Gateway – Again

The early data has come in from AZ and Gateway Pundit found these incredible (a.k.a. not-credible) bits of information.

The Treasurer got more GOP votes than Kari Lake. The senate race, had more votes than the governor. The superintendent of public instruction nearly beat the governor and they DID beat the secretary of state in total Republican votes- truly amazing. However, the congressional races rolled up (added together) beat the republican vote entirely. This is truly not typical. It’s not as bad as being over 23:1 for a single candidate but it is really telling that something untoward was going on.

Joshua has explained in detail that it is definitely not the images below as those are perfectly normal people simply voting several times, and taking cell photos of their work.

Actually, the reversal of importance indicates to me for the first time that machine manipulation may have been involved as something appears to have subtracted total votes on the republican side.

Much to some folks chagrin, I will again explain what is going on. The senate, being a critical race, was cheated by widespread fraud across the entire state of Arizona. Ballot drop boxes were stuffed with ballots from non-voters for the Democrat party. The governor race had the same situation. In addition, the voting day fiasco, where people waited for huge amounts of time to have their votes rejected looks very much intentional, even if it were not, it resulted in large amounts of conservative voter disenfranchisement.

The democrats NEED the senate- they lost this race in a fair vote but won the cheat. They also need the fraud discussion to remain the provenance of us tinfoil hat folks, so the legitimate governor (Kari Lake) who promised to uncover the truth, had to lose. The SOS, which controls elections also needed to lose. They didn’t really care about Treasurer or the Superintendent of Public Instruction so they didn’t work on those.

And so here we are, for the second time in my life, across numerous states, the Democrat fraud machine won the day and looks to escape the biased arm of our justice system.

68 thoughts on “Gateway – Again

  1. Happy Thanksgiving.

    The plot keeps growing and growing, and still no direct proof of it — just vote counts you think are funny.

    If the evil Democrats had the ability to arbitrarily delete votes at will, I wonder why they bothered with the extremely visible scheme of stuffing illegal ballots into boxes on camera?

    1. Nepal,

      Statistics don’t lie. That is direct proof.

      Video of ballot stuffing. That is direct proof.

      Confessions of the participants. That is direct proof.

      You can write anything you want here because I believe in free speech. However I afford myself the same right. Don’t lie – it makes you look stupid.

      A true Happy Thanksgiving you you and your family.

      1. So if the evil Democrats can simply change the vote totals to what they want… why would they also send a parade of goons on camera to visibly stuff ballots?

        1. The answer to your question is very obvious. However, that is also the reason that I have NEVER advocated for machine fraud being a cause.

          As I wrote in paraphrase, this is the first time that I thought it might be the cause.

          In Atlanta area 2016, the conservatives lost about 100k votes (from memory). This could also be ballot destruction or replacement, it was also statistically abnormal to the point of impossibility.

          1. The answer is that they cannot simply change vote totals. They can tweak them but wholesale change would be caught by even basic audits. They can disappear and replace ballots, not possible to catch easily. That is why you don’t read about ‘dominion’ at tAV. Reality is absolutely nefarious enough, we don’t need to make things up.

            I do think dominion participates in the communication of the election status to the democrats. It is likely contained to the employee level due to the corporate level destruction Dominion would experience were the discovery of such shenanigans to occur.

            I don’t for a moment believe they are innocent.

          2. Jeff,

            On the one hand, your evidence of vote deletion includes the fact that the Republican treasurer got more votes than the Republican governor. Namely, 120k more. A huge number.

            On the other hand, you say the reason the Democrats had to stuff ballots (in addition to vote deletion) was so that the vote deletion would be undetectable by audit.

            Together, this means that you think 120k vote deletion is undetectable, but more would be. So where is the line exactly? The audit couldn’t possibly detect 120k deleted votes, but 300k it could? It doesn’t add up.

            Here’s a simpler explanation for these data: people voted for the candidates they liked. Election-conspiracy-theorist Kari Lake, and election-conspiracy-theorist-plus-Unabomber-enthusiast Blake Masters were crazy enough to turn off some of the conservative crowd.

