You are a complete moron, this is not at all accurate information. Your piece of shit phone might have been this far off, but gps is accurate to within a few feet on most phones, and in fact is what cops use to trace ppl. Why do ignorant people like you pollute the internet with clearly no engineering background? Delete your substack it's garbage
Normally phones don’t go out of their way to let others know where they are by broadcasting their geolocation. Ankle monitors, on the other hand, go out of their way to broadcast their location. Police rely upon external cell tower and WiFi signal geolocations. I have only found one source for the accuracy True the Vote claims. That is what Georgian election officials say TTV told them, 100 ft.
Fool, your phone absolutely tracks your geo location, cops can get this data with warrants if they need it from your phone provider, google, apple etc. It doesnt matter if you disable that history either, they still have it.
A simple way to destroy that stupid 100ft myth is to simply go drive with a map app, 100ft would be way too inaccurate, and it is totally inaccurate. Its within a few meters at most
I suggest looking at actual data on geolocation accuracy, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6638960/. Geolocation depends on the surroundings. If you are in a dense urban area, where buildings can block or reflect satellite signals, the accuracy is much worse than in an open field. Typical worst case is about 15 m about 50 ft.
Ultimately what is done is to define an area of interest using what is called a geofence. Reported geolocations within that area are recorded.
In True the Vote’s analysis that was a circle centered on the location of interest. The radius of such a circle is always larger than the worst case geolocation accuracy. They told the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that they used a radius of 100 ft. That’s a common radius, but its use is for identifying who may have visited a location, not who has visited a location, as True the Vote claimed.
Cops don’t need to know where you are within a couple of feet. They need to know whether you were close enough to do a crime, i.e., had opportunity or far enough away that you have a great alibi. In the FBI’s investigation of January 6, they used a geofence that was a 100 feet away from the exterior of the Capital. That showed that anyone who was in the geofence was definitely inside the building.
Clodius said it -- although in too many words. As you say, the geolocation accuracy of a phone is better than 100 feet, somewhere closer to 2-10 meters. True the Vote purchased geolocation data from an aggregator company. The company sets a radius around the point of interest, in this case 100 ft from the dropboxes. It could have been 1000 ft, or it could have been 5 ft. So while a person's location is known within that 2-10m accuracy, they're counted by the aggregator and reported to TTV as having been at the dropbox only if they were found (2-10 m accuracy) to have been within the 100-ft geofence set by the aggregator.
This is not about the theoretical accuracy of GPS location data; it's about the filter criteria applied to that data. I have had trouble locating the 100 ft figure from Dinesh or TTV, although evidently Phillip Bump has confirmed Dinesh said it to him in an interview (which Dinesh has apparently not contested), and it's said to be in GBI reports (I'm still searching for this).
100 ft radius, it should go without saying, is too large. Most of the 20+ dropboxes in these major cities are within 100 ft of a road, and busy roads at that, including intersections with stoplights. That's important because even if the location data showed some time at rest (10-30s?) "at the dropbox," i.e. within 100 ft, this is consistent with people in their cars being stopped at a light.
But what about the convergence, i.e. that they filtered the data to capture only those persons who had been to 10 or more dropbox locations, in addition to 5 (or was it at least 1 of 5?) stash-houses? In a city like Philadelphia, population 1.5M, with 20+ dropboxes located at high-traffic sites, it is not at all improbable that 1000 persons in the month preceding the election would make a trip by car which passed several dropboxes in a single trip. And I don't think they even made the criteria this restrictive -- I think you just had to be within 100ft of 10 different dropboxes at any time from early Oct to election day. Are we surprised, then, that a few hundred people out of how many tens or hundreds of thousands for whom they had data, met these criteria?
I would be shocked if there wasn't a few hundred such people.
Not quite. True the Vote purchase the data from a data vendor who reports maximum geolocation error of about 15-16 m. Not unknown for dense urban areas or forests in leaf. They then had the data analyzed by a separate organization. They used circular geofences centered on the locations of interest. Those are used to identify visits in the vicinity, e.g. people who might have a view of a store window to be tempted to enter the store. They can’t be use to show that someone entered the store. The geofence radius in such cases is always larger than the worst geolocation accuracy, so that you don’t miss people who may have visited.
The accuracy of your cell phone’s geolocation accuracy depends on its environment. Trees and buildings degrade its performance. I have checked on the accuracy claimed by several cell phone geolocation brokers, and they claim worst case geolocation accuracies of 16 to 20 meters, 50 to 65 feet.
