Tomorrow: Ballot Harvesting Exposed In Arizona

[Harpy Eagle]

They have cell phone records and video from the drop box sites.

and you saw those in the movie while you were watching it?

 

[iceberg]

They have cell phone records and video from the drop box sites.

Types of Cell Phone Data That Can Be Used Against You in Criminal Court - Erika Valcarcel, Criminal Defense Lawyer, P.A.

If you are like most people, you spend a significant amount of time on your cell phone each day. Texting, calls, social media, navigation, and web browsing can easily take up hours. When you do all of those things on your phone, you create data....

www.valcarcellaw.com

Cell phone location data can be used. Court case decided this in 2018. Link to case in article.

We have cell phone data AND supporting video of actions at a Dropbox.

To the left this isn't enough to pursue. However, they offer no logical explanation of the data. Just say NUH UNH!!

But if Trump said something someone who hates him doesn't like, that's enough to draw conclusions and impeach.

 

[jknowgood]

and you saw those in the movie while you were watching it?

I haven't seen the entire movie, but what I saw proves the point that the Democrats cheated and should be watched in November.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I haven't seen the entire movie, but what I saw proves the point that the Democrats cheated and should be watched in November.

A movie cannot prove anything. you do not know if what you saw in the movie was made up or tampered with or anything else.

 

[iceberg]

A movie cannot prove anything. you do not know if what you saw in the movie was made up or tampered with or anything else.

Then how do we know unguarded ballot boxes were not tampered with? By your stated logic, this would invalidate the election cause we can't be sure.

But I'm sure this is different.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then how do we know unguarded ballot boxes were not tampered with? By your stated logic, this would invalidate the election cause we can't be sure.

But I'm sure this is different.

We don't know if they were or not. If you can provide some evidence they were tampered with I would be more than happy to examine it.

 

[iceberg]

We don't know if they were or not. If you can provide some evidence they were tampered with I would be more than happy to examine it.

We have cell phone data showing the same cell phone there multiple times. Video of driver putting ballots in boxes.

These would be available from the original source such as security and the phone company. Simply put the NO!!! down and follow up.

Was the same cell phone there 50 times or whatever the number is? Yes? Why?

So let's start there. Why would 1 person make so many trips to a ballot box they can legally only use once?

Or is the defense that the data is wrong?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We have cell phone data showing the same cell phone there multiple times. Video of driver putting ballots in boxes.

These would be available from the original source such as security and the phone company. Simply put the NO!!! down and follow up.

If this is the case then it needs to be shown a court of law where there can be cross examination.

As a wise man once said...The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

 

[iceberg]

If this is the case then it needs to be shown a court of law where there can be cross examination.

As a wise man once said...The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

I agree. But you are saying NO!!! without even trying to verify or refute the data used in the claim.

I've shown cell phone data is legal for use in gps tracking cases. The movie claims the data shows the same phone at ballot boxes multiple times.

We have page after page and thread after thread screaming LIE or TRUTH based on desired outcome.

Since no has refuted the cell phone data, just scoffed at its use, I'm inclined to say it's true. Too easy to talk to carrier and verify. Yet, the left has not done that.

Simply, as usual, attack the message.

So, prove it's faked or assume it's, real and tell me why one user is making so many trips to the same ballot box.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I agree. But you are saying NO!!! without even trying to verify or refute the data used in the claim.

I have no possible way to either refute nor verify the data. I am saying the data is not valid, I am saying the just because the movie said so does not make it so. A movie cannot prove anything.

The wife and I just watched a show about Elizabeth Holmes, am I supposed to believe everything the movie said about her is true just because they said so?

I've shown cell phone data is legal for use in gps tracking cases. The movie claims the data shows the same phone at ballot boxes multiple times.

Yes, GPS tracking can be used in court. Yes the movie made that claim. Now they need to prove it in a court where it can be cross examined.

So, prove it's faked or assume it's, real and tell me why one user is making so many trips to the same ballot box.

I assume everything is fake until it is proven real. Why would I assume that a movie made by a clearly biased person is real? do you give that same benefit to every single claim made in a movie?

 

[iceberg]

I have no possible way to either refute nor verify the data. I am saying the data is not valid, I am saying the just because the movie said so does not make it so. A movie cannot prove anything.

The wife and I just watched a show about Elizabeth Holmes, am I supposed to believe everything the movie said about her is true just because they said so?



Yes, GPS tracking can be used in court. Yes the movie made that claim. Now they need to prove it in a court where it can be cross examined.



I assume everything is fake until it is proven real. Why would I assume that a movie made by a clearly biased person is real? do you give that same benefit to every single claim made in a movie?

Npr says they bought the data from a marketing firm. Suddenly the focus is on what us collected from all of us.

Not the data. That is not refuted.

