How did Warnock win?
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
I don't expect him to explain any of the facts I presented "debunking" his claim that what he posted earlier ITT "debunked" the movie 2000 mules. I know it's a lot to digest, but it's important this lie from the Left finally get exposed. Trust me I'll have a lot more to say about the articles he posted, and I'll 100% guarantee he won't be nearly so quick to shoot down what I've refuted as he was to throw up that Left wing propaganda he posted. (probably as @dave said without even reading it!)
I've got two sales strategy meetings this morning I have to sit through for our year end closing events, then I'm going home and I'll have plenty more to "debunk" about his claim that the movie 2000 mules has been "debunked".
Stay tuned.
Anyone with a brain can understand. The problem is they don’t care. This includes the NYC_eer moronI don't expect him to explain any of the facts I presented "debunking" his claim that what he posted earlier ITT "debunked" the movie 2000 mules. I know it's a lot to digest, but it's important this lie from the Left finally get exposed. Trust me I'll have a lot more to say about the articles he posted, and I'll 100% guarantee he won't be nearly so quick to shoot down what I've refuted as he was to throw up that Left wing propaganda he posted. (probably as @dave said without even reading it!)
I've got two sales strategy meetings this morning I have to sit through for our year end closing events, then I'm going home and I'll have plenty more to "debunk" about his claim that the movie 2000 mules has been "debunked".
Stay tuned.
It's frustrating but it's also satisfyingly comical. How easily mind numbed Leftists like @NYC_Eer quote as fact virtually anything the sycophants in the main stream media feed them, then when you challenge them with actual facts they run off and are never heard from again. I'll finish dissecting his Leftist propaganda later today, then we can wait for him to not show up refuting what I've debunked about his false claims of the movie being "debunked"
Remember, how boldly he posted this earlier ITT, but clearly now he's unable to factually back any of it up?
Uh, NO...it has not been "debunked"! I promise, I'll finish dissecting his propaganda later today.
He’s just an ignorant fool. Like moe, these trolls know they’re trolls. It’s their only reason for being on this board.It's frustrating but it's also satisfyingly comical. How easily mind numbed Leftists like @NYC_Eer quote as fact virtually anything the sycophants in the main stream media feed them, then when you challenge them with actual facts they run off and are never heard from again. I'll finish dissecting his Leftist propaganda later today, then we can wait for him to not show up refuting what I've debunked about his false claims of the movie being "debunked"
Remember, how boldly he posted this earlier ITT, but clearly now he's unable to factually back any of it it up?
I promise, I'll finish dissecting his propaganda later today.
He won't read nothing you post . If he would read with a open mind and apply what went on to a Democrat politician he would agreeI don't expect him to explain any of the facts I presented "debunking" his claim that what he posted earlier ITT "debunked" the movie 2000 mules. I know it's a lot to digest, but it's important this lie from the Left finally get exposed. Trust me I'll have a lot more to say about the articles he posted, and I'll 100% guarantee he won't be nearly so quick to shoot down what I've refuted as he was to throw up that Left wing propaganda he posted. (probably as @dave said without even reading it!)
I've got two sales strategy meetings this morning I have to sit through for our year end closing events, then I'm going home and I'll have plenty more to "debunk" about his claim that the movie 2000 mules has been "debunked".
Stay tuned.
Maybe not. However he sure was quick to post for us to read what he thinks "debunks" the movie. Maybe @dave was correct and he didn't bother to read any of what he posted himself because I sure read it, and it was obvious to me after doing so that none of it "debunked" the film 2000 mules as he falsely claimed!
I've got plenty more to prove it too, and as I said he won't be able to refute one point I make or back up one sentence of what he posted. I really don't need to prove it either, he will by his ignorant silence.
More later.
Last edited:
Don’t let the fool discourage you. So what if he didn’t read it. He’s a sheep controlled by a thought machine. Keep sharing this stuff. I assure you people are reading it. If you can change one mind, it might lead to others who hear about it.
Thanks @ThePunish-EER ...as I said it's a lot to read on a message board and it's primarily for him (even if he doesn't read it) but it's out there and clearly it refutes the articles he posted. I'll finish it shortly. Thanks for the encouragement.
Rebuttal #3 THE VIDEO USED IN THE FILM WAS UNRELIABLE AND INCOMPLETE
The so called "debunked" information offered by @NYC_Eer in his articles from the "fact checkers" laid out the claim that the video footage shown in the film 2000 mules was incomplete and inaccurate. Here's how one of the fact checkers tired to "debunk" the footage we were shown:
(source: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)
"They claimed to have access to 4 million minutes of footage, which was mostly from Georgia. The documentary makers said some of the surveillance cameras were turned off in Arizona and that there was no footage from Wisconsin. No information was provided about surveillance footage from Michigan or Pennsylvania. When Reuters asked Engelbrecht [sic film producer] via email how “mules” identified via geo tracking data were then matched to surveillance footage, she responded: “Matches are made by comparing the location and time stamp of the video to the location and the time stamp of the individual device.”
The first fallacy the fact checkers try to create is the suggestion these limited videos are not definitive, and therefore lack proof of evidence of ballot fraud. While it is most certainly true the videos in and of themselves prove nothing but individuals who can be seen placing ballots into a drop box, without the supporting documentary evidence of the established pattern of literally hundreds of others doing the exact same thing repeatedly after visiting "stash houses" the videos presented by themselves without that context have no meaning, yet that is exactly how the fact checkers attempted to present them!
The producers of the film admitted up front they did not have actual video footage of every single mule who was traced making visits to the various drop boxes...primarily because the surveillance cameras required by Law to record such activity around the drop boxes were turned off in most areas where the mules were tracked! For some reason the "fact checkers" never bothered to investigate why those cameras were not operating as required by Law? Still, those missing videos do not "debunk" the hard data the tracking evidence produced ie: multiple visits, to multiple drop boxes, by the same individuals, multiple times.
The fact checkers claim the limited amount of videos, coupled with the unreliability of the geo tracking data which failed to establish that any one visit to any of the drop boxes was fraudulent, left out one salient and unmistakable fact. There was a coordinated pattern of these visits by these identified individuals. The fact checkers never bothered to ask about the nature of these visits, they only said the limited amount of videos proved nothing fraudulent. In fact it was clever how they tried to suggest the limited amount of footage available didn't show anything unusual.