Geolocation accuracy is a statistical measure. It doesn’t mean that the reported location, compared to the actual location, is always within that accuracy just that a significant fraction are within that range. Typically it’s the expected root mean square of the expected error, or about 63% of geolocations are within that range, and 37% are outside of that range. I
Locations near a drop box or an NGO were determined by True the Vote, not from the accuracy of a given geolocation, but rather from the reported geolocation being within a fixed circle centered on the locations of interest. That radius is termed the geofence radius. The geofence radius is always larger than the worst case accuracy to ensure that any geolocations that might be from a phone at the location of interest are counted. True the Vote told the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that they used a geofence radius of 100 feet.
If you then ask how the FBI could then locate people in the Capitol Building, they also used a radius of 100 feet in order to determine that. The Capital Building is more than 300 foot wide near the rotunda, and, I believe, over 700 foot long. There is a significant region more than 300 feet from the building’s exterior. Most of that’s under the rotunda. The rotunda is a major crossing point between different parts of the building, faced by the main entrance, and is visually attractive.
Both of your comments are insane and completely wrong. This one took the cake:
"But what about the convergence, i.e. that they filtered the data to capture only those persons who had been to 10 or more dropbox locations, in addition to 5 (or was it at least 1 of 5?) stash-houses? In a city like Philadelphia, population 1.5M, with 20+ dropboxes located at high-traffic sites, it is not at all improbable that 1000 persons in the month preceding the election would make a trip by car which passed several dropboxes in a single trip. And I don't think they even made the criteria this restrictive -- I think you just had to be within 100ft of 10 different dropboxes at any time from early Oct to election day. Are we surprised, then, that a few hundred people out of how many tens or hundreds of thousands for whom they had data, met these criteria?"
I have not seen worse shilling than this nonsense. You think theres hundreds of ppl that visit all drop boxes and a known stash house who WERENT obviously doing something related? Insane lying.
And again, you can continue to lie about the data purchased all you want, it is not simply cell phone tower, it is GPS location which is incredibly accurate to within a few ft. Even if it werent and we took your lie as true, the overall IDs of phones behaving in these locations is STILL OBVIOUS FRAUD.
They just drove around the city to 10 or more drop boxes and several Non Profits at 2am the Democrats ran but pure coincidence. Not to mention the whistleblowers that said they paid people to do this. Oh and this was not their normal routine except for the period of early voting. Only a moron like you would believe this.
1) When TTV filtered the geolocation data to capture only those people who had been to 10 or more dropboxes, did they require 10 in a single trip? Or could it have been 10 (different) dropboxes at any point from early Oct to election day?
2) How close did they actually have to be to the dropbox to be counted? Most phones GPS goes to an accuracy of a couple meters; but what was the geofence radius, set by the aggregator company who sold the data to TTV, by which a person was counted as having been? 10 ft? 50? Evidently Dinesh himself, and TTV in documents released to the GBI, said they used 100 ft as the geofence radius
3) Were they required to have been "at" -- i.e. within 100 ft -- of at least 5 Democrat non-profits? Was it at least 1 of 5? As in #1, did this have to be within the same trip, or at any time over the roughly 1-mo.?
4) TTV claims they accounted for a person's normal routine -- the film gives the example of commute, normal trips, etc. But how exactly did they do this? Do you have to make the trip a few times per week to be counted as pre-election routine? Every day? What if you're making the same routine trip, e.g. from work back home, but you take a different route due to traffic, construction, or missing a turn, and in the process pass within 100 ft of a dropbox? What about a trip I make roughly every few weeks, such as to the Costco for a bigger grocery run, a trip which may not have been capture (or capturable) in the lead up, because I never made it, but then happen to make the trip around election day?
The plausibility of the mules theory depends entirely on the answers to questions like these. TTV and Dinesh, to this day, have been reluctant to release their raw data and details of their methodology, even under subpoena.
Maybe the "1100 ballot-harvesting mules" in Philadelphia are in fact 1100 ordinary people of the city, who from early Oct to election day -- and not necessarily within the same trip or same day -- found themselves within 100ft of at least 10 of the 20+ dropboxes scattered on busy roads throughout the city, as well as a couple of Democrat non-profits, also in business complexes and office space along high-traffic areas?
I pulled up a map of the 20 dropboxes in my city, Seattle, and visually ran through in my mind the neighborhoods in which they are located. I have driven within 100 ft of at least 5-10 of them in the past month -- probably not 10, but I am just 1 typical person. It might only be 1 in 100 who has, or 1 in 1000. But in cities of 500,000 - 1,500,000 residents like Atlanta and Philly, that's all it would take to get a few hundred or more hits.
We don’t know what their normal routine was as TTV only collected data for the two weeks before the election. FWIW TTV told Georgian officials that they considered a drop box visit anything within 100 feet of the box.
