Replies

TChad, if you are really interested in knowing the truth, you cannot look at anything put out by the media. All of them are deliberately dishonest on this.

I have not only seen the “2000 Mules” documentary, I have purchased the companion book that not only discusses many things they did not put into the documentary (often to keep the movie down to a manageable length of an hour and a half) but also discusses many of the “fact check” pieces by the likes of Philip Bump and others, and speaks directly to those things. Often, the “fact checkers” had not even seen the movie.

It is absolutely 100% false that Geotracking is only good to 100 feet. This is probably THE most common lie that is deliberately stated, and propagated from “fact check” to “fact check” all across the country and those that show up in Google and the likes of the Washington Post.

Geotracking, using an application on the cell phone to capture and convey GPS data is far more accurate than 100 feet. Using this common method, built into modern smart phones, has a distance of 16 feet. There are a myriad of applications that capture and store this data, ranging from the phone vendor’s included software (such as Apple Maps) to an application created by Walmart or Target.

These applications capture and store GPS data, and transmit that data to centralized collection points at Apple, Walmart, or Target, where it is married up with other information they have collected from you.

I believe there are only three data elements captured: The MAC address of your phone (a unique identifier, no other phone built has the same identifier) the GPS coordinates, and the date/time.

Note that the “fact check” articles and people like Philip Bump go out of their way to deliberately conflate (deliberately, because I don’t believe they are all that stupid) GPS data and Triangulation data in order to confuse people. Triangulation localization is far less accurate, and is 100 feet at best, and can be up to a mile off at worst. But all that is deliberately done to confuse people or muddy the water, create doubt, which they have successfully done.

To prove the truth of this to yourself, ask yourself this question: If your iPhone or Samsung phone was only able to get your location to within a hundred feet, how could you possibly use the turn-by-turn navigation on a smartphone to go somewhere if it were that inaccurate? You would be far beyond a turn before it would tell you to turn, right? Also, keep in mind the software used to find your phone if you have misplaced it. Apple has “Find My iPhone” software as standard, and I used it today to find my iPad. I brought it up, and it literally showed the location of my misplaced iPad as being in my car in the driveway. On the map, it showed the location being right outside the boundary of my home between my house and the street. As I look at it right now, in my living room with my iPad beside me, I can tell which quadrant of the house the iPad is currently positioned in.

But all of that is a red herring.

The methodology True The Vote used works to track mules down is what is the most important thing. Whether they say the geofence around each box is 16 feet or 50 feet, it isn’t enough that someone went inside that limit (whatever it was) on a given Ballot Dropbox to designate that person carrying the cell phone as a “Ballot Mule”.

Makes little difference if the “geofence” around each ballot box is 16 or 50 feet. Or maybe even 100 feet. But I am going to use 50 feet because I don’t know what their criteria was for drawing the geofences.

The point is: that distance, whatever is used, is not the key factor in classifying a cell phone owner as a Ballot Mule for obvious reasons. If someone is inside that geofence around a dropbox, they might be simply passing it buy on the way to a convenience store or going to or from work.

That is common sense.

But if someone penetrates the geofence drawn around ten dropboxes, that is a different thing

That was one factor in their criteria, which they “dumbed down” to get rid of what are called “false positives”, that is, people getting defined as Ballot Mules when they were not involved in that kind of thing. So they set a high standard of ten geofence penetrations in a single day. (In the film, as you recall, they describe how they set this criteria and why. (NOTE: There were many people who went to far more of them. Over a two week period leading up to the election, 242 individual people (Identified by their cell phone MAC address) went to an average of 24 dropboxes and eight NGO locations in a single day.

Think of that. 242 INDIVIDUAL people going to an AVERAGE of 24 dropboxes and eight NGO’s in one day. Never mind it is often taking place between midnight and 6 AM.

The other main criteria in addition to penetrating the geofence around ten or more dropboxes, is that they had to visit five or more NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations that are deceptively referred to as “Get Out The Vote” organizations) in that time frame. (The NGO’s are staging areas where the illegally trafficked ballots are stored for distribution to the mules.)

The COMBINATION of those two parameters in defining someone’s activity as illegal ballot mule activity is quite strict.

After all who is going to penetrate the geofence of ten ballot dropboxes and five NGO’s in one night?

To make this even more compelling, True The Vote got 4 million minutes of video footage-more than a petabyte’s worth-of dropbox surveillance video (using the state or local equivalent of a FOIA request). They were able to use the geolocation data of a dropbox geofence penetration, get the date and time from that data point, and go directly to that date and time in the video footage, and there they saw people stuffing ballot boxes.

And one more thing-Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips of True The Vote were not only sent to jail for refusing to reveal their sources (as is their right) they are ready and willing to go into a court of law, on a national stage, and subject their data, their methods, and their conclusions to an adversarial legal process and cross examination by experts.

That they are not only willing, but eager to do so should tell you that they are not only serious about their findings and willing to put themselves into this legal process, but will do so in the face of massive lies told by people who have shown themselves repeatedly to be totally non-trustworthy.

I will put my money on them.