The Gateway Pundit reported earlier on Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., assembly with the official Ohio Secretary of State’s Inquiry concerning alleged proof of secret algorithms encoded into the Ohio State Board of Elections official Ohio voter registration database with a presumed objective of facilitating mail-in poll fraud.
In a one-hour-and-twenty-minute assembly, Corsi and Pacquette offered to Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s workplace a collection of voter ID scatterplots for numerous counties. Corsi and Pacquette instructed The Gateway Pundit that these scatterplots revealed plain proof that mathematical formulation had been secretly utilized to create a cryptographic task of State Board of Election Voter ID numbers in Ohio, a truth beforehand unknown to the Ohio Board of Elections.
On Monday, a criticism was filed with the Ohio Secretary of State — with all of the documentation on the CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM that Dr. ANDREW PAQUETTE discovered embedded within the Ohio Board of Elections Official Database.
GodsFiveStones means that the preliminary report submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio Lawyer Normal on Monday, September 16, 2024, Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., recognized a fancy cryptographic algorithm embedded within the voter identification numbers of three counties within the Ohio State Board of Elections voter registration that he believes had been designed “for the aim of covert knowledge manipulation.”
In his 22-page closely illustrated mathematical evaluation, Paquette has allegedly found that an algorithmic scheme based mostly on modular arithmetic was employed, possible unbeknownst to Ohio State Board of Election officers, to find out the task of voter identification (ID) numbers in three Ohio counties: Franklin, Lucas, and Montgomery.
Paquette defined the principal query of his investigation in Ohio: “Do Ohio’s voter rolls exhibit proof of algorithmic manipulation for covert tagging or selective knowledge obstruction? Paquette answered each questions within the affirmative. He burdened: “For this paper, the difficulty isn’t whether or not ‘algorithms’ had been used to assign or modify Ohio voter roll identification numbers. Actually, they had been. The actual problem is whether or not the algorithms used had been unnecessarily complicated, carried out hidden or inexplicable duties, or exhibited any uncommon traits.”