Then we shift to a supposed claim of solving a murder investigation and we spend a TON of time on that, none refuting the data.

We link to WAPO who does the same.

Both then go on the attack of the movie creator and make a lot of guilt by association assumptions all the while assuming their own conclusions to do so.

Nowhere in either article is the data refuted.

So, I'll go with its real.

So, no jumping to conclusions... Why are the same people at the ballot box so often on election night? Give me good reasons for this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nowhere in either article is the data refuted.

So, I'll go with its real.

So, no jumping to conclusions... Why are the same people at the ballot box so often on election night? Give me good reasons for this.

You go with the data is real. I will go with prove the data is real in a court.

One explanation I have read is that drop boxes are typically placed in high traffic areas that someone could pass by multiple times in a day or a week. Is this a legit defense? hell, I don't know. That is why we need to get the two sides in the same court room and hash it out like we do all other legal things

 

[iceberg]

You go with the data is real. I will go with prove the data is real in a court.

One explanation I have read is that drop boxes are typically placed in high traffic areas that someone could pass by multiple times in a day or a week. Is this a legit defense? hell, I don't know. That is why we need to get the two sides in the same court room and hash it out like we do all other legal things

The data is real. It was bought from a marketing firm as said by NPR and other sources.

The question now is, does it mean what the movie concludes? To me it does raise more than a fair amount of questions to be answered. Agree that needs to be done in court.

But all so far I have read from "the left" are hit pieces based on emotion, not addressing it factually. So if someone on "the right" is frustrated at the lack of data driven answers, I'm there with them to that point.

But the data still needs to be reviewed and responded to factually. Emotional counter replies and dog piling one off fraud cases break down the main point, not help it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The data is real. It was bought from a marketing firm as said by NPR and other sources.

But they do not name the frim. The movie makers will not say where they got it.

The question now is, does it mean what the movie concludes? To me it does raise more than a fair amount of questions to be answered. Agree that needs to be done in court.

But all so far I have read from "the left" are hit pieces based on emotion, not addressing it factually. So if someone on "the right" is frustrated at the lack of data driven answers, I'm there with them to that point.

Is this based on fact or emotion...

Does â2000 Mulesâ provide evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

A documentary directed by conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza claims it can prove widespread fraud was carried out during the 2020 presidential election in the United States. Reuters Fact Check examined the main claims presented in the film and did not find any concrete evidence definitively...

www.reuters.com

I would also add it is wrong to dismiss the concerns about the movie maker. When the source is so proudly and openly biased that has to be taken into account. Does it mean that it is made up, no it does not, but it does add a legit question to it all

 

[iceberg]

But they do not name the frim. The movie makers will not say where they got it.



Is this based on fact or emotion...

Does â2000 Mulesâ provide evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

A documentary directed by conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza claims it can prove widespread fraud was carried out during the 2020 presidential election in the United States. Reuters Fact Check examined the main claims presented in the film and did not find any concrete evidence definitively...

www.reuters.com

I would also add it is wrong to dismiss the concerns about the movie maker. When the source is so proudly and openly biased that has to be taken into account. Does it mean that it is made up, no it does not, but it does add a legit question to it all

This is where I find it hard to take media seriously.

GEOTRACKING​

Multiple concerns were raised by experts speaking to Reuters about the “geotracking” portion of the documentary. It was unclear whether the same test was applied anywhere other than the swing states in question (to prove a unique phenomenon had happened), along with data validity, accuracy, and discussion about other possibilities that could explain the findings.

Biden's vote spike was unique. But no digging in other areas to prove it wasn't.

They tend to demand a process they themselves don't adhere to.

And I don't see Reuters refute the core data, just mock the results.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Biden's vote spike was unique. But no digging in other areas to prove it wasn't.

was it?

And I don't see Reuters refute the core data, just mock the results.

They do not have access to the core data, the movie maker has not shared that or even their source of said core data

 

[iceberg]

As for not saying where it was gotten, most I can find are that the data is commercially available. Period

But I don't see anyone l refuting the data, just the conclusions. If you want to keep at ultimate data source, you'd be the only only one pushing that I have seen.

All I HATE TRUMP sites don't seem to focus on this point so not sure that is the issue in what it means is.

 

[iceberg]

was it?


They do not have access to the core data, the movie maker has not shared that or even their source of said core data

Dunno. You missed my point

It was claimed it was and needs to be cross referenced. I've not seen Reuters say this needs to happen. I find this selective use of standards.

When they can benefit from this level of detail, it must be there. When they don't want you digging, change topic and/or attack.

As for is the data real, they are welcome to buy their own data from their own source and cross reference.

 

[Faun]

Not yet.

Now THAT is funny since you are talking about what's in it.

 

[Faun]

They have it. Like I said though, Biden is killing your party.

How do you know what they have? You didn't see the movie. Talk about faith-based politics.