My distrust of 2000 Mules started when I noticed that nowhere in the film was it clearly specified how close a possible mule had to come to a ballot dropbox to count as a visit. That statement would have been something like this: "When a potential mule's phone came within two feet of a ballot dropbox, we counted that as a visit. We ignored any distance over two feet. " There is no such "distance" statement anywhere in the film, yet True the Vote must have used such a specific distance if they wanted to distinguish mules from non-mules.
The film clearly implies that there was no doubt after examining True the Vote's geospatial cell phone data, that specific mules visited specific ballot boxes, and were close enough to insert fraudulent ballots. How close would that have to be? Perhaps under three feet?
Dinesh D'Souza never gave a specific number in the film or in interviews I saw. He just kept repeating that geospatial tracking was very accurate. He never specified how accurate Trut the Vote's SPECIFIC data was. Why not? The number is critical to proving the mule hypothesis.
After looking on the internet to find a specific "distance" number, I encountered the 9/30/2021 letter sent by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to True the Vote, rejecting TTV's request that the GBI investigate TTV's findings as evidence of vote fraud. That letter is shown in its entirety here:
https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1451309892824936452/photo/1
Please read the letter.
Note this entry: "Devices within 100 feet of org or dropbox by day." Also, note this: "... the spreadsheets identify 229 cellphones which had made multiple trips to within 100 feet of a voter drop box."
Finally, I had found a "distance" number! The problem was, it wasn't two feet, it was 100 feet. That's enough distance to have included tracked phones in cars traveling on roads near the ballot dropboxes. 100 foot accuracy obviously cannot be used to place anyone within a couple of feet of a ballot dropbox.
Geospatial data can be much more accurate than 100 feet, so at first the number specified by the GBI puzzled me. However, when TTV purchased its geospatial data, they had so specify the diameter of the geofences being examined. TTV must have specified geofences that extended 100 feet around each dropbox and near each nonprofit organization. I expected that D'Souza would explain how TTV had narrowed that 100 feet down to a foot or two. It never came. However, he did permit himself to be interviewed by the Washington Post's Philip Bump. Bump repeatedly brought up the "100 foot" figure, and D'Souza did not object to it. Here's that interview:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza/
Please read the interview. Search for "100". This is the Washington Post, and nothing that Philip Bump says can be trusted, but I assume the Dinesh D'Souza quotes are accurate. If D'Souza's quotes were fabricated or altered, he had plenty of places to complain online or in interviews, and AFAIK he did not. D'Souza pretends in the interview that TTV tracked the paths of mules within the hundred foot radius, but that critical information was not mentioned or shown in the film. He also says that the data showed that mules were shown to have gone many times between particular dropboxes and particular nonprofit organizations, but that only meant that supposed mules came within 100 feet of both. So what?
No wonder the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said at the end of its letter, "As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed."
The GBI was being polite to call the data "curious." "Meaningless" would have been a better word.
I bet that the GBI letter came as a shock to True the Vote. They almost certainly submtted their data in good faith, believing they had discovered significant voter fraud. They had wasted a lot of money to purchase the worthless geospatal cell phone data. How were they going to recoup that loss? Enter Dinesh D'Souza.
There are plenty of other problems with 2000 Mules. Obviously this says nothing about real Democrat vote fraud.
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.