Replies

You both may find these interesting: (and please, don’t give me “oh, you’re using Twitter as a source?”. Don’t be lazy like that. These are actual screenshots from the film, it doesn’t matter the user/source/whatever showing it. I’ve seen the film too, I know these are accurate and believe the same. This Twitter user is not me for the record too):

Generally speaking, the “maps” shown in the video of dropoxes are made up. Total fabrications:

https://twitter.com/PokerPolitics/status/1527097679603548160?s=20&t=zqB2UUAgS5u6GdbKVQD6ww

Here’s proof that the radius TTV used to “link” cellphones to locations (dropboxes and NGO’s) was “100 feet” NOT, “3 meters” (~10 feet) as they claimed in the movie.

https://twitter.com/AngryFleas/status/1521862156161105920?s=20&t=zqB2UUAgS5u6GdbKVQD6ww

Now maybe they changed their methodology between 2021 and the movie, but they never said in the movie they changed anything in their methodology. They just said they used a “3 meter radius”. I know, because again, I watched the movie. Prove to me, with sources, that they changed their methodology, because again, they don’t say they did in the movie, so the movie isn’t itself proof they changed it. It’s only proof they are claiming a different resolution radius without explanation.

As TChad said, there is no video of the same person at multiple drop boxes in the film:

https://twitter.com/PamelaEdwards/status/1525485072136257538?s=20&t=zqB2UUAgS5u6GdbKVQD6ww

In fact, 3 of the “2000 Mules” have already been “exonerated”:

https://twitter.com/PamelaEdwards/status/1526659354237321216?s=20&t=zqB2UUAgS5u6GdbKVQD6ww

How many more need to be “investigated” to show the methodology in the film is faulty?

I could go on, but I’m tired, tired of always “doing my own research” only to find every time it’s based on evidence worthy only of leftists.

Here’s a list of all the numerous times Q has been wrong just for the heck of it, maybe it’ll knock some sense into someone on this site:

https://twitter.com/PokerPolitics/status/1135811817073270785?s=20&t=zqB2UUAgS5u6GdbKVQD6ww

Sorry. Close, but no cigar. I DLed an image of Moscow and reversed it. You should try it. This forum does not allow for attached images. Tell me how I can get it to you and I will. But, suffice to say, the claim on Twitter is the real fraud. It's not "Moscow reversed."

Here’s proof that the radius TTV used to “link” cellphones to locations (dropboxes and NGO’s) was “100 feet” NOT, “3 meters” (~10 feet) as they claimed in the movie.

It can be as close as 20 feet in some instances. It depends upon many factors. However, as soon as you can answer the questions I have for the naysayers on this issue, I'll give your arguments more credence. I say again:

How about the multiple times they were standing in front of the non-profits into the wee hours of the morning? Was that their gramdma's house next door to the non-profit they were standing in front of? Did all of those mules have the same grandma? Did they all suddenly decide to start visiting Grandma several times a day very late at night starting two weeks before the election? In addition, what did they receive from Grandma (who apparently lives next door to a non-profit) that caused them to immediately start visiting drop-boxes all over town very late at night?

Phone tracking and geo-fencing isn't rocket science, and law enforcement uses it all the time to sort out possible suspects to a crime. It was good enough to arrest many people for the Jan 6 "insurrection" so it should certainly hold water here.

The material at your Twitter links could form the basis for a video that would demolish the credibility of 2000 Mules even to its most devoted fans.

I especially liked the Sept. 30, 2021 letter from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to True the Vote: "As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed." Ha! Somehow the existence of that letter was omitted from 2000 Mules. Also omitted was the specification that a mule's phone only had to be within 100 feet -- 100 FEET -- of a ballot dropbox or a non-profit "stash house" to be counted by TTV as a visit. The deliberate omission of that information from the film was glaringly obvious. If the number was wrong, the film could have specified another number. It did not. So much for "Geospatial tracking can be very accurate!" That statement is true, but TTV did not claim that its own SPECIFIC data as presented to the GBI was very accurate. There's a big difference between the two statements. It's not complicated.

If Gregg Phillips really placed dots on an inverted map of Moscow, Russia to show mule locations in an American city, nothing else that he claims can be trusted. He may have proved that he has a sick sense of humor, but that's all.

I'm glad that someone besides me noticed the exaggerated counts of mule-dropped ballots in the ballot box videos.

The film's implication that True the Vote's data helped solve the Secoriea Turner murder requires no further verification. It is now publicly exposed as a lie, and that lie should make 2000 Mules true believers take a few steps back from the film. If TTV lied about that, what else did they lie about?

It is important to note that, as you imply, Twitter data itself cannot always be trusted. Did Twitter user "Angry Fleas" create the Moscow mule map by himself? Had he provided the exact time in 2000 Mules that the map appeared, it would have helped verify his debunking of the map. It would have permitted anyone with access to the film and access to the internet to compare the 2000 Mules map to a current street map of Moscow. I strongly suspect that Angry Fleas Moscow map claim is accurate, but I can't prove that to myself without doing a bunch of work.

D'Souza has now started to show up wherever ballot fraud has been proved, saying, "I did that!" Every time, we have to verify that he actually did what he claims.

There is other aspects to all this that I should mention.

Just because D'Souza and TTV failed to prove their mule hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is wrong. It still might have been correct. We'll find out eventually. Also, parts of the film do appear to show evidence of actual voter fraud, without confirming the mule hypothesis. The two should be kept separate.

The good news is that the success of the film means that wannabe mules have been put on notice that future ballot fraud is much more likely to be noticed and prosecuted than it has been in the past. If that is the legacy of 2000 Mules, then the film will have accomplished more than just making Dinesh D'Souza very rich.

I think it is time for Trump to start walking back his endorsement of the film before it is widely exposed as a fraud.