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.
I agree on many of those points, especially “they don’t have to refute it, just poo-poo it” because if they ignore it, censor it, don’t show it, ban people who talk about it...well, no need to refute it. Elected officials can truthfully say “My constituents aren’t contacting me about it, so I don’t see it as an issue.”
And the gravy train will roll on.
They couldn’t have actual security camera footage of every drop box, because not all had cameras on them (and even some states where cameras were required didn’t always have them.)
But as you say, the ping data is certainly compelling. Who does that - and at 3AM? - and why?