Might want to talk to Justice Roberts... he's got this notion based on evidence provided to him from the US Government that it is as accurate as "if it had attached an ankle monitor to the user's phone."
completely wrong, they are accurate to within a few feet. Disabling gps and then saying "see its using wifi triangulation and its inaccurate!" just proves you are completely unqualified to make any fact check. An actual fact check requires engineering and smart phone understanding, you have neither and are just spreading propaganda to defend the garbage democrat party
lmao no you are not fraud, I'm an actual engineer, which is why I understand the difference between triangulation and gps, clearly you don't. GPS is not always accurate every moment, but in general if you trace a phone it will be very accurate over time, within a few feet as I said. Stop pretending you're an engineer fraud, you make us look bad peddling this garbage.
Each piece of information in this file represents the precise location of a single smartphone over a period of several months in 2016 and 2017.
and
The data set is large enough that it surely points to scandal and crime but our purpose wasn’t to dig up dirt. We wanted to document the risk of underregulated surveillance.
and
The data documented those rioters, too. Filtering the data to that precise time and location led us to the doorsteps of some who were there. Police were present as well, many with faces obscured by riot gear.
Why would the NYT allow such baseless opinions on it's opinion page?
I suggest you re-read my post and the NYTimes piece.
As you see from the Jan6 case were I except Google's comments about their data, 68% of measurements are pretty precise and 32% are only accurate to within 100 feet.
Thus, the NYTimes article is true, they can get a lot of a accurate locations of people.
But my point is that there are a lot of inaccurate locations that can result in "false-positives" such that if you have trillions of measurements, you can easily find a thousand false readings.
I have it and I can literally watch my wife traverse the grocery store and (knowing the layout of the store) can pretty accurately figure out what aisle she is on.
That being said, I have owned a cell phone that wasn't accurate at all, but it was a cheap Chinese phone that I eventually returned to Amazon because of the GPS problems it had.
It's just strange to me that we never had fact-checks at every turn until the truth started coming out.
More is coming which will make 2000 Mules look like playtime from an organized crime standpoint.
At some point the election fraud deniers are going to have to accept the fact that Sniffy Joe Biden didn't really win the 2020 election. To believe he did requires defying common sense and logic.
It's funny everyone is an expert so that gives you the right to make up false claims right? All that proves is anyone can be an engineer without any knowledge. Anyone can use information and there own experiences to find out facts but someone like you only looks at what you want to look at
Justice Roberts is a judge and former attorney. He’s not an expert on the capabilities of technology. In that case the police were claiming much less accuracy for their geolocations than what he claimed.
FWIW I have seen only one description by TTV of the accuracy of their geolocations. Georgia’s election officials reported that TTV said that being within 100 feet was considered a visit to a drop box. I have seen no contradiction by TTV of that report.
So how does Google Maps know exactly where I am when my WiFi is turned off? I just checked and it even pinpointed where in the house I was when I zoomed in on the map.
Thank you for admitting you don't know and that there are phones capable of pinpointing locations w/WiFi off. You just contradicted your article. #DisinformationBusted
Turning off Wi-Fi saves power by turning off the broadcast of WiFi by the phone. It doesn’t turn off the phone’s, low power, receiver. The phone continues to have information from the WiFi routers, so it can know where it is. The WiFi routers no longer have information from the phone, so others without direct access to the phone cannot use WiFi to determine its location.
There’s where the cell phone thinks it is given active assistance by GPS and WiFi, where you think it is if it goes out of its way to tell you, where you think it is if it doesn’t go out of its way to hide, where you think it is if it’s on but makes some effort to hide, and where you think it is if it’s turned off. All are different. Your example is the first case. His are for the case where the cell phone doesn’t go out of its way to hide.
Everyone is missing the most significant point of all, the nature of the advertising data feeds. I've worked with the data feeds. Here's what happens. When an ad is served in one of your phone apps, a geolocation report is sent back to the advertising exchange. It contains various pieces of data, including a lat/lon. The advertising exchange anonymizes that data with a MAID (mobile advertising ID number). This is what TTV bought, a database of MAID versus lat/lon. They have stated this publicly. So far, so good. The problem is that you typically see a MAID update location every 5 minutes at absolute best. Even if the position report is perfectly accurate, the 5 minute interval makes it impossible to reliably place a person next to a drop box. If the person stood next to the drop box for an hour, you might be lucky enough to capture that. Please understand this is NOT what law enforcement obtains when they subpoena the telecom companies. So, even if GPS were perfect (it's not, especially in urban areas), the update rate on the data feeds is not nearly high enough to capture a transient event like a person spending 5 seconds at a drop box.