(from above linked article)
...more
In one clip, a couple of ballots appear to drop to the floor as one man goes to post; the documentary makers suggest this is suspicious, as well as the man allegedly posting the ballots late at night. In another, a woman wearing a face mask and gloves is seen posting a ballot before turning to place her gloves in a nearby bin. It is claimed in the documentary that she is a “mule” because she was wearing gloves (to hide her fingerprints) and did not look at the bin, so must have had prior knowledge of it being there. The documentary makers did not appear to consider the possibility that the woman was wearing gloves, along with her face mask, as a personal protective measure against COVID-19. The unidentified woman was also said to have visited “dozens and dozens” of drop boxes; however, no other clips of her, nor any further evidence, were shown. In a Fox News interview, Engelbrecht claimed the average number of visits by a "mule" to a drop box was 38 (here). Yet none of the surveillance videos showed the same person more than once".
A couple of things here. The film makers clearly indicated the videos presented were merely all of the examples they actually could show of mules who had been tracked by the data. They never claimed this was the only proof they had, it was simply all they actually could show because most of the surveillance cameras were turned off where other mules were tracked. They literally didn't have any other video of the woman who was shown, but they did have evidence based on her cell phone pings that she had visited numerous drop boxes as the evidence clearly demonstrated. The fact there were no other videos of her doesn't negate the fact she was indeed tracked to numerous other drop boxes. Fact checkers overlooked that part of the evidence. From article: "none of the surveillance videos showed the same person more than once".
As for the gloves the lady was shown wearing, the film makers clearly asked what was the purpose of immediately disposing them or even wearing them merely to drop off a ballot? The fact checkers suggested Covid protocols which could be true, but no one asked why would she immediately dispose of the gloves after simply depositing a ballot? The suggestion film makers offered was to hide her fingerprints which could be equally as valid as the Covid protocol.
The videos also showed another curious behavior among the few incidents captured. Selected folks can be seen snapping photos after depositing their ballots. The film makers applying the context of their tracking data matching these mules to visits of "stash centers" prior to making their ballot drops used this video footage to suggest this was how the mules documented the drops in order to be paid. Again, the picture taking video itself does not prove this, but here is where one must apply some logic to answer what the reason was for taking pictures after merely dropping off ballots?
The photos were of the drop boxes themselves, taken immediately after the mules were seen dropping off several ballots. Why? The only logical explanation is proof the visit had been made to that specific drop box (why was it only photographed) as some sort of validation those ballots had indeed just been placed there. Ask yourself how many times you take a picture of a mail box standing by itself after dropping off a personal letter? I mean who does that?
The fact checkers tried to suggest that because there was no other video of any other mules except those shown in the limited areas filmed around Atlanta, this was proof of a lack of fraudulent activity, and instead was simply normal activity as they suggested. However, the film makers explained it quite differently:
(source: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)
"Most mules left just a few ballots in each box over several weeks, leaving eyebrows unraised. But in Gwinnett County, Georgia, 271 people visited one box on Oct. 12, 2020. That day, 1,962 ballots were inserted—10 times the normal number. These mules were not just overzealous political operatives. Corrupt activist groups reportedly paid them per ballot delivered, which is universally illegal. The mules’ identities reveal that many have criminal records. Some were present during the George Floyd riots".
See the film makers did something here the fact checkers did not. They actually looked into the criminal records of some of the mules identified through the geo tracking data and found information on some of them that was disturbing. They also tracked the movements of these mules even though there was no supporting video, but clearly in the areas identified they found numerous visits to numerous drop boxes which is illegal even in Georgia where third parties were allowed to deposit ballots in some limited instances. The key here is the mules were making deliberate attempts to hide their tracks under one scenario (use of the gloves in one visual case, and making limited drops to avoid raising suspicions in others) yet prove the drops were made by snapping photos in another instance as we saw in at least a couple of the videos that were shown.
All of this activity should have been curious, if not alarming to either the fact checkers or investigators because it is most definitely illegal to traffic ballots anywhere. The fact checkers overlooked all of these indications that the Law was being violated, while they tried to dismiss a few isolated videos as inconclusive.
The videos were not the only proof of a coordinated effort to dump ballots in areas where there was no footage!
From above article: "No information was provided about surveillance footage from Michigan or Pennsylvania."
The film makers didn't claim they had any such footage! What they did have were those cell phone pings that again remain indisputable of numerous visits, to numerous drop boxes by numerous tracked mules
(source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/29/film-2000-mules-offers-vivid-proof-of-voter-fraud/)
"True the Vote discovered that, in the five states, some 2,000 mules averaged 38 drop-box visits in the weeks before Election Day, and estimates that 380,000 fraudulent ballots resulted;
—In Arizona, 200 mules typically approached 20 boxes each. Disqualifying these 20,000 unlawful ballots would evaporate Biden’s 10,457-vote win in Arizona.
—In Georgia, 250 mules stopped at 24 boxes and inserted five ballots per encounter. Rejecting these 30,000 illegal votes would eliminate Biden’s victory margin of 11,779.
—In Pennsylvania, 1,100 mules in Philadelphia alone encountered 50 boxes. Vacating these 275,000 illegitimate votes would eradicate Biden’s 80,555-vote victory
“This was an organized effort to subvert a free and fair election,” said True the Vote’s Phillips. “This is organized crime.”
The fact checkers never bothered to examine or post these findings proven by the geo tracking data that was readily available to them as it was made available to True the Vote documentary investigators. While no video existed supporting the numerous drops these mules were recorded making through their tracking data, it still was hard proof of illegal activity which the "fact checkers" never bothered to point out in their attempts to discredit the film!
