yes.

"Is it because they can't be recounted and are prone to fraud?" That's a pretty complicated question to squeeze into rather few words. Yes, individual votes can't be recounted. No, the machines aren't especially vulnerable to fraud in the sense of vote stealing (technicians can preset the counters, but poll workers should detect that). The machines are getting old and breaking down (and potentially could be deliberately made to break down), which is probably the main reason they are being replaced under HAVA -- although HAVA does also require a paper record.

So, I guess I will go with No, unless you have something from the legislative record that demonstrates that fraud was a major rationale for moving away from lever machines.

"Skimming 10 percent, statewide, would be easy."

No, it wouldn't. It would require widespread collusion and/or incompetence, and it would tend to stick out like a sore thumb, unless you think that every race is jiggered in the same way. And maybe you do. Please note, however, that paper ballots can perfectly well be jiggered (stuffed, destroyed, miscounted), so once you start postulating that everyone is crooked, you're really not talking about technology problems at all.

"With a MOE of say 6%, the numbers you gave us about the pre-polls could have easily matched up with the smaller MOE's from good exit polling."

Do you realize that you are just making stuff up?

The MOEs on those three polls were 3, 7, and 4. It's not "easy" at all to get all three of those polls to yield a Kerry vote share at least 6 points lower than the exit poll share (corresponding to a 12-point difference in margin, 30 minus 18, which is pretty generous) -- even if you start by assuming that the exit poll was unusually wrong in New York alone. If I spot you three points on the exit poll, the chance of all these polls being wrong by another 3 points in the opposite direction is about 1%. But since that 3-point error (6 points on the margin) in the exit poll is about a one-in-forty shot, the overall probability is actually lower.

So, bluntly, the pre-election polls and the exit poll disagree. Now what?

[BeFree]

36. Now what? This:

"But since that 3-point error (6 points on the margin) in the exit poll"

There was a 6 point error in the NY exit-polls. Why? I dunno. But maybe they just wanted to mess with your head? I could see that... they knew it was not gonna be close, so they jacked the numbers around. NY really got jacked, eh?

Taking that 6 point error off the exit's, leaves you with as little as 23%. Give 5 points on the pre-polls and you are down to 18%, getting closer all the time. What were the pre-polls again?

Anyway you look at it, since the pukes knew NY was going Kerry, they figured they could really mess around in NY. Try everything possible. Who's was gonna look at NY once Ohio's results had been manufactured?

Given the thousands of lever machines spread hither and yon across NY, rubbing a few the right way would have been a piece of cake. It happens.

So the next question is: Do you know the NY elections were fair and square?

[yowzayowzayowza]

34. News U can use.

This: Repubz stole some combination of FL, OH er NM in 2004
...and this: (Tabulator hacks & Nefarious code) are very unlikely scenarios.
...are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure you know that there are many other ways to steal an election both manually and electronically.

Repubz e-padding the * popular vote by several million is utterly fantastic.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan. No matter how many lists you collate ... means, motive & opportunity do not extraordinary evidence make. Yea, I find it fantastic to believe that millions of votes magically appeared w/o a single Democrat noticing.

I don't like it when someone comes on here, after all we've been through, and start telling us we are wrong. I don't like it.

Suggestion?

While we're auditing posts, plz respond to this, as I've gota rake and leaf blower at the ready

[petgoat]

15. Maybe "We Can Not Trust the Machine Counts" is a frame we can

all live with.

And who's responsible for that? The Republicans. 35 million votes
were counted on unverifiable machines installed after the Republicans
derailed federal legislation in the House and the Senate that would
have outlawed them. They also sabotaged the Election Assistance
Commission through inadequate funding and inadequate appropriations.
With a budget of just one million, it could afford only a staff of
seven--not enough to do its job of setting standards for the new
voting machines installed under the Help America Vote Act.

When the Republicans went to so much trouble and took such great
political risks to see that the election COULD be stolen, how can we
trust that it was not stolen?

Proof is beside the point. Lack of trust is the point.