The True The Vote team used a lot of redundancy in assembling the data used in the movie.
Mules visited at least 10 drop boxes and 5 stash houses. Often a single mule visited drop boxes in multiple counties. I don’t think you debunked the movie. The stated purpose of the movie wasn’t to overturn the election but to question the statement by officials that 2020 was the ‘most secure in history.’ It wasn’t. Very powerful movie.
None of this is true. We have no idea what data or algorithms the True The Vote team used. Their descriptions of it are vague and contradictory. Their claims are improbable and unsubstantiated.
There was no ambiguity in the description of their methodology.
You need to state your contradictions if you expect that statement to hold weight.
They used latitude, longitude, elevation, and time data collected from 10 trillion (nationally) geo sensors on 309 drop boxes in a geo-fenced region in Atlanta.
Mules were classified as those that visited a minimum 10 drop boxes and 5 visits to NPOs.
The pattern of life was analyzed as unique to early elections by comparing pattern of behavior prior to the start of the election as a QC check.
They also corroborated the data with video evidence, which still requires further verification.
Unsubstantiated? Yes
False? Well you by your own omission , you cannot say whether or not they are lying without the data.
There is no description of how they filtered out people driving by vs. visiting a dropbox. Their vague description is implausible.
They could presumably correlate even the most inaccurate GPS data with video surveillance, but it's unbelievable that they did, or else they would've shown that in the film.
Had they claimed an exabyte, then that would be absurd.
With each reply you've made on this thread it seems more likely that your supposedly "expert" knowledge on this is the only thing that comes across as "absurd".
The movie "Avatar" needed about a petabyte of storage to render the graphics. That's just ONE movie.
In a few more years, my movie collection will likely top a petabyte.
There are people who have decided that they want cell phone locations, and will pay well for it. Cellular companies have therefore decided to retain that information for some time by saving it in memory storage facilities. It requires a lot of storage. TTV, for essentially two weeks for the major cities of five states, had to pay for a few terabytes of data.
Seems you missed the joke in Dinesh's tweet, but do tell, how is your fact check at all relevant when the geolocation data is corroborated by video evidence of the perpetrators at the ballot box locations?
We have their word that, for Georgia, they can connect “mules” to videos of multiple drops, but words without substantial evidence is just talk. They claim to not show such videos in “2000 Mules” because they are poor quality. Poor quality videos would have been much better than none. They seem to have a number of good quality videos for a few drop boxes, but they don’t connect the ones they show to any of their geolocation tracks.
The geolocation data in anonymized, and they haven't produced any evidence of which I'm aware connecting the geolocation data to an individual person from a video.
The videos they've produced are of people placing ballots in a ballot box. Which is perfectly legal. They've produced zero videos of anybody going to more than one ballot box, and only one video of a person (almost certainly a care worker) visiting a ballot box more than once - which again is legal.
The data could be de-anonymized. If you have the timestamps from the video, and timestamps from the geolocation data, you could identify the likely person ... assuming it was that accurate, which it isn't.
Is it that granular? Because if its granularity goes down to individuals tracked throughout the day to within even a couple hundred feet, it's not really anonymized, as you could very easily determine who most of the individuals are with just a little research.
But yes, if you had accurate timestamped geolocation data from individuals, and videos, you could easily pair them up.
You are a complete moron, this is not at all accurate information. Your piece of shit phone might have been this far off, but gps is accurate to within a few feet on most phones, and in fact is what cops use to trace ppl. Why do ignorant people like you pollute the internet with clearly no engineering background? Delete your substack it's garbage
Normally phones don’t go out of their way to let others know where they are by broadcasting their geolocation. Ankle monitors, on the other hand, go out of their way to broadcast their location. Police rely upon external cell tower and WiFi signal geolocations. I have only found one source for the accuracy True the Vote claims. That is what Georgian election officials say TTV told them, 100 ft.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/10/22/gbi-says-gops-cellphone-data-lacks-enough-evidence-prove-ballot-harvesting
Fool, your phone absolutely tracks your geo location, cops can get this data with warrants if they need it from your phone provider, google, apple etc. It doesnt matter if you disable that history either, they still have it.
A simple way to destroy that stupid 100ft myth is to simply go drive with a map app, 100ft would be way too inaccurate, and it is totally inaccurate. Its within a few meters at most
I suggest looking at actual data on geolocation accuracy, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6638960/. Geolocation depends on the surroundings. If you are in a dense urban area, where buildings can block or reflect satellite signals, the accuracy is much worse than in an open field. Typical worst case is about 15 m about 50 ft.