The limited amount of footage was offered by film makers to back up what video proof there was available in support of their tracked data, but the data itself was strong enough proof to back the claims of the film makers of illegal ballot trafficking. The fact checkers overlooked all of that hard evidence, and instead focused on the unproven yet supportable video footage offered in the film to suggest what we were seeing was perfectly explainable or normal. It was not.
next: Rebuttal #4 The claims of the film makers were proven false
The so called "debunked" information offered by @NYC_Eer in his articles from the "fact checkers" laid out the claim that the video footage shown in the film 2000 mules was incomplete and inaccurate. Here's how one of the fact checkers tired to "debunk" the footage we were shown:
(source: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)
"They claimed to have access to 4 million minutes of footage, which was mostly from Georgia. The documentary makers said some of the surveillance cameras were turned off in Arizona and that there was no footage from Wisconsin. No information was provided about surveillance footage from Michigan or Pennsylvania. When Reuters asked Engelbrecht [sic film producer] via email how “mules” identified via geo tracking data were then matched to surveillance footage, she responded: “Matches are made by comparing the location and time stamp of the video to the location and the time stamp of the individual device.”
The first fallacy the fact checkers try to create is the suggestion these limited videos are not definitive, and therefore lack proof of evidence of ballot fraud. While it is most certainly true the videos in and of themselves prove nothing but individuals who can be seen placing ballots into a drop box, without the supporting documentary evidence of the established pattern of literally hundreds of others doing the exact same thing repeatedly after visiting "stash houses" the videos presented by themselves without that context have no meaning, yet that is exactly how the fact checkers attempted to present them!
The producers of the film admitted up front they did not have actual video footage of every single mule who was traced making visits to the various drop boxes...primarily because the surveillance cameras required by Law to record such activity around the drop boxes were turned off in most areas where the mules were tracked! For some reason the "fact checkers" never bothered to investigate why those cameras were not operating as required by Law? Still, those missing videos do not "debunk" the hard data the tracking evidence produced ie: multiple visits, to multiple drop boxes, by the same individuals, multiple times.
The fact checkers claim the limited amount of videos, coupled with the unreliability of the geo tracking data which failed to establish that any one visit to any of the drop boxes was fraudulent, left out one salient and unmistakable fact. There was a coordinated pattern of these visits by these identified individuals. The fact checkers never bothered to ask about the nature of these visits, they only said the limited amount of videos proved nothing fraudulent. In fact it was clever how they tried to suggest the limited amount of footage available didn't show anything unusual.
(from above linked article)
...more
In one clip, a couple of ballots appear to drop to the floor as one man goes to post; the documentary makers suggest this is suspicious, as well as the man allegedly posting the ballots late at night. In another, a woman wearing a face mask and gloves is seen posting a ballot before turning to place her gloves in a nearby bin. It is claimed in the documentary that she is a “mule” because she was wearing gloves (to hide her fingerprints) and did not look at the bin, so must have had prior knowledge of it being there. The documentary makers did not appear to consider the possibility that the woman was wearing gloves, along with her face mask, as a personal protective measure against COVID-19. The unidentified woman was also said to have visited “dozens and dozens” of drop boxes; however, no other clips of her, nor any further evidence, were shown. In a Fox News interview, Engelbrecht claimed the average number of visits by a "mule" to a drop box was 38 (here). Yet none of the surveillance videos showed the same person more than once".
A couple of things here. The film makers clearly indicated the videos presented were merely all of the examples they actually could show of mules who had been tracked by the data. They never claimed this was the only proof they had, it was simply all they actually could show because most of the surveillance cameras were turned off where other mules were tracked. They literally didn't have any other video of the woman who was shown, but they did have evidence based on her cell phone pings that she had visited numerous drop boxes as the evidence clearly demonstrated. The fact there were no other videos of her doesn't negate the fact she was indeed tracked to numerous other drop boxes. Fact checkers overlooked that part of the evidence. From article: "none of the surveillance videos showed the same person more than once".
As for the gloves the lady was shown wearing, the film makers clearly asked what was the purpose of immediately disposing them or even wearing them merely to drop off a ballot? The fact checkers suggested Covid protocols which could be true, but no one asked why would she immediately dispose of the gloves after simply depositing a ballot? The suggestion film makers offered was to hide her fingerprints which could be equally as valid as the Covid protocol.
The videos also showed another curious behavior among the few incidents captured. Selected folks can be seen snapping photos after depositing their ballots. The film makers applying the context of their tracking data matching these mules to visits of "stash centers" prior to making their ballot drops used this video footage to suggest this was how the mules documented the drops in order to be paid. Again, the picture taking video itself does not prove this, but here is where one must apply some logic to answer what the reason was for taking pictures after merely dropping off ballots?
The photos were of the drop boxes themselves, taken immediately after the mules were seen dropping off several ballots. Why? The only logical explanation is proof the visit had been made to that specific drop box (why was it only photographed) as some sort of validation those ballots had indeed just been placed there. Ask yourself how many times you take a picture of a mail box standing by itself after dropping off a personal letter? I mean who does that?
The fact checkers tried to suggest that because there was no other video of any other mules except those shown in the limited areas filmed around Atlanta, this was proof of a lack of fraudulent activity, and instead was simply normal activity as they suggested. However, the film makers explained it quite differently:
(source: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)
"Most mules left just a few ballots in each box over several weeks, leaving eyebrows unraised. But in Gwinnett County, Georgia, 271 people visited one box on Oct. 12, 2020. That day, 1,962 ballots were inserted—10 times the normal number. These mules were not just overzealous political operatives. Corrupt activist groups reportedly paid them per ballot delivered, which is universally illegal. The mules’ identities reveal that many have criminal records. Some were present during the George Floyd riots".
See the film makers did something here the fact checkers did not. They actually looked into the criminal records of some of the mules identified through the geo tracking data and found information on some of them that was disturbing. They also tracked the movements of these mules even though there was no supporting video, but clearly in the areas identified they found numerous visits to numerous drop boxes which is illegal even in Georgia where third parties were allowed to deposit ballots in some limited instances. The key here is the mules were making deliberate attempts to hide their tracks under one scenario (use of the gloves in one visual case, and making limited drops to avoid raising suspicions in others) yet prove the drops were made by snapping photos in another instance as we saw in at least a couple of the videos that were shown.
All of this activity should have been curious, if not alarming to either the fact checkers or investigators because it is most definitely illegal to traffic ballots anywhere. The fact checkers overlooked all of these indications that the Law was being violated, while they tried to dismiss a few isolated videos as inconclusive.
The videos were not the only proof of a coordinated effort to dump ballots in areas where there was no footage!
From above article: "No information was provided about surveillance footage from Michigan or Pennsylvania."