            The treasurer didn’t have such public crazy views, so Republicans voted party line.

            In the 2020 audit,

          3. Excuse the unfinished thought at the end of the post, I didn’t have time to pull accurate numbers.

          4. Nepal,

            “Here’s a simpler explanation for these data: people voted for the candidates they liked. Election-conspiracy-theorist Kari Lake, and election-conspiracy-theorist-plus-Unabomber-enthusiast Blake Masters were crazy enough to turn off some of the conservative crowd.”

            You are potentially correct in this case, however your explanation is not simpler, it is just different. I just ask that you don’t conflate my valid concerns about vote deletion (however that would be accomplished) with my previous posts showing massive, statistically impossible vote returns, confessions, and ballot stuffing.

            Kari Lake has been proven, beyond a doubt, to be correct in her concerns about vote fraud. The video’s are proof enough for an objective viewer to see the fraud in action. It’s actually ‘dead parrot’ hilarious that people look at that and pretend that maybe we’re still ok. It’s obvious that Democrats will break any law to win an election. Also, even if the long lines and failing machines in only one area of the country were accidental, they did provide large scale and effective voter suppression.

            That was a horribly unfair election – in many states.

          5. Voters voting their preference is a simpler explanation, because it requires none of the hidden machinery of your theories. No fraudulent collaboration by poll workers, party leaders, and voting machines. No shadowy figures with the ability to delete votes.

            No ballot printing machines operating after midnight. No massive acquisition of unfilled ballots. No army of THOUSANDS of low-level operators carrying ballots to the polls for ten bucks, and maintaining perfect lock-step silence afterwards. No GOP officials in on the con. No conspiracy of tens of thousands of people nationwide, without a single leak. No ever-growing conspiracy and coverup.

            Just people voting. Yes, my explanation is simpler.

            I would love to see a single piece of ironclad, unexplainable evidence for your view. Not a video of a random person with multiple ballots, but a verifiable source going public with their story. Or email exchanges, or a successful investigation of an alleged mule, etc.

            I agree that the occasional long lines and generally unprofessional running of American polling locations is awful.

          6. No, it actually isn’t but you can have your idea. Many people do.

            Your explanation requires all of polling to be in error. It requires low voter turnout. Neither of these are true. It also requires some expression during the campaign of extremeness, didn’t happen.

            Unfortunately for you, and me, and everyone else in America, the fraud is right there on video. Deny all you want but the gun is smoking and the body does not breathe. You need to explain how so many votes can be stuffed in a box on tape to be right. You haven’t even attempted it.

            Will you go with:
            1: super large families and concerned fathers who pick up the ballots at NGO’s instead of their houses?

          7. In 2020 it was 2000 people tracked by cell over 10 times each between NGO’s and ballot boxes. Any murderer would be convicted and given the death penalty by that evidence. Pretending it does not exist is ridiculous.

          8. Jeff,

            I’m pretty tired of responding to the endless stream of misrepresented, false, or easily explainable allegations that you either make up or “parrot” from elsewhere.

            It is clear that your mind was made up from the start, and you will never consider alternative explanations for your supposed evidence, only what backs up your preconceived notions. I challenged you to consider other plausible explanations earlier, and you cowered from it.

            Now you try to turn it around on me:

            > You need to explain how so many votes can be stuffed in a box on tape to be right. You haven’t even attempted it.

            The second sentence is of course a lie. Moreover, I have already asked you to honestly think of other explanations for these videos besides fraud, so it is your turn, not mine.

            Here, I’ll start you off with one: one of the supposed ballot mules was a legally designated representative dropping off ballots for disabled voters, each of whom had submitted a form authorizing them

            Will you respond this time, or are you going to once again prove that your mind is incapable of entertaining any idea other than fraud?

          9. I am not the one with the closed mind Nepal. You had your mind made up long ago.

            You cannot explain the same exact things I’ve already told you. Pointing out that someone legally dropped a ballot off is not the same as running back and forth 20 times to Democrat NGO’s and ballot boxes. Your explanations are FALSE and FAKE and dumb. They called the movie 2000 mules so you wouldn’t forget.