Ultimately what is done is to define an area of interest using what is called a geofence. Reported geolocations within that area are recorded.
In True the Vote’s analysis that was a circle centered on the location of interest. The radius of such a circle is always larger than the worst case geolocation accuracy. They told the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that they used a radius of 100 ft. That’s a common radius, but its use is for identifying who may have visited a location, not who has visited a location, as True the Vote claimed.
Cops don’t need to know where you are within a couple of feet. They need to know whether you were close enough to do a crime, i.e., had opportunity or far enough away that you have a great alibi. In the FBI’s investigation of January 6, they used a geofence that was a 100 feet away from the exterior of the Capital. That showed that anyone who was in the geofence was definitely inside the building.
Clodius said it -- although in too many words. As you say, the geolocation accuracy of a phone is better than 100 feet, somewhere closer to 2-10 meters. True the Vote purchased geolocation data from an aggregator company. The company sets a radius around the point of interest, in this case 100 ft from the dropboxes. It could have been 1000 ft, or it could have been 5 ft. So while a person's location is known within that 2-10m accuracy, they're counted by the aggregator and reported to TTV as having been at the dropbox only if they were found (2-10 m accuracy) to have been within the 100-ft geofence set by the aggregator.
This is not about the theoretical accuracy of GPS location data; it's about the filter criteria applied to that data. I have had trouble locating the 100 ft figure from Dinesh or TTV, although evidently Phillip Bump has confirmed Dinesh said it to him in an interview (which Dinesh has apparently not contested), and it's said to be in GBI reports (I'm still searching for this).
100 ft radius, it should go without saying, is too large. Most of the 20+ dropboxes in these major cities are within 100 ft of a road, and busy roads at that, including intersections with stoplights. That's important because even if the location data showed some time at rest (10-30s?) "at the dropbox," i.e. within 100 ft, this is consistent with people in their cars being stopped at a light.
But what about the convergence, i.e. that they filtered the data to capture only those persons who had been to 10 or more dropbox locations, in addition to 5 (or was it at least 1 of 5?) stash-houses? In a city like Philadelphia, population 1.5M, with 20+ dropboxes located at high-traffic sites, it is not at all improbable that 1000 persons in the month preceding the election would make a trip by car which passed several dropboxes in a single trip. And I don't think they even made the criteria this restrictive -- I think you just had to be within 100ft of 10 different dropboxes at any time from early Oct to election day. Are we surprised, then, that a few hundred people out of how many tens or hundreds of thousands for whom they had data, met these criteria?
I would be shocked if there wasn't a few hundred such people.
Not quite. True the Vote purchase the data from a data vendor who reports maximum geolocation error of about 15-16 m. Not unknown for dense urban areas or forests in leaf. They then had the data analyzed by a separate organization. They used circular geofences centered on the locations of interest. Those are used to identify visits in the vicinity, e.g. people who might have a view of a store window to be tempted to enter the store. They can’t be use to show that someone entered the store. The geofence radius in such cases is always larger than the worst geolocation accuracy, so that you don’t miss people who may have visited.
The accuracy of your cell phone’s geolocation accuracy depends on its environment. Trees and buildings degrade its performance. I have checked on the accuracy claimed by several cell phone geolocation brokers, and they claim worst case geolocation accuracies of 16 to 20 meters, 50 to 65 feet.
Geolocation accuracy is a statistical measure. It doesn’t mean that the reported location, compared to the actual location, is always within that accuracy just that a significant fraction are within that range. Typically it’s the expected root mean square of the expected error, or about 63% of geolocations are within that range, and 37% are outside of that range. I
Locations near a drop box or an NGO were determined by True the Vote, not from the accuracy of a given geolocation, but rather from the reported geolocation being within a fixed circle centered on the locations of interest. That radius is termed the geofence radius. The geofence radius is always larger than the worst case accuracy to ensure that any geolocations that might be from a phone at the location of interest are counted. True the Vote told the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that they used a geofence radius of 100 feet.
If you then ask how the FBI could then locate people in the Capitol Building, they also used a radius of 100 feet in order to determine that. The Capital Building is more than 300 foot wide near the rotunda, and, I believe, over 700 foot long. There is a significant region more than 300 feet from the building’s exterior. Most of that’s under the rotunda. The rotunda is a major crossing point between different parts of the building, faced by the main entrance, and is visually attractive.