The film makers didn't claim they had any such footage! What they did have were those cell phone pings that again remain indisputable of numerous visits, to numerous drop boxes by numerous tracked mules
(source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/29/film-2000-mules-offers-vivid-proof-of-voter-fraud/)
"True the Vote discovered that, in the five states, some 2,000 mules averaged 38 drop-box visits in the weeks before Election Day, and estimates that 380,000 fraudulent ballots resulted;
—In Arizona, 200 mules typically approached 20 boxes each. Disqualifying these 20,000 unlawful ballots would evaporate Biden’s 10,457-vote win in Arizona.
—In Georgia, 250 mules stopped at 24 boxes and inserted five ballots per encounter. Rejecting these 30,000 illegal votes would eliminate Biden’s victory margin of 11,779.
—In Pennsylvania, 1,100 mules in Philadelphia alone encountered 50 boxes. Vacating these 275,000 illegitimate votes would eradicate Biden’s 80,555-vote victory
“This was an organized effort to subvert a free and fair election,” said True the Vote’s Phillips. “This is organized crime.”
The fact checkers never bothered to examine or post these findings proven by the geo tracking data that was readily available to them as it was made available to True the Vote documentary investigators. While no video existed supporting the numerous drops these mules were recorded making through their tracking data, it still was hard proof of illegal activity which the "fact checkers" never bothered to point out in their attempts to discredit the film!
The limited amount of footage was offered by film makers to back up what video proof there was available in support of their tracked data, but the data itself was strong enough proof to back the claims of the film makers of illegal ballot trafficking. The fact checkers overlooked all of that hard evidence, and instead focused on the unproven yet supportable video footage offered in the film to suggest what we were seeing was perfectly explainable or normal. It was not.
next: Rebuttal #4 The claims of the film makers were proven false
Last edited:
Rebuttal #4 THE CLAIMS OF THE FILM MAKERS WERE PROVEN FALSE
The fact checkers @NYC_Eer offered to us ITT quite frankly did a poor job of disproving the claims of the film makers. They simply refused to look where the obvious questions directed them to investigate based on the evidence provided. Once again, there is no dispute that the mules tracked made numerous visits to numerous drop boxes on numerous days after making repeated visits to nearby non profit ballot collection points. Yet despite that hard, provable, documented evidence, not one of the fact checkers bothered to investigate even one of the non profits, or even the identity of one of the mules tracked! That is astounding on the face of it, but not if their effort was to simply discredit the film, and not investigate its findings. That obviously was all they intended to do!
In a couple of instances, the fact checkers offered the results of at least a couple of cursory investigations into one of the mules identified in one of the videos.
(source: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/)
"True the Vote has provided some of its geo tracking data to law enforcement officials in hopes they will identify the cellphone users and question them about ballot harvesting. But in Georgia, at least, the state Bureau of Investigation says it won’t be doing that without more information.
What has not been provided is any other kind of evidence that ties these cell phones to ballot harvesting; for example, there are no statements of witnesses and no names of any potential defendants to interview,” Victor Reynolds, director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, wrote on Sept. 30, 2021, to the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and Phillips from True the Vote. “Saliently, it has been stated that there is ‘a source’ that can validate ballot harvesting. Despite repeated requests that source has not been provided to either the GBI or to the FBI".
The film makers were indeed able to identify and interview at least one source...a "whistleblower" who initially tipped them off which began their investigation. Why were the fact checkers unable to at least interview this individual who wished to remain anonymous, and corroborate his story with the evidence gathered by the film's producers? In fact, they never made any attempts to identify this individual, nor interview the whistleblower. Why not?
While the fact checkers curiously made no attempts to identify this "source", they also made few efforts to identify any of the mules recorded by the geo tracking data! In the case of one mule who's seen on video making a ballot drop, they tried to discredit his information based on what was gleaned only from his plate license number...and not the identifiable cell phone data used to track his movements. Amazing.
(from above source)
At a pivotal moment in the film, state-captured surveillance video shows a man depositing several ballots into a drop box before getting into a white Ford SUV whose license plate is visible, but blurred by the filmmakers.
“What you are seeing is a crime,” D’Souza says in the film as the video plays. “These are fraudulent votes.” In fact, investigators say it was not a crime. And those were not fraudulent votes. Rather, an investigator for the Georgia Board of Elections has determined the man was depositing his own ballots, plus the ballots of his wife and adult children, who are also registered voters. That’s all perfectly legal in Georgia".
...
"Georgia secretary of state investigator Dana DeWeese looked into video provided by True the Vote in three cases in which the people putting multiple ballots into drop boxes left in vehicles whose license plates were clearly identifiable. But in all three cases, nothing untoward was found (beginning at the 1:19 mark).
In the case of the white Ford SUV, investigators were able to identify the man and interview him. Prior to that interview, investigators checked public records and found there were five legal electors living in the home, all family members. Using the state’s ElectioNet or eNet voter verification system, DeWeese said he determined that ballots for all five of the voters were dropped at the drop box in question on the date the man was seen in the video depositing the ballots".
So what the fact checkers were attempting to do here is dismiss virtually ALL of the other gathered geo tracking evidence based on only these isolated instances. However no one bothered to track down any of the other mules, or interview any of the non profit ballot collection centers which all the mules were tracked from prior to making their drops at the various ballot drop boxes! They used the Law to subvert enforcement of the Law.
Again from the excerpted article:
“As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed,” Reynolds wrote. “For the GBI to get the same CSLI [cell site location information] information you provided, we would need to obtain a search warrant based on such probable cause. We cannot make that showing with what has been provided. As such, based on what has been provided and what has not been provided, an investigation is not justified.”
...
Lindsey, the Republican election board member, said he appreciated people coming forward with specific allegations for it to investigate, but he said the case should serve as “a cautionary tale” that the group ought to allow an investigation to take place before they “bring into question someone’s good name.” You know, voter harvesting is a crime,” Lindsey said. “Claiming that someone is committing a crime without a full investigation carries with it some legal liability as well.” The board dismissed that case and two others: one involving a red Toyota Corolla and the other a black Volkswagen Passat. Videos of those cases also appeared to be shown in the movie with the license plates visible, but blurred".