[Febble]

18. Agree 100% n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

19. Umm.... No.

"We Can Not Trust the Machine Counts" infers that the machines are the source of the problem. They are not; the manner of their utilization is. "We CANNOT trust unvalidated election systems" would be closer. "Proof" of Election 2004 theft is not the point; "proof" of
accuracy is.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. hey, look, the naysayers are disagreeing again! (grin)

Well, I don't quite like "we cannot trust the machine counts" as a _slogan_, but I think you're too hard on it. (And "we cannot trust unvalidated election systems" wouldn't be much of a slogan, either!)

I don't trust the machine counts. I don't think it is slandering the machines to say so. I don't want to play into Luddite hostility toward "machines" in general, but bending over backwards to be nice to machines is not a high priority for me. ;)

Semantics aside, do all four of us at least agree that unverifiable machine counts can't be trusted?

[yowzayowzayowza]

22. HAL is precisely...

offended. :D

... agree that unverifiable machine counts can't be trusted?

As the power switch is well within reach, where do I sign?

[Febble]

17. Firefighter here

I think "The Election was Stolen" is a terrible mantra, because it implies

a) that actual theft is more important than corruption, insecurity and widespread disenfranchisement whoever won

b) that only if theft occurred does it matter that theft is possible

c) that if you can demonstrate that the election wasn't stolen, no change is necessary.

Change is necessary, whether the election was stolen or not. Tying Election Reform to a demonstration that 2004 was stolen is, IMO tying a quite unnecessary millstone round the neck of the campaign, because there are perfectly good statistical arguments (I would argue better statistical arguments) against election theft than for it.

But the arguments in favour of ending voter suppression and securing the counting system are watertight.

[bdevil89]

24. Stolen Election and the "War on Terrorism"

Now how do I know this, you say... well it's from quite a remarkable and credible case.

Listen to these interviews to get background on the case here.
http://206.130.103.233/ShowFM045.ram (great interview)
http://www.radiorbit.com/audio/071805michaelhorn.mp3 (55 mins into the clip)
http://www.figu.org/us/download/m_horn_04-30-05_1st.mp3
http://www.figu.org/us/download/m_horn_04-30-05_2nd.mp3

Listen to these interviews, you will be amazed or frightened, or at least amused (but there's nothing amusing about lying into a war).

I will post the relevant information with regards to Bush lying about WMD or ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons, the stolen elections (from 2000 on), "War on Terrorism",


Check out the interviews.

Enjoy

[bdevil89]

25. With E-voting, not even Jesus could have beaten Bush

My commentary is meant to be sarcastic because the information is pretty depressing about our state of affairs.

The So Called "War on Terrorism", How the Repubs won the 2004 election and How I learned to love it, WWWIII in 2006 possible

CONTACT 367
Thursday, September 9, 2004
Contact person: Ptaah
German excerpt: http://www.figu.org/de/figu/bulletin/s15/katastrophenwa...

Overpopulation's (7.5 billion) dangers for the Earth
Bad leaders in government exploiting the people
World War III (WW3/WWIII) - Meier states that WW3 has been "in full course" for a long time; global military conflicts still possible in 2006, 2010, 2011 & 2012
USA, Israel, Palestine & Sudan
Death of Yasser Arafat in November 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arafat
Terrorism
George W. Bush - a "terrorkrat"; 2nd rise to power in November 2004 (stated by Quetzal 15+ years ago); global military conflicts (WW3) possible in 2006
Republican population of the US led by "the lies and empty promises made by Bush", etc.; not able to think logically
Israel
Palestine & Yasser Arafat
John F. Kerry: http://kerry.senate.gov /
USA Presidential Election 2004 - Bush will win by fraudulently using 400,000 falsified votes manufactured during the 2000 election and stored on voting machines; Florida & Ohio will be complicated
Republicans
Yasser Arafat's death in November 2004 - Israel (Ariel Sharon) will prevent his body being buried in Jerusalem: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1345031,0...
Ariel Sharon - "a thousandfold murderer and terrorist"
George W. Bush - comparable to Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Husain, Nicolae Ceausescu, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.; strives for US world domination; he isn't concerned with world terrorism, the "War On Terrorism" is a cover for attacking other countries to establish military bases in them & exploit them; he is "the worst who ever prevailed over the United States of America"
US Senators, etc.
Approximately half of Americans are opposed to war & only want direct defenses for America, not attacking other countries
Switzerland - criminals in government, free speech, the press, judicial system