Both of your comments are insane and completely wrong. This one took the cake:
"But what about the convergence, i.e. that they filtered the data to capture only those persons who had been to 10 or more dropbox locations, in addition to 5 (or was it at least 1 of 5?) stash-houses? In a city like Philadelphia, population 1.5M, with 20+ dropboxes located at high-traffic sites, it is not at all improbable that 1000 persons in the month preceding the election would make a trip by car which passed several dropboxes in a single trip. And I don't think they even made the criteria this restrictive -- I think you just had to be within 100ft of 10 different dropboxes at any time from early Oct to election day. Are we surprised, then, that a few hundred people out of how many tens or hundreds of thousands for whom they had data, met these criteria?"
I have not seen worse shilling than this nonsense. You think theres hundreds of ppl that visit all drop boxes and a known stash house who WERENT obviously doing something related? Insane lying.
And again, you can continue to lie about the data purchased all you want, it is not simply cell phone tower, it is GPS location which is incredibly accurate to within a few ft. Even if it werent and we took your lie as true, the overall IDs of phones behaving in these locations is STILL OBVIOUS FRAUD.
They just drove around the city to 10 or more drop boxes and several Non Profits at 2am the Democrats ran but pure coincidence. Not to mention the whistleblowers that said they paid people to do this. Oh and this was not their normal routine except for the period of early voting. Only a moron like you would believe this.
1) When TTV filtered the geolocation data to capture only those people who had been to 10 or more dropboxes, did they require 10 in a single trip? Or could it have been 10 (different) dropboxes at any point from early Oct to election day?
2) How close did they actually have to be to the dropbox to be counted? Most phones GPS goes to an accuracy of a couple meters; but what was the geofence radius, set by the aggregator company who sold the data to TTV, by which a person was counted as having been? 10 ft? 50? Evidently Dinesh himself, and TTV in documents released to the GBI, said they used 100 ft as the geofence radius
3) Were they required to have been "at" -- i.e. within 100 ft -- of at least 5 Democrat non-profits? Was it at least 1 of 5? As in #1, did this have to be within the same trip, or at any time over the roughly 1-mo.?
4) TTV claims they accounted for a person's normal routine -- the film gives the example of commute, normal trips, etc. But how exactly did they do this? Do you have to make the trip a few times per week to be counted as pre-election routine? Every day? What if you're making the same routine trip, e.g. from work back home, but you take a different route due to traffic, construction, or missing a turn, and in the process pass within 100 ft of a dropbox? What about a trip I make roughly every few weeks, such as to the Costco for a bigger grocery run, a trip which may not have been capture (or capturable) in the lead up, because I never made it, but then happen to make the trip around election day?
The plausibility of the mules theory depends entirely on the answers to questions like these. TTV and Dinesh, to this day, have been reluctant to release their raw data and details of their methodology, even under subpoena.
Maybe the "1100 ballot-harvesting mules" in Philadelphia are in fact 1100 ordinary people of the city, who from early Oct to election day -- and not necessarily within the same trip or same day -- found themselves within 100ft of at least 10 of the 20+ dropboxes scattered on busy roads throughout the city, as well as a couple of Democrat non-profits, also in business complexes and office space along high-traffic areas?
I pulled up a map of the 20 dropboxes in my city, Seattle, and visually ran through in my mind the neighborhoods in which they are located. I have driven within 100 ft of at least 5-10 of them in the past month -- probably not 10, but I am just 1 typical person. It might only be 1 in 100 who has, or 1 in 1000. But in cities of 500,000 - 1,500,000 residents like Atlanta and Philly, that's all it would take to get a few hundred or more hits.
We don’t know what their normal routine was as TTV only collected data for the two weeks before the election. FWIW TTV told Georgian officials that they considered a drop box visit anything within 100 feet of the box.
Might want to talk to Justice Roberts... he's got this notion based on evidence provided to him from the US Government that it is as accurate as "if it had attached an ankle monitor to the user's phone."
GPS ankle monitors are essentially cell phones attached to people's ankles, so of course that statement is correct.
But both still aren't accurate to within more than 100 feet.
Not true my phone shows me exactly where I'm at within 5 feet. It's on point.
completely wrong, they are accurate to within a few feet. Disabling gps and then saying "see its using wifi triangulation and its inaccurate!" just proves you are completely unqualified to make any fact check. An actual fact check requires engineering and smart phone understanding, you have neither and are just spreading propaganda to defend the garbage democrat party
I'm an expert engineer. I thoroughly understand smart phones and how they locate themselves. I haven't disabled either GPS or WiFi.
lmao no you are not fraud, I'm an actual engineer, which is why I understand the difference between triangulation and gps, clearly you don't. GPS is not always accurate every moment, but in general if you trace a phone it will be very accurate over time, within a few feet as I said. Stop pretending you're an engineer fraud, you make us look bad peddling this garbage.