All of this was offered by the fact checkers as a way to avoid deep diving into what the tracked evidence clearly showed. For instance how hard would it have been to interview just a few of the mules who were pinged to the stash centers prior to making their ballot drops? Or confirming (as they did with the video) if those drops were legitimate by going to the non profits and examining what ballots they released under chain-of-custody requirements? Or how difficult would it have been to find out what the mules were up to making as many different visits to the different drop boxes during odd times of various days as the tracking pings clearly showed? None of that hard evidence was ever followed up on by the so called "fact checkers" who so called "debunked" the video. Why not? There is probably a good reason why there was such a lack of interest in pursuing these leads which could have answered many questions about what these mules were up to or who they may have been working for?
(source: https://www.theburningplatform.com/...-important-film-of-our-lifetimes/#more-268688)
"In just about three months, the clock will run out on the requirement to retain election records, and all the ballots can be trashed, the disks and flash drives wiped, and any evidence remaining in official records can be erased when the 22 month retention period expires. Courts could extend that period if the evidence was required in a lawsuit, but I don’t see that happening in any serious way"
In other words...run out the clock! It wasn't due to a lack of hard evidence that either the fact checkers or election officials refused to examine all the questions raised by the evidence presented in the film, it was because of a lack of desire to expose the Truth!
(from above sourced article)
"Early promises to conduct forensic audits of the election have largely stalled. Efforts to decertify the Electoral College votes have likewise gained little traction outside of a few locations. Court challenges have been stymied not from lack of evidence, but rather from the unwillingness of courts to examine the evidence. Officials, such as Secretaries of State whose job includes ensuring the integrity of elections have failed to investigate in any serious way the many allegations of election fraud in their jurisdictions. Virtually no politician, especially in an election year, wants to make election fraud an issue. Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking"
None of this refusal on the part of media, courts, or election officials to examine all the claims of fraud both documented in the film 2000 mules, and in numerous sworn affidavits filed under lawsuits challenging some election results in the swing States featured in the film proves there was no fraud! Quite the opposite in fact. The evidence that is either overlooked, impugned, or dismissed is NOT "debunking" it. It's "ignoring" it!
Once again, from above article:
"One of the biggest obstacles to a legal challenge is something called standing. Generally, in order to be able to file a lawsuit in a case of fraud, the plaintiff must first show that they were harmed by the alleged fraud. This demonstration of direct harm establishes what is known as standing. Without standing, a suit can be dismissed without any consideration of evidence.
Almost every court that has been presented with a lawsuit alleging fraud in the 2020 election has rejected the suit on the basis of standing, claiming that having one’s vote nullified by election fraud is insufficient to establish standing. The argument was even used by the Supreme Court to deny a suit by Texas alleging that fraud in Pennsylvania and other swing states effectively nullified their votes".
In the case of the film 2000 mules, "standing" simply means the evidence presented by itself does not rise to the level of causing harm, therefore further investigation is not warranted. The argument belies the evidence the filmmakers produced, ignores the legitimate questions the evidence gathered raises, and cheats the voters of due process who are simply asking for a thorough investigation of the claims not only in the film, but in all of the evidence produced! Leftists like @NYC_Eer are using the lack of investigations or dismissal of the small amounts of evidence that were examined under "standing" to suggest the entire issue of massive and organized voter fraud for the 2020 election has been "debunked". That is not only untrue, it is a flat out lie.
Tomorrow: The final rebuttal #5 What we know...what we don't know?
The fact checkers @NYC_Eer offered to us ITT quite frankly did a poor job of disproving the claims of the film makers. They simply refused to look where the obvious questions directed them to investigate based on the evidence provided. Once again, there is no dispute that the mules tracked made numerous visits to numerous drop boxes on numerous days after making repeated visits to nearby non profit ballot collection points. Yet despite that hard, provable, documented evidence, not one of the fact checkers bothered to investigate even one of the non profits, or even the identity of one of the mules tracked! That is astounding on the face of it, but not if their effort was to simply discredit the film, and not investigate its findings. That obviously was all they intended to do!
In a couple of instances, the fact checkers offered the results of at least a couple of cursory investigations into one of the mules identified in one of the videos.
(source: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/)
"True the Vote has provided some of its geo tracking data to law enforcement officials in hopes they will identify the cellphone users and question them about ballot harvesting. But in Georgia, at least, the state Bureau of Investigation says it won’t be doing that without more information.
What has not been provided is any other kind of evidence that ties these cell phones to ballot harvesting; for example, there are no statements of witnesses and no names of any potential defendants to interview,” Victor Reynolds, director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, wrote on Sept. 30, 2021, to the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and Phillips from True the Vote. “Saliently, it has been stated that there is ‘a source’ that can validate ballot harvesting. Despite repeated requests that source has not been provided to either the GBI or to the FBI".
The film makers were indeed able to identify and interview at least one source...a "whistleblower" who initially tipped them off which began their investigation. Why were the fact checkers unable to at least interview this individual who wished to remain anonymous, and corroborate his story with the evidence gathered by the film's producers? In fact, they never made any attempts to identify this individual, nor interview the whistleblower. Why not?
While the fact checkers curiously made no attempts to identify this "source", they also made few efforts to identify any of the mules recorded by the geo tracking data! In the case of one mule who's seen on video making a ballot drop, they tried to discredit his information based on what was gleaned only from his plate license number...and not the identifiable cell phone data used to track his movements. Amazing.
(from above source)
At a pivotal moment in the film, state-captured surveillance video shows a man depositing several ballots into a drop box before getting into a white Ford SUV whose license plate is visible, but blurred by the filmmakers.
“What you are seeing is a crime,” D’Souza says in the film as the video plays. “These are fraudulent votes.” In fact, investigators say it was not a crime. And those were not fraudulent votes. Rather, an investigator for the Georgia Board of Elections has determined the man was depositing his own ballots, plus the ballots of his wife and adult children, who are also registered voters. That’s all perfectly legal in Georgia".
...
"Georgia secretary of state investigator Dana DeWeese looked into video provided by True the Vote in three cases in which the people putting multiple ballots into drop boxes left in vehicles whose license plates were clearly identifiable. But in all three cases, nothing untoward was found (beginning at the 1:19 mark).
In the case of the white Ford SUV, investigators were able to identify the man and interview him. Prior to that interview, investigators checked public records and found there were five legal electors living in the home, all family members. Using the state’s ElectioNet or eNet voter verification system, DeWeese said he determined that ballots for all five of the voters were dropped at the drop box in question on the date the man was seen in the video depositing the ballots".
