I apologize-I wasn’t trying to be condescending. That said, I am interested-how you think someone would be able to refute it?
If someone can explain how the data can be misinterpreted in some way, I would be willing to listen, but I think this is solid work.
What are they going to do-say the tracking data is invalid? Sure. True the Vote would say: “Here is who we purchased data from. The same place that the Georgia State Police or the Philadelphia District Attorney gets their data from. Would you like to dispute it? Here is the raw data of movement over time.
That the video footage, time-synched with the cell phone footage was misleading? The video is the authentic property of the states legally obtained via allowable citizen requests and such.
I think this was well done, and if it were allowed to be viewed by Americans in a legal setting, I fail to see how it could be discounted.
They don’t have to refute it. They just poo-poo it, knowing that most people don’t have the time, knowledge, or inclination to wade through one billion billion bytes of data. It has to be presented in a clear, concise manner so that anyone can see in a few minutes irrefutable evidence of fraud. IMHO the ping data by itself doesn’t mean much. They are just dots on a screen. They have to show the same guy going from drop box to drop box with ballots. They must have enough video to do this in at least a couple of cases. Then they can point out how the ping data correlates. Now the ping data means something. If all they are going to show is a guy once at a drop box, no matter how suspicious it might look it can be argued that it is a fluke or whatever. But if they show the same guy over and over driving up in the same car and stuffing ballots into the box, then the burden of proof goes over to their side.
My two cents worth.