Maybe you should contact the NEW YORK TIMES and set them straight.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/location-tracking-cell-phone.html
From the article:
Each piece of information in this file represents the precise location of a single smartphone over a period of several months in 2016 and 2017.
and
The data set is large enough that it surely points to scandal and crime but our purpose wasn’t to dig up dirt. We wanted to document the risk of underregulated surveillance.
and
The data documented those rioters, too. Filtering the data to that precise time and location led us to the doorsteps of some who were there. Police were present as well, many with faces obscured by riot gear.
Why would the NYT allow such baseless opinions on it's opinion page?
I suggest you re-read my post and the NYTimes piece.
As you see from the Jan6 case were I except Google's comments about their data, 68% of measurements are pretty precise and 32% are only accurate to within 100 feet.
Thus, the NYTimes article is true, they can get a lot of a accurate locations of people.
But my point is that there are a lot of inaccurate locations that can result in "false-positives" such that if you have trillions of measurements, you can easily find a thousand false readings.
Seems like wishful thinking to me.
Have you ever heard of an app called "Life360"?
I have it and I can literally watch my wife traverse the grocery store and (knowing the layout of the store) can pretty accurately figure out what aisle she is on.
That being said, I have owned a cell phone that wasn't accurate at all, but it was a cheap Chinese phone that I eventually returned to Amazon because of the GPS problems it had.
It's just strange to me that we never had fact-checks at every turn until the truth started coming out.
More is coming which will make 2000 Mules look like playtime from an organized crime standpoint.
At some point the election fraud deniers are going to have to accept the fact that Sniffy Joe Biden didn't really win the 2020 election. To believe he did requires defying common sense and logic.
It's funny everyone is an expert so that gives you the right to make up false claims right? All that proves is anyone can be an engineer without any knowledge. Anyone can use information and there own experiences to find out facts but someone like you only looks at what you want to look at
Justice Roberts is a judge and former attorney. He’s not an expert on the capabilities of technology. In that case the police were claiming much less accuracy for their geolocations than what he claimed.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/22/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-location-664484
FWIW I have seen only one description by TTV of the accuracy of their geolocations. Georgia’s election officials reported that TTV said that being within 100 feet was considered a visit to a drop box. I have seen no contradiction by TTV of that report.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/10/22/gbi-says-gops-cellphone-data-lacks-enough-evidence-prove-ballot-harvesting
So how does Google Maps know exactly where I am when my WiFi is turned off? I just checked and it even pinpointed where in the house I was when I zoomed in on the map.
I dunno. I don't know what you are seeing or think you are seeing.
Many phones now contain internial sensors that can continue to track your location after you turn WiFi off.
Thank you for admitting you don't know and that there are phones capable of pinpointing locations w/WiFi off. You just contradicted your article. #DisinformationBusted
I googled "internial" sensors.
That's a made up technology.
There are INTERNAL sensors.
There are INERTIAL sensors.
There are no INTERNIAL sensors.
Internial isn't a word.
I'm no engineer, but I know they spell-check what they write. It's like Engineering 101.
Anyone seen Robert Graham lately? Has he abandoned this sub?
Lol, you have not heard of the concept of a "typo"?
Turning off Wi-Fi saves power by turning off the broadcast of WiFi by the phone. It doesn’t turn off the phone’s, low power, receiver. The phone continues to have information from the WiFi routers, so it can know where it is. The WiFi routers no longer have information from the phone, so others without direct access to the phone cannot use WiFi to determine its location.
There’s where the cell phone thinks it is given active assistance by GPS and WiFi, where you think it is if it goes out of its way to tell you, where you think it is if it doesn’t go out of its way to hide, where you think it is if it’s on but makes some effort to hide, and where you think it is if it’s turned off. All are different. Your example is the first case. His are for the case where the cell phone doesn’t go out of its way to hide.
Everyone is missing the most significant point of all, the nature of the advertising data feeds. I've worked with the data feeds. Here's what happens. When an ad is served in one of your phone apps, a geolocation report is sent back to the advertising exchange. It contains various pieces of data, including a lat/lon. The advertising exchange anonymizes that data with a MAID (mobile advertising ID number). This is what TTV bought, a database of MAID versus lat/lon. They have stated this publicly. So far, so good. The problem is that you typically see a MAID update location every 5 minutes at absolute best. Even if the position report is perfectly accurate, the 5 minute interval makes it impossible to reliably place a person next to a drop box. If the person stood next to the drop box for an hour, you might be lucky enough to capture that. Please understand this is NOT what law enforcement obtains when they subpoena the telecom companies. So, even if GPS were perfect (it's not, especially in urban areas), the update rate on the data feeds is not nearly high enough to capture a transient event like a person spending 5 seconds at a drop box.