So what the fact checkers were attempting to do here is dismiss virtually ALL of the other gathered geo tracking evidence based on only these isolated instances. However no one bothered to track down any of the other mules, or interview any of the non profit ballot collection centers which all the mules were tracked from prior to making their drops at the various ballot drop boxes! They used the Law to subvert enforcement of the Law.
Again from the excerpted article:
“As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed,” Reynolds wrote. “For the GBI to get the same CSLI [cell site location information] information you provided, we would need to obtain a search warrant based on such probable cause. We cannot make that showing with what has been provided. As such, based on what has been provided and what has not been provided, an investigation is not justified.”
...
Lindsey, the Republican election board member, said he appreciated people coming forward with specific allegations for it to investigate, but he said the case should serve as “a cautionary tale” that the group ought to allow an investigation to take place before they “bring into question someone’s good name.” You know, voter harvesting is a crime,” Lindsey said. “Claiming that someone is committing a crime without a full investigation carries with it some legal liability as well.” The board dismissed that case and two others: one involving a red Toyota Corolla and the other a black Volkswagen Passat. Videos of those cases also appeared to be shown in the movie with the license plates visible, but blurred".
All of this was offered by the fact checkers as a way to avoid deep diving into what the tracked evidence clearly showed. For instance how hard would it have been to interview just a few of the mules who were pinged to the stash centers prior to making their ballot drops? Or confirming (as they did with the video) if those drops were legitimate by going to the non profits and examining what ballots they released under chain-of-custody requirements? Or how difficult would it have been to find out what the mules were up to making as many different visits to the different drop boxes during odd times of various days as the tracking pings clearly showed? None of that hard evidence was ever followed up on by the so called "fact checkers" who so called "debunked" the video. Why not? There is probably a good reason why there was such a lack of interest in pursuing these leads which could have answered many questions about what these mules were up to or who they may have been working for?
(source: https://www.theburningplatform.com/...-important-film-of-our-lifetimes/#more-268688)
"In just about three months, the clock will run out on the requirement to retain election records, and all the ballots can be trashed, the disks and flash drives wiped, and any evidence remaining in official records can be erased when the 22 month retention period expires. Courts could extend that period if the evidence was required in a lawsuit, but I don’t see that happening in any serious way"
In other words...run out the clock! It wasn't due to a lack of hard evidence that either the fact checkers or election officials refused to examine all the questions raised by the evidence presented in the film, it was because of a lack of desire to expose the Truth!
(from above sourced article)
"Early promises to conduct forensic audits of the election have largely stalled. Efforts to decertify the Electoral College votes have likewise gained little traction outside of a few locations. Court challenges have been stymied not from lack of evidence, but rather from the unwillingness of courts to examine the evidence. Officials, such as Secretaries of State whose job includes ensuring the integrity of elections have failed to investigate in any serious way the many allegations of election fraud in their jurisdictions. Virtually no politician, especially in an election year, wants to make election fraud an issue. Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking"
None of this refusal on the part of media, courts, or election officials to examine all the claims of fraud both documented in the film 2000 mules, and in numerous sworn affidavits filed under lawsuits challenging some election results in the swing States featured in the film proves there was no fraud! Quite the opposite in fact. The evidence that is either overlooked, impugned, or dismissed is NOT "debunking" it. It's "ignoring" it!
Once again, from above article:
"One of the biggest obstacles to a legal challenge is something called standing. Generally, in order to be able to file a lawsuit in a case of fraud, the plaintiff must first show that they were harmed by the alleged fraud. This demonstration of direct harm establishes what is known as standing. Without standing, a suit can be dismissed without any consideration of evidence.
Almost every court that has been presented with a lawsuit alleging fraud in the 2020 election has rejected the suit on the basis of standing, claiming that having one’s vote nullified by election fraud is insufficient to establish standing. The argument was even used by the Supreme Court to deny a suit by Texas alleging that fraud in Pennsylvania and other swing states effectively nullified their votes".
In the case of the film 2000 mules, "standing" simply means the evidence presented by itself does not rise to the level of causing harm, therefore further investigation is not warranted. The argument belies the evidence the filmmakers produced, ignores the legitimate questions the evidence gathered raises, and cheats the voters of due process who are simply asking for a thorough investigation of the claims not only in the film, but in all of the evidence produced! Leftists like @NYC_Eer are using the lack of investigations or dismissal of the small amounts of evidence that were examined under "standing" to suggest the entire issue of massive and organized voter fraud for the 2020 election has been "debunked". That is not only untrue, it is a flat out lie.
Tomorrow: The final rebuttal #5 What we know...what we don't know?
Last edited:
The final rebuttal #5 What we know...what we don't know?
I started this analysis based on this claim made by @NYC_Eer
"a conspiracy theory claiming that Liberal activists have been stuffing ballot drop boxes with fraudulent votes has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked"...well with an opening statement like that who could argue with the hard facts? (none were presented btw)
He followed up that brilliant piece of propaganda with two linked articles...one from Reuters and another from Factcheck.org, which purported to demonstrate how the primary allegations in the film 2000 mules ie: (a pattern of illegal ballot trafficking) was not true nor was ever proven. He used the linked articles to make the statement I've quoted here. My whole purpose in spending the time on this that I did was to challenge him to support his own statement, either by citing proof in the articles he offered "debunking" the alleged ballot trafficking or engaging my serious efforts to refute the findings in the information he posted after I challenged him with the actual facts presented in the film.
Unfortunately he never actually watched the film and consequently has so far refused to answer even the most simple logic or fact based questions I've asked him in support of his statement or the supporting documentation he's offered. That's fine, but did he expect we'd just accept his Leftist mind controlling propaganda without challenging him on the hard facts? 🤔
Probably.
At any rate what follows is a summation of what I've presented ITT for the past few days totally eviscerating @NYC_Eer 's claim that the film 2000 mules has been "debunked". Obviously he doesn't really believe that because he can't defend it with the evidence he offered, but here's what we do know and what we don't know about the evidence that was presented in the film.