            I don’t care if you are tired of it. It means nothing compared to the truth.

          10. That’s fine, ignore my question again. Because now we come to another interesting point.

            > Pointing out that someone legally dropped a ballot off is not the same as running back and forth 20 times to Democrat NGO’s and ballot boxes.

            Here is the silliest thing about the case of the “2000 mules.” We supposedly have:

            1. 2000 people each visiting >10 ballot boxes (this is based on cell phone location tracking)

            2. Individual matching of these visits to ballot box video footage, which is captured continuously

            The most damning evidence would be a video complication of each person at 10+ different boxes. Cell phone tracking has questionable accuracy, but video of multiple visits would be undeniable.

            And yet we only see one drop per person. All this individually matched video evidence, and not _one time _ do we see someone making more than one drop. Which is the CENTRAL claim of the film.

            How do you explain that?

          11. The answer is yes. There was a post office vehicle that made 5 drops to the same dropbox. Don’t know if they put it in the film for you or not.

          12. The film does not show anyone dropping off ballots more than once (source: ).

            With 2000 people making >10 trips to well-surveilled ballot boxes, and their locations tracked at all times, I would expect they would nearly all be on video multiple times. That would confirm the claims.

            Instead, you allude (no source) to a single instance of a USPS vehicle, which didn’t appear in the film.

            So again I ask: where is the video evidence that these mules made multiple trips? It should be a simple thing to produce hundreds of examples that we could see with our own eyes. Instead we are forced to simply believe their claims about mobile phone tracking data we don’t have access to.

            Where is the video evidence of multiple drops?

            REPLY: I’m working now. There are several videos of the type you describe. I may look for some of them in the future. One problem is that a lot of the video they paid for was missing, which is illegal, but that doesn’t matter these days. So some locations had no video.

          13. Jeff –

            > The answer is yes. There was a post office vehicle that made 5 drops to the same dropbox. Don’t know if they put it in the film for you or not.

            Just for the sake of clarification: so you’re saying that you have seen a video of a specific individual, driving a specific USPS vehicle, up to a specific dropbox, getting out and depositing multiple ballots, 5 times. Is that right?

            And you’ve seen this video, but it wasn’t included in the movie for some reason? Any idea why it wasn’t included?

            And there wasn’t any associated prosecution? Was that because the video wasn’t included in cases being presented by Trump’s lawyers about election fraud? In which case, why wouldn’t it have been included?

            Or are you saying it was included in the court cases, even though it was left out of the film, and no prosecutions took place? Can you tell us why law enforcement and judicial officials didn’t follow up on that evidence despite it being included in legal proceedings?
            Reply: I have seen that video. I assume someone decided that it wasn’t the best evidence. Dunno.

            It was not included in any court cases as the AG in Georgia has not prosecuted or even remotely investigated any of this.

            The Trump cases were all before the video was found so that is why they weren’t presented in court.

            Now you have all of the answers, many of which most people could have figured out on their own by now.

          14. And when you answer those questions please don’t forget that you’re an innately skeptical person.

            REPLY: [done]

          15. Jeff –

            Thanks for the answers.


            So you’ve seen such video evidence.

            Why wasn’t it in the film? It doesn’t seem logical it wasn’t. You seem to say it was paid for and viewed but now has disappeared. It also doesn’t seem logical that it just disappeared. Why wouldn’t these master sleuths even have made copies or documented it in some other way? A skeptic would be skeptical oof this claim.

            > I assume someone decided that it wasn’t the best evidence.

            Lol. You assume? REPLY: [I don’t make film Josh, I write a blog. How the hell would I know what they are thinking. I know you think it’s the big evidence, maybe they didn’t.]

            Video where someone gets out of a USPS truck and deposits multiple ballots more than once at a dropbox. And it wasn’t the best evidence? Not even worth saving? What? REPLY: [who said something wasn’t worth saving? You making your own evidence now?]