Interestingly, the Hitler comparison to Bush are apropos according to the material including the rest of the gang (Stalin, Sharon, Arafat, Milosevic, Hussein). Also, the War on Terrorism is just a way to set up our favorite military bases around the world (gee wiz).
In the immortal words of the comic book guy of the Simpsons, even the information agrees Worst. President. Ever. So that's why we're such a conservative nation, the computer tabulators in this country are conservative, how do the Dems appeal to the computers, it's a tough demographic, I mean do we wear our love for computer software/hardware and proclaim for all to hear and see, I mean we're just as faith-based, I mean computer literate as the next Republican, we actually like logic, go figure, I guess the Repubs take 2006 as well if we don't convince the computers that we represent them... sigh

Also, there's a nice blurb about the Republican population being misled by the lies and empty (and I do mean empty) promises made by Bush (Harriet Miers anyone... anyone...), also the Republicans are thinking illogically, well I don't even know if logic is in their vocabulary. However, there is hope for Amerca yet, in that at least half are opposed to war, and don't want to invade countries but rather shore up our defense at home. WWWIII in 2006, why not, if Bush decides to invade Iran or Syria or drop some nukes (which I be wouldn't surprised if Bush thinks that's the way to wag the dog, idiot, geez..).

[Febble]

26. I only managed to download

one of those links, which seemed to be about UFOs.

You'd better summarize if you want me to have any curiosity as to what you are talking about.

[bdevil89]

27. Febble

Ok Febble,

I think it's important that you really listen to the interviews and read the material for yourself to come to your own conclusions.

The fact for me is I have researched the case for 8 years, and found it to be highly credible and corroborated. By corroborated, I mean predictions and prophecies that have come true and had verified much later (months, years, decades later), metal sample analyses, sound recording analyses, photographs and film (which cause a lot of controversy since they were shot back in the mid 70s), a document that purports to be the original source for the gospel of matthew.
Now the links are here: first I would point you to http://theyfly.com/newsletters/july05_newsletter/july05.htm , this link will get you an understanding of the case.

http://www.tjresearch.info/ (this is about the document the Talmud of Jmmanuel

http://www25.brinkster.com/chancede/Cnotes.html (this site contains the topical summaries of the contact information , some are more in depth than others. This is where I pasted the contact info in my above post. There's tons more of information at the site. I recommend you perusing that after you've listened to the interviews.

The summary is: this case may be the most important story or the most incredible hoax. I've come to the conclusion that it is not a hoax considering the evidence and accuracy of the prophecies. And, it is about much more than just lights in the sky and contact, it's about your future survival and that is the relevance. The information at the link above will show you more about a lot of other things (human history, astronomy, physics, world history, current events (possible WWWIII, the elections, terrorism, Iraq War) I will post more of the relevant notes (just know that there has been fraud from the 2000 election on). Check it out for yourself, the information in the material as one of its teachings is to never believe but to reason and use logic to come to know that something is true.

Febble if you have any questions, feel free to post, thanks for reading and if nothing else, listen to the interviews. Thanks again

[FogerRox]

28. OK

HIJACK this thread

[Time for change]

23. I agree with much of this

Yes, it is a travesty that our election system has been privatized and that it is susceptable to fraud. We must do whatever we can to support election reform efforts, most especially the abolition of any system that pre-supposes that secrect counting of votes is acceptable in a Democracy.

And yes, the 2004 election could have easily been stolen, and yes it probably was stolen. And we need to gather all the evidence we can for that and educate the American public to this.

This is very important. It is NOT enough to say that it could have been stolen. Most Americans are much more likely to be concerned about something that DID happen, than something that COULD happen. That is why it is important that they be informed about the myriads of evidence that point to fraud in the 2004 election, and the fact that Kerry probably won that election.

But where I draw the line is going directly from noting that the election could have been stolen to saying that is WAS stolen. We have much evidence that it was, but we don't have proof at this time. We need to keep looking for more evidence and documentations. We need to present the evidence that we have. But if we go beyond the evidence to make claims that are not tenable, then we lose credibility, and we hurt our effort. We need to be careful about that. We don't have much of a voice now, and we don't help our efforts to get a bigger voice by making claims that we can't support.