We do know the evidence has NOT been refuted...not one of the so called "fact checkers" offered by @NYC_Eer refuted the primary finding of the evidence in the film ie: a repeated documented pattern of visits among so called "mules" tracked by geo tracking cell phone pings from various non profit "stash houses" immediately to numerous ballot drop boxes in monitored areas across a number of days at multiple locations where they were tracked. These visits were filtered out to include only those cell phone pings that showed up repeatedly (more than 10 times a piece for each IP address at the drop boxes) and more than five visits to the non profit ballot collection centers. All of the tracked cell phone numbers met that pattern, and it is irrefutable by the hard data discovered by True the Vote, co producers of the film along with Dinesh D'Souza.
What we do not know is who these so called "mules" were? The fact checkers made no attempts to contact any of them, nor were their identities ever revealed by the film makers. We do not know why none of them was asked what they were up to? The suggestion they were "doing favors" for family or friends does not explain the repeated patterns established by the tracking data of the mules first visiting the non profit ballot collection points, then immediately showing up at various ballot drop boxes. Nothing @NYC_Eer offered in the linked articles as "debunking" that established fact in the movie was ever explained.
What we also do know is these mules certainly existed, and were engaged in this activity. What we don't know is who they were working for? No one ever stopped by one of the non profit collection points to determine who these individuals were making repeated visits for and then going off to the ballot drop boxes? Why none of the fact checkers ever bothered to ask this one would imagine should have been the first question to "debunk" the film...yet no one ever checked. Additionally, the tracking data used by the film makers was readily and as easily available to the fact checkers as it was to the film makers. In one instance it was pointed out earlier ITT that in fact an anonymous whistle blower interviewed by the film makers, gave them the tips they needed to even begin to conduct their investigation! Why didn't any of the fact checkers interview that source? We don't know.
We also do know that based in simple logic, these mules were not doing charity work dropping off all of those ballots! The film makers suggested they were engaged in a criminal ballot trafficking operation and were being paid to collect all those ballots and deposit them into the drop boxes, but we never saw any proof of that in the film. The only hint we had was the unusual practice we saw in some of the video footage of the mules "snapping pictures" of the drop boxes immediately after they were recorded depositing numerous ballots. We know those pictures weren't being taken as souvenirs, and the filmmakers suggested the mules were taking the photos as evidence to get paid...but again we saw no evidence of any payments in the film and we have nothing provable regarding that opinion. Still one has to ask... we do not know why were they doing this? Simple logic dicatates they were doing it to get paid!
While the fact checkers never bothered to ask who the mules were making the ballot drops for, we do know they never bothered to visit at least one of the non profit collection centers to find out? We do know the mules frequented these so called "stash houses" and we do even know where they were located based on the tracking data! What we don't know is why no one ever bothered to cross reference even one of these addresses, or ask anyone connected to the non profits to see their chain of custody documentation or how many ballots they were housing, or for whom, or why there were so many visits by the mules? We also do not know if the ballots the mules were collecting were legitimate or forged? The video offered by the filmmakers did not prove the ballots being deposited were fraudulent or even where they came from except they were being dropped off immediately after one of the tracked mules had visited a ballot collection point! Still, that in and of itself does not prove fraud, it only raises serious questions about what the mules were doing if it wasn't illegal ballot harvesting? We do know that activity is in fact illegal everywhere! We also do know no one can or has ever answered that one question!
We do know ballots collected in the areas monitored were eventually counted in the election. We also do know in virtually ALL of those areas, the vote counting was suspended half way into election night while Trump was firmly ahead in each of the areas where the ballot collections & drops were tracked. We also know once those vote counts resumed, Trump eventually lost his significant leads and ultimately lost every single one of those suspended counts! What we do not know is how many of those counts were stopped as a result of having to add in some of those collected ballots to Joe Biden's lagging totals in order to get him over the top? The filmmakers suggested that numbers using an average of visits from each the mules based on their measured pings to each drop box was more than enough to put Biden over the top. What we do not know is if this was in anyway connected to the ballot harvesting operation alleged in the film or how many actual ballots were collected & counted?
I've considered most of the salient points made by the fact checkers (I didn't get into any of their more petty nit picking) and I compared their findings to the hard actual evidence presented in the film. I've asked questions anyone intent on "debunking" the film would logically ask and attempt to adequately answer as proof the film makers had indeed missed their mark. What we do know is none of the questions that should have been raised, were raised by the so called "fact checkers" and we also know that many of those unanswered questions stand as hard proof that the fact checkers DID NOT "debunk" the primary assertions made in the film. What we don't know is why not?
I'll offer my own speculation here to answer that last unknown question: because if they were as diligent in checking the hard evidence presented in the movie as they were in trying to discredit that same the evidence, they too would have to admit the film makers actually did prove beyond a reasonable doubt there certainly was illegal activity involved with those mules trafficking ballots! So despite @NYC_Eer 's claim that the movie 2000 mules has been "debunked", I'll offer this analysis to say it's actually @NYC_Eer who's been "debunked"!
atl nailed that NYC Left wing hack didn't he Bro?
and what if anything does @NYC_Eer have to say about how thoroughly he's been "debunked" in this thread?
@NYC_Eer
Do ya'll honestly think I'd stay here being degraded by that "Uncle Tom" atl? Get real!
Dude moves pretty fast once he's been "debunked" doesn't he folks?
Thanks for reading.
I started this analysis based on this claim made by @NYC_Eer
He then offered a worthless NPR package filled with unsupported statements
"a conspiracy theory claiming that Liberal activists have been stuffing ballot drop boxes with fraudulent votes has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked"...well with an opening statement like that who could argue with the hard facts? (none were presented btw)
He followed up that brilliant piece of propaganda with two linked articles...one from Reuters and another from Factcheck.org, which purported to demonstrate how the primary allegations in the film 2000 mules ie: (a pattern of illegal ballot trafficking) was not true nor was ever proven. He used the linked articles to make the statement I've quoted here. My whole purpose in spending the time on this that I did was to challenge him to support his own statement, either by citing proof in the articles he offered "debunking" the alleged ballot trafficking or engaging my serious efforts to refute the findings in the information he posted after I challenged him with the actual facts presented in the film.
Unfortunately he never actually watched the film and consequently has so far refused to answer even the most simple logic or fact based questions I've asked him in support of his statement or the supporting documentation he's offered. That's fine, but did he expect we'd just accept his Leftist mind controlling propaganda without challenging him on the hard facts? 🤔
Probably.