            The only way that would be true is if they knew it wasn’t evidence of what you’re claiming it was evidence of. It “wasn’t the best evidence” – well that’s because there’s an explanation other than fraud.

            > It was not included in any court cases as the AG in Georgia has not prosecuted or even remotely investigated any of this.

            Sorry – you’ve failed the innately skeptical test. You can’t provide the “evidence.” You fail to show that the “evidence” was vetted in any serious way. You fail to show that the “evidence” was given a cursory investigation and then dismissed as not really being evidence of anything meaningful. All you have as an explanation is a conspiracy theory involving many people in law enforcement, The DOJ, Republican politicians, etc. REPLY: [Just keep the hopium flowing, maybe you will be right someday.]

            It’s theoretically possible but the only way that someone could have your level of compete faith in this theory is if you’re extremely credulous and highly suggestive likely due to emotional triggering.

            So you’ve failed the innately skeptical test, badly. Anyone whose innately skeptical would need answers before reaching our level of conviction.

          16. > REPLY: [who said something wasn’t worth saving? You making your own evidence now?]

            You’ve said this valuable evidence wasnt saved – by the people whose integrity and skills in which you obviously place trust.

            So what’s the explanation? The “evidence” was crap? Or the master sleuths are incompetent bumblers?

          17. In addition to Joshua’s excellent points (particularly his addressing the idea that videos of repeat drops wouldn’t be worth putting in the film, which is absolutely ridiculous), I want to address another of your points mathematically.

            > One problem is that a lot of the video they paid for was missing

            Okay, some of the locations may not have been filmed. What are the odds all 2000 people get away with it, with no videos of repeat drops?

            Let’s say the average mule makes n drops, and that only a fraction p of the cameras function. Then the chance of them being caught in 0 or 1 drops is given by the binomial distribution. This is the probability of one person going undetected, i.e. not getting caught in multiple drops.

            B(n, p, 0) + B(n, p, 1)

            Let’s be very generous and say only 5% of the cameras function. Then any given mule has an 83% chance of going undetected.

            Now what is the chance that all 2000 go undetected? It is B(2000, 0.83, 2000). Which is about 10^-162.

            So missing footage absolutely cannot account for the lack of repeat drop footage. Unless we add a layer to the conspiracy, and say some cameras were intentionally disabled and mules were sent to only those cameras… but that makes no sense either, because then we would have no videos of ballot stuffing at all.

          18. That’s why you keep losing at this Nepal.

            I just told you the video exists. If you try, even you can find it. That some filmmaker didn’t do what you think is right is outside of my and your control and understanding, but the video still does exist.

            Why did you calculate the odds of a film not existing when it does? Are you lying to make a point? You don’t strike me as that type but your point is certainly not reasonable.

            Very tedious.

          19. So that’s what you’ve got?

            A single example.

            That for some mystery reason the film makers left out of their film. That’s obviously dramatic evidence that TTV advocates aren’t publicizing. That law enforcement and DOJ and Republican politicians are conspiring to ignore. That you haven’t linked to.

            That for all your whinging about “mules, ” is the only example you have mentioned on film that shows repeated drops of multiple ballots by the same person in multiple ballot drop offs.

            Even though there are reems of film showing drop offs. And you have cell phone data that might be circumstantial evidence of mitlooe drop offs by the same individuals but might very well might not be evidence of such.

            One example?

          20. I have to say it’s a funny coincidence that there’s all this film evidence of many different people who are supposed to be “mules” who make singular drops at many different dropboxes.

            But for some odd reason the video evidence of those individual “mules” making multiple drops is mysteriously “missing.” even though many of them supposedly made many, many drop offs.

            Many examples of individuals making single drops offs. But one? example of an individual making multiple drop offs.

            What a mysterious mystery that is indeed.

            And what a funny coincidence!

      2. Jeff –

        > Joshua has explained in detail that it is definitely not the images below as those are perfectly normal people simply voting several times, and taking cell photos of their work.

