Dominion Voting System Fraud Allegations | Fact Check

There has been a lot rumours that the Dominion Voting System is flawed and fraud can be committed through it so we looked at the underlying technology to find out whether these allegations were true or not. Before proceeding further I must mention that there are certain regulations that voting systems must meet to stay compliant and these compliance requirements include the following:-

Updates to the software cannot be made with 90-days before the election as part of the Safe Harbour Period
All logs should be kept so that an independent enquiries can be conducted

Before jumping to conclusions, let us look at the facts about the Dominion Voting System by the Allied Security Operations Group:-

When processing votes the Dominion Voting System had two outcomes (1) Normal Ballot and (2) Adjudicated Ballot
The Dominion Voting System had a 68.05% chance of eliciting an Adjudicated Ballot when the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%)
Adjudicated Ballots are forwarded to administrators for adjudication
There are no logs of who does the adjudication, when the adjudications are done and/or any audit trail
Adjudication Files can be moved between Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch
On all previous elections prior to 2020 adjudication had an audit trail on the Dominion Voting System
Server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years
Adjudication logs were most likely to have been manually removed which violates state law
All server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are missing from the Antrim County which is where the forensic on the Dominion Voting System was conducted
The Dominion ImageCast Precinct (ICP) machines have the ability to be connected to the internet – Please see image below

Because high error rate (68%) generates large numbers of ballots to be adjudicated by election personnel, we must deduce that bulk adjudication occurred. However, because files and adjudication logs are missing, we have not yet determined where the bulk adjudication occurred or who was responsible for it. Our research continues.
For the School Board Member for Central Lake Schools (3) [Image 1] there were 742 votes added to this vote total. Since multiple people were elected, this did not change the result of both candidates being elected, but one does see a change in who had most votes. If it were a single-person election this would have changed the outcome and demonstrates conclusively that votes can be and were changed during the second machine counting. That should be impossible

Attached is the full report conducted by Russell James Ramsland who holds an MBA from Harvard University, Political Science degree from Duke University and has worked at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), among other organisations.