At any rate what follows is a summation of what I've presented ITT for the past few days totally eviscerating @NYC_Eer 's claim that the film 2000 mules has been "debunked". Obviously he doesn't really believe that because he can't defend it with the evidence he offered, but here's what we do know and what we don't know about the evidence that was presented in the film.
We do know the evidence has NOT been refuted...not one of the so called "fact checkers" offered by @NYC_Eer refuted the primary finding of the evidence in the film ie: a repeated documented pattern of visits among so called "mules" tracked by geo tracking cell phone pings from various non profit "stash houses" immediately to numerous ballot drop boxes in monitored areas across a number of days at multiple locations where they were tracked. These visits were filtered out to include only those cell phone pings that showed up repeatedly (more than 10 times a piece for each IP address at the drop boxes) and more than five visits to the non profit ballot collection centers. All of the tracked cell phone numbers met that pattern, and it is irrefutable by the hard data discovered by True the Vote, co producers of the film along with Dinesh D'Souza.
What we do not know is who these so called "mules" were? The fact checkers made no attempts to contact any of them, nor were their identities ever revealed by the film makers. We do not know why none of them was asked what they were up to? The suggestion they were "doing favors" for family or friends does not explain the repeated patterns established by the tracking data of the mules first visiting the non profit ballot collection points, then immediately showing up at various ballot drop boxes. Nothing @NYC_Eer offered in the linked articles as "debunking" that established fact in the movie was ever explained.
What we also do know is these mules certainly existed, and were engaged in this activity. What we don't know is who they were working for? No one ever stopped by one of the non profit collection points to determine who these individuals were making repeated visits for and then going off to the ballot drop boxes? Why none of the fact checkers ever bothered to ask this one would imagine should have been the first question to "debunk" the film...yet no one ever checked. Additionally, the tracking data used by the film makers was readily and as easily available to the fact checkers as it was to the film makers. In one instance it was pointed out earlier ITT that in fact an anonymous whistle blower interviewed by the film makers, gave them the tips they needed to even begin to conduct their investigation! Why didn't any of the fact checkers interview that source? We don't know.
We also do know that based in simple logic, these mules were not doing charity work dropping off all of those ballots! The film makers suggested they were engaged in a criminal ballot trafficking operation and were being paid to collect all those ballots and deposit them into the drop boxes, but we never saw any proof of that in the film. The only hint we had was the unusual practice we saw in some of the video footage of the mules "snapping pictures" of the drop boxes immediately after they were recorded depositing numerous ballots. We know those pictures weren't being taken as souvenirs, and the filmmakers suggested the mules were taking the photos as evidence to get paid...but again we saw no evidence of any payments in the film and we have nothing provable regarding that opinion. Still one has to ask... we do not know why were they doing this? Simple logic dicatates they were doing it to get paid!
While the fact checkers never bothered to ask who the mules were making the ballot drops for, we do know they never bothered to visit at least one of the non profit collection centers to find out? We do know the mules frequented these so called "stash houses" and we do even know where they were located based on the tracking data! What we don't know is why no one ever bothered to cross reference even one of these addresses, or ask anyone connected to the non profits to see their chain of custody documentation or how many ballots they were housing, or for whom, or why there were so many visits by the mules? We also do not know if the ballots the mules were collecting were legitimate or forged? The video offered by the filmmakers did not prove the ballots being deposited were fraudulent or even where they came from except they were being dropped off immediately after one of the tracked mules had visited a ballot collection point! Still, that in and of itself does not prove fraud, it only raises serious questions about what the mules were doing if it wasn't illegal ballot harvesting? We do know that activity is in fact illegal everywhere! We also do know no one can or has ever answered that one question!
We do know ballots collected in the areas monitored were eventually counted in the election. We also do know in virtually ALL of those areas, the vote counting was suspended half way into election night while Trump was firmly ahead in each of the areas where the ballot collections & drops were tracked. We also know once those vote counts resumed, Trump eventually lost his significant leads and ultimately lost every single one of those suspended counts! What we do not know is how many of those counts were stopped as a result of having to add in some of those collected ballots to Joe Biden's lagging totals in order to get him over the top? The filmmakers suggested that numbers using an average of visits from each the mules based on their measured pings to each drop box was more than enough to put Biden over the top. What we do not know is if this was in anyway connected to the ballot harvesting operation alleged in the film or how many actual ballots were collected & counted?
I've considered most of the salient points made by the fact checkers (I didn't get into any of their more petty nit picking) and I compared their findings to the hard actual evidence presented in the film. I've asked questions anyone intent on "debunking" the film would logically ask and attempt to adequately answer as proof the film makers had indeed missed their mark. What we do know is none of the questions that should have been raised, were raised by the so called "fact checkers" and we also know that many of those unanswered questions stand as hard proof that the fact checkers DID NOT "debunk" the primary assertions made in the film. What we don't know is why not?
I'll offer my own speculation here to answer that last unknown question: because if they were as diligent in checking the hard evidence presented in the movie as they were in trying to discredit that same the evidence, they too would have to admit the film makers actually did prove beyond a reasonable doubt there certainly was illegal activity involved with those mules trafficking ballots! So despite @NYC_Eer 's claim that the movie 2000 mules has been "debunked", I'll offer this analysis to say it's actually @NYC_Eer who's been "debunked"!
atl nailed that NYC Left wing hack didn't he Bro?
and what if anything does @NYC_Eer have to say about how thoroughly he's been "debunked" in this thread?
@NYC_Eer
Do ya'll honestly think I'd stay here being degraded by that "Uncle Tom" atl? Get real!
Dude moves pretty fast once he's been "debunked" doesn't he folks?
Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
I understood Herschel better than Fetterman...I'm just sayin'.
“Hello. Good night everyone”…..opening dialogue by Fetterman in his final debate with Dr Oz
That dude is destined to die from a stroke....oh wait....Looks can be deceiving 'ya know?
Not really
What the Hell is that big "knot" on the back of his neck? 'Ol boy look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame!
He's my Cousin
Walking Fatback?What the Hell is that big "knot" on the back of his neck? 'Ol boy look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame!
He's my Cousin