        Seems that at this point you’re so unconcerned about accuracy that you aren’t even trying to be close to accurate. I’ve never said anything resembling that. I’m agnostic on your video “proof” except to the extent that you claim the videos are some kind of dispositive “proof” of massive voter fraud that denied Republican candidates their election victories – which I think is possible but highly improbable. Much more likely, imo, is that a bunch of highly partisan and highly triggered people think they’ve found “proof” ’cause that’s what happens when their cognitive biases interact with the evidence they choose to selectively obsess over.

        1. ” I’ve never said anything resembling that. ”

          Everyone knows Josh. It’s funny, because you have been ridiculous. You critique everything I write without supplying an alternate explanation. Literally zero detail. The only thing I know for sure, is that you will say, in paraphrase, JEFF!! YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

          Still not one single explanation for the obvious fraud.

          1. Jeff –

            What you write stands on its own. I don’t offer alternative explanations for events where I lack any of the requisite knowledge to offer an informed opinion. I try to not substitute a preferred narrative when I think there’s a lot of uncertainty

            Nine of that means I can’t say I find of your explanations implausible if not downright nutty and based on obvious ignorance, such as your theory about the plot to assassinate Trump by infecting him with COVID.

            That was a real howler.

          2. I’m glad you enjoyed assassination by a cold. I laughed about it too.

            Lefties are so in tune with their feelings that even the music changes what they see.

          3. I can’t believe you’re still going with the “It was just a joke but incredibly accurate” defense. Particularity ’cause it was full of inaccuracies.

            Although at this point I guess that’s just about what I should expect

          4. Disaggregation is not your strength.

            You cannot be assassinated by a disease which wasn’t that dangerous. The extremeness of the comment was meant to make people think for a moment about just how overblown covid was.

            It does not change the fact that it is so hard to catch COVID outdoors, that it is reasonable to say you can’t do it. COVID is 99% communicated by dry virus floating in the air. Not water droplets, not surfaces. This virus dies very quickly in the presence of sunlight and disperses even faster in the wind. You want to stay safe from a cold? Go outside.

            And skip the stupid slave mask. They do nothing except call out a non-thinker to the rest of society.

          5. > You cannot be assassinated by a disease which wasn’t that dangerous.

            Good God you’re pathetic. You wrote the post after he was seriously ill with a disease with a virus that killed many people with a similar background health profile.

            It’s hilarious to watch you flail away at trying to wall this back.

          6. Just pathetic:

            I don’t believe it to be unreasonable in any way to assume this Rose garden event could have happened with intent. How many presidents have faced assassination?

          7. What are the odds that the president naturally took the strongest initial viral load?

            You reverse engineer from his severity of illness to theorize about his level of “viral load” relative to others who got sick. As if his immune system and baseline health wouldn’t fair in to it. Asking with the many variables affecting the condition of his exposure relative to others (such as duration of exposure).

            You’re writing about something as if you’re able to understand the causality when you have no idea what the fuck your talking about.

            It is worth noting that Trump seems to have taken the worst initial viral load of anyone during this process.



          8. Oh man, you got me good Josh. I’m pinned to the wall, and giggling.

            When I wrote that, I was managing a business with hundreds of employees who were gone home. I was still working and pretty pissed off about the over-reaction to a Chinese manufactured bioweapon. I figured I would get huge guffaws at the time but instead, years later, Joshie figures it out.

          9. Just ran across this.


            Made me think of your asinine belief that you know what the fuck you’re talking about.

            If you actually read about this issue m, you’d know that this is nonsense:

            > COVID is 99% communicated by dry virus floating in the air. Not water droplets,

            With respect to COVID transmission there isn’t a meaningfully binary distinction between aerosolized particles and droplets. I’ve already told you this.

  2. Here’s another example for you.

    You’re firmly convinced that liberals are dumber than conservatives, and driven by a whole series of nefarious motivations compared to conservatives, and more inclined to all sorts of immoral behaviors.

    I’d say that’s possible, but not very plausible as we know that research doesn’t substantiate widespread differences in cognition or brain physiology or morality in association with ideological orientation ‐ certainly not to the point where there’s less diversity within groups than across groups. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence about human psychology to show that people tend to assign negative attributes to groups of “others ” and to elevate our views towards groups to which we belong: Such as the fundamental attribution error, among other patterns of similar cognitive biases.