GPS is just fine to make an approach to a runway you cannot see through weather.
The True The Vote team used a lot of redundancy in assembling the data used in the movie.
Mules visited at least 10 drop boxes and 5 stash houses. Often a single mule visited drop boxes in multiple counties. I don’t think you debunked the movie. The stated purpose of the movie wasn’t to overturn the election but to question the statement by officials that 2020 was the ‘most secure in history.’ It wasn’t. Very powerful movie.
None of this is true. We have no idea what data or algorithms the True The Vote team used. Their descriptions of it are vague and contradictory. Their claims are improbable and unsubstantiated.
There was no ambiguity in the description of their methodology.
You need to state your contradictions if you expect that statement to hold weight.
They used latitude, longitude, elevation, and time data collected from 10 trillion (nationally) geo sensors on 309 drop boxes in a geo-fenced region in Atlanta.
Mules were classified as those that visited a minimum 10 drop boxes and 5 visits to NPOs.
The pattern of life was analyzed as unique to early elections by comparing pattern of behavior prior to the start of the election as a QC check.
They also corroborated the data with video evidence, which still requires further verification.
Unsubstantiated? Yes
False? Well you by your own omission , you cannot say whether or not they are lying without the data.
To dismiss them as false is simply heresay.
I noticed Robert Graham had no snarkey response to this. Facts are Facts and BS Walks
There aren't 309 dropboxes in GA.
There is no description of how they filtered out people driving by vs. visiting a dropbox. Their vague description is implausible.
They could presumably correlate even the most inaccurate GPS data with video surveillance, but it's unbelievable that they did, or else they would've shown that in the film.
I saw at least one post in twitter, showing what seems to be TTV admitting it to be CSLI information.
I've one curiosity, CSLI, I understand, is also not continuously kept, it has minutes of interval ?
So not only lack accuracy, but also granularity ?
I don't believe such things. The TTV spokesman could've misspoken as CSLI is used in a generic way to refer to anything.
What disproves them is their lack of showing us the data so we can see for ourselves, not breadcrumbs and clues that may or may not be correct.
Where do you want the Petabyte of data sent. LOL
I'd send them disk drives, but the usual manner is simply via S3 buckets. Also, their claims of "petabyte" are obviously absurd.
1,024 terabytes is absurd?
It is a shit ton of data. But hardly "absurd".
Had they claimed an exabyte, then that would be absurd.
With each reply you've made on this thread it seems more likely that your supposedly "expert" knowledge on this is the only thing that comes across as "absurd".
The movie "Avatar" needed about a petabyte of storage to render the graphics. That's just ONE movie.
In a few more years, my movie collection will likely top a petabyte.
There are people who have decided that they want cell phone locations, and will pay well for it. Cellular companies have therefore decided to retain that information for some time by saving it in memory storage facilities. It requires a lot of storage. TTV, for essentially two weeks for the major cities of five states, had to pay for a few terabytes of data.
Seems you missed the joke in Dinesh's tweet, but do tell, how is your fact check at all relevant when the geolocation data is corroborated by video evidence of the perpetrators at the ballot box locations?
We have their word that, for Georgia, they can connect “mules” to videos of multiple drops, but words without substantial evidence is just talk. They claim to not show such videos in “2000 Mules” because they are poor quality. Poor quality videos would have been much better than none. They seem to have a number of good quality videos for a few drop boxes, but they don’t connect the ones they show to any of their geolocation tracks.
The geolocation data in anonymized, and they haven't produced any evidence of which I'm aware connecting the geolocation data to an individual person from a video.
The videos they've produced are of people placing ballots in a ballot box. Which is perfectly legal. They've produced zero videos of anybody going to more than one ballot box, and only one video of a person (almost certainly a care worker) visiting a ballot box more than once - which again is legal.
The data could be de-anonymized. If you have the timestamps from the video, and timestamps from the geolocation data, you could identify the likely person ... assuming it was that accurate, which it isn't.
Is it that granular? Because if its granularity goes down to individuals tracked throughout the day to within even a couple hundred feet, it's not really anonymized, as you could very easily determine who most of the individuals are with just a little research.
But yes, if you had accurate timestamped geolocation data from individuals, and videos, you could easily pair them up.
This is one of the vague things about their methodology. It appears they got this granularity in Wisconsin, but only POI data in Georgia.
They should make their geolocation data available for third party verification. Don't you agree?
Allow other organizations to check his work? Now, there is a novel idea! Is it just like counting votes for a 2nd time around, isn't it?