...more of Rebuttal #1 (red flags overlooked from the Geo tracking data)
The significance of the geo tracking data was to eliminate the possibility of errors in the subjects tracked. This was done by reducing the cell phone pings to only certain numbers that fit an established and discernable pattern...visiting multiple drop boxes, multiple times, on multiple days. While it is true the data could not definitely indicate if a specific visit to a specific drop box was for dropping off multiple ballots, the data does provide evidence of multiple visits of the same numbers pinged to multiple drop boxes and furthermore those visits typically proceeded visits to nearby non profits. There was no mistake in that pattern.
Simple logic would have (should have) raised huge "red flags" for either vote fraud investigators or reporters. The patterns themselves were highly unusual, yet consistent. It was clear these mules identified were not making multiple visits to different drop boxes for members of family in as many different areas as they were tracked, so the obvious question is why were they making all of these drops, for whom and why was it necessary to visit non profits prior to doing so?
The "debunkers" simply brushed off this obvious red flag question by suggesting these visits could have been done by anyone at any time for any reason!
(from article
https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)
It was unclear whether the same test was applied anywhere other than the swing states in question (to prove a unique phenomenon had happened), along with data validity, accuracy, and discussion about other possibilities that could explain the findings.
This of course flies in the face of what the geo tracking specifically proved by way of a "unique phenomenon" ...ie: an established pattern virtually eliminating any potential for error. The same tracking criterion was used to identify only those mules who made more than 5 visits a piece to the so called "stash houses" and subsequently followed those specific visits with more than 10 visits to the various drop boxes! That pattern was clear, otherwise the cell phone numbers weren't even tracked! The debunkers tried to make it appear as if any one of these persons could have easily visited any one of these non profits, then gone to any drop box which is of course true but
NOT MORE THAN 10 TIMES!!!! This fact alone should have been a huge reason to further investigate the claims of the film. A giant red flag so to speak. Yet, no one even bothered to ask who these individuals fingered by the geo tracking data were making all these various visits/drops for?
Another lie about the data from the same posted article above:
"True the Vote said in the documentary it had ruled out people where it believed their “pattern of life” outside the election period involved travelling to nonprofits and drop box locations. They did not offer information on how they did this or who these people were"
Yes they did! They specifically ruled out anyone who didn't fit the above described pattern within the time frame described! Moreover, since the data clearly identified the same individuals who fit
the exact same patterns, it should have been easy to see by this "red flag" that we were not talking about random visits by random individuals. None of the fact checkers bothered to ask or answer this rather obvious "red flag" question.
The Geo tracking data was never factually refuted
Fact check "debunkers" in their zeal to discredit the data and how it was gathered, never factually refuted what the geo tracking clearly revealed. An established pattern of a specific group of individuals who made numerous visits to non profit ballot collection points and then subsequent visits to specified drop boxes near those centers on various days. That evidence was clear, unmistakable, unarguable, unchallenged, and legally provable by the data itself. Not one "fact checker" disputed those findings, despite the fact that type of electioneering is in fact illegal in all States.
They rejected all logical assumptions
The "fact checkers" also did something very unusual in their efforts to "debunk" the film. They suspended belief in normal appearances, traditional "fact checking" cross referencing, and even simple logic to dismiss the film's primary accusation....evidence of illegal ballot harvesting. As pointed out above, the simple pattern the geo tracking data revealed should have been enough of a red flag for investigators to ask "what's going on here"? The fact checkers offered all sorts of off the wall possibilities about what we could have been watching in the film, but none of them ever approached the idea of the film's primary accusation...it was an illegal criminal conspiracy to stuff ballot boxes.
Here's some of the wild speculation offered by the fact checkers:
“Some of the individuals tracked might even have been election workers checking on or emptying the drop boxes, so it would be a sign of vigilance by election officials rather than nefarious behavior.”
Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame who has analyzed data from smartphones, told us the geotracking data used by True the Vote are just not accurate enough to reach the kind of definitive conclusions it did.
“Could it have happened? Yeah, it could have happened,” Striegel said. “But is it likely to have happened? Not really. The data could tell you it’s possible, but that’s all it’s telling you with any reasonable certainty.”
Cooper Quintin, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which
describes itself as “the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world,” told us the accuracy of geolocation data can vary widely based on
numerous factors that include signal strength, the type of cellphone being used, and atmospheric conditions like whether the cellphone is in a dense urban area or not.
Atmospheric conditions? So, we're supposed to believe a mule tracked to a stash house more than 5 different times, and then that same mule tracked to a ballot drop box more than 10 different times could have been mistakenly pinged because it was raining outside? They think we're stupid!
Here's more:
"Delivery drivers, poll workers, election officials — all might have reason to be in the vicinity of numerous drop boxes, he said. Certainly, he said, it doesn’t provide enough evidence to uphold the group’s claims about 2,000 mules, he said. And, he noted, “they have the burden of proof.” Stuffing fraudulent ballots is not the only reason to be in the vicinity of a drop box. For example, Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street
told the AP that he was probably counted as a so-called mule because he attended numerous drop box rallies and stopped by nonprofit offices. And, he said, he likely accounted for several of the signals, as he carries a cellphone, a watch with a cellular connection, a tablet with a cellular connection and a mobile hotspot, and he has a staffer who typically travels with him and carries two devices."
Absolute hogwash! The geo tracking data by way of its highly detailed filters ruled out
all of these possibilities and even more! They did not identify anyone who didn't fit the clearly definable pattern.
FIVE OR MORE VISITS TO NON PROFITS FOLLOWED BY 10 OR MORE VISITS TO DROP BOXES. That pattern was clear, unbroken, established, and critical in filtering out all of the other wild possibilities offered by the fact checkers. None of them for all of their wild ideas about what else we could have been watching, ever offered the speculation of an illegal organized ballot trafficking operation. Wonder why not?
The one logical conclusion the gathered data almost inevitably leads one to suspect (a sophisticated, well coordinated ballot harvesting operation) the so called "fact checkers" easily overlooked in favor of all the other wild & unsubstantiated scenarios the data didn't even suggest!
Here's how reliable that geo tracking data should be considered:
"The threshold of 10 or more visits per mule is very high and is meant to eliminate any possibility the visits could have been happenstance. To further guard against accidentally picking up people who happened to pass by drop box locations regularly, True the Vote bought cellphone data from September, October and November, showing before, during and after election season. Only those whose cellphones placed them at drop boxes when voting was occurring were included in True the Vote’s data, the group said. The mules followed a pattern of repeatedly going to drop box locations and back to the offices of non-governmental organizations, where ballots were allegedly collected. The movie called these locations “stash houses.”
“Pings don’t lie,” True the Vote president Catherine Engelbrecht told Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in a recent
interview.
(Source:
https://www.westernjournal.com/dsou...s-paying-deliver-ballots-illegal-every-state/)
next: Rebuttal #2....these were NOT random voters doing favors for Family members.