    Now it would be convenient for me to think there’s “proof” that conservatives are dumb or simple-minded or morally depraved. But while I don’t think the science is conclusive so as to support certain conclusions one way Jeff the other. So I try to judge what I think is plausible. I dont see any plausible way that cognitive and moral attributes are differentials distributed according to ideological viewpoint.

    So you point to something like a lib appealing to authority and think you know the related causality and think you’ve seen “proof” to confirm why conz are superior. I think what you’ve seen might be proof but that’s not very plausible that it is proof and that more likely is that you’re fooling yourself ’cause you’re the easiest person to fool.

    1. I have noted a pattern in the leftist vs conservative form of thought thought. These are generalities and certainly don’t apply to everyone. Leftists are sometimes very good with memory, they often articulate these patterns well, even well above average. They almost universally fail at creative rule-based problem solving. Rule-based being something like physics or math. This is a generality BTW, I have many leftist friends who are good at such things.

      What the non-creative, articulate folks are left with is deferment to others. They “feel” they are being smart and no amount of showing them where the others have gone wrong will change their mind.

      You can even show them a video of a crime, and they will talk about Bill Barr being an alleged Republican and call you names instead. The pattern is so severe, that I can call out their voting history without even asking them.

      1. > I have noted a pattern…


        You’ve done absolutely nothing to assess whether the pattern you “noted” is generalizeable. You’ve done nothing to know what the available research says about the generalizability. You’ve done nothing to integrate what is fairly well established about how humans’ ability to generalize about patterns they note is influenced by cognitive biases.

        You are the easiest person for you to fool.

        We’ve already been over all of this yet you address absolutely none of it.

        > These are generalities and certainly don’t apply to everyone.

        You say this, yet when you (wrongly) think you’ve seen someone (on the keft) fallaciously appeal to authority you say “Aha, a leftist. That’s what leftists do.” And you icnire it whsn someone on the righr fallaciously appeals fo authority.
        And you appeal to authoruty yourself.

        Confirmation bias on steroids.

        Which all shows you can’t even integrate, into your operational thinking, what you know to be true in the abstract. That’s how emotionally triggered you are.

          1. Jeff –

            You write something like this:

            > They almost universally fail at creative rule-based problem solving. Rule-based being something like physics or math

            And I’m the carrot. People on “the left” fail at physics and math “almost universally.”

            What a card.

            Show one ounce of evidence, just one, that people on the left “almost universally fail at physics and math.”

            I won’t call you dumb but you certainly hold some lunatic beliefs.

          2. The mystery is why Frank thinks you’re an innately skeptical person.

            What could explain why he thinks that?

  3. Let me state the results another way. With all cameras functional, there should be video evidence of all 2000 mules doing multiple ballot drops. Even with only 5% (!) of cameras functioning, there should still be 260 mules identified in multiple different videos, standard deviation 15. So even in that case it is statistically almost impossible to have less than 200 videos of different individuals doing multiple drops.

    Furthermore, these videos would be MUCH more convincing than unreliable geolocation data that we don’t have access to, and it would be a cinch to produce them, because the geolocation data supposedly gives accurate time and location stamps which could be extracted from the video footage.

    You claim there is 1 video, but I haven’t found it. And that is a far cry from the hundreds that should exist.

    It would be incredibly easy and convincing for the 2000 mules team to produce these videos. If, that is, there were actually 2000 mules.

    I wonder why we don’t have access to the videos. Don’t you? All that we’re left with is their word that the geolocation data proves mules, they PROMISE.

    1. > That some filmmaker didn’t do what you think is right is outside of my and your control and understanding

      How the 2000 mules team conducted their investigation is of utmost importance, because the only way we have to evaluate their conclusions is trust.

      You may have other lines of evidence that you believe point to fraud, but the entire story of 2000 mules making dozens of trips to ballot boxes comes from geolocation data. As you do not have access to this data, all you can do is trust that the 2000 mules teams interpreted it accurately and honestly.

      Now, the fact that they only gave weak evidence, when they could have given hundreds of dead-to-rights video proofs, does not inspire a lot of trust in their investigation. So why believe their story at all?

        1. Jeff,

          The combined forces of TTV and the filmmakers decided to give us unverifiable claims about geolocation data, rather than easily verifiable video evidence. Except maybe one example of a USPS truck (I still haven’t seen it), but there should be hundreds or thousands.

          Do you know what this means? It means _they don’t want you to be able to check the truth of their claims_. Because there are no 2000 mules.

          1. Oh please. It would be enough to see a person in the same clothes and appearance get out of the same car a dozen times.

            You see deflecting from the simple fact that the 2000 mules people intentionally did not give verifiable evidence, when they easily could have. You know, if their claims were true.

          2. They had some of those on line for a long time. I can’t find any easy to grab. I’m in contact with the group again so maybe I can free the Kracken.

          3. Jeff –

            > The filmmaker is separate from TTV, however they also blurred the faces and license plates. Seems like a cover up.

            That’s it?


          4. All of this pearl clutching and videos with scary music and you can produce zero evidence of multiple drop offs even though you have many videos of people dropping off ballots.

            Fits right in with your belief that Trump getting COVID was prolly an assassination attempt.

          5. TTV has sent cell data to numerous AG’s of mules going to dozens of boxes, they have also got admissions. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, but you can’t be right.

          6. Cell location data you can’t see (god only knows if they handled the considerable uncertainty accurately), and anonymous confessions you can’t confirm.

            But it’s all real, they PROMISE!

            Sure, the Republican Georgia Secretary of State and GBI and others have investigated and found TTV makes false claims, but we don’t take them at their word alone. Only TTV gets that luxury.

          7. > TTV has sent cell data to numerous AG’s of mules going to dozens of boxes, they have also got admissions.

            You still don’t get it.


            And you can live safely ensconced in your self-sealing bubble of unfalsifiability by conjuring up great big conspiracy theories.


          8. Jeff –

            But do let us know if, with all that video set to scary music, you come up with some video of people making mulitiple drops.

            I’m beginning to think there might be a reason that you’re not even remotely skeptical about why that evidence isn’t being made public.

            And why you continously duck Nepal’s point about the probabilities associated with the lack of production of such evidence.

            And btw, I realized that in my post on that topic I was basing hypothetical scenarios on first drops getting caught while there’s no video evidence of subsequent drops being made public – and of course that wouldn’t have to the scenario. It could be that 2nd drops were caught but not first or any after the 2nd. Or it could be the 3rd, etc.

            But the basic point stands that unless they’re holding back video evidence of multiple drops – which would seem idiotic for obvious reasons – you’re whole “HERE’S THE PROOF ON VIDEO” pearl-clutching completely falls apart.

    2. NEPAL –

      Making it even less plausible is that all of the cameras would have to have been working the first time they caught a “mule” on camera dropping off ballots, and working to capture other “mules” a first time….but none of the cameras were working after the first time they caught someone.

      Take camera at location 1. It captures “mule” X the first time he drops off ballots. And works after that to capture “mules” Y and Z the first time the my drop off ballots. But if “mule” X went a second time to the drop box being filmed by that camera, all of a sudden the camera didn’t work. And if “mule” A went to that drop box for a first time after that it would work. But if “mules” Y and Z or A went to that box again after A went thee the first time, the cameras stopped functioning again.

      And cameras at locations 2 and 3 and 4 and…. 2000? all worked to capture all the other “mules” the first time the other “mules” droped off ballots but NONE of them worked to capture any “mules, ” except the one in the USPS truck, in the 2nd or 3rd or any other the other of the multiple trips they made to drop boxes after their first ballot drop off.

      This is what Jeff thinks is plausible rock solid “proof” of fraud: Hundreds? of cameras worked the first time they captured any of hundreds? of “mules” dropping off a ballot but none, except in one example that Jeff has viewed but hasn’t yet linked to, worked to capture any repeat offenders.

      So the cameras went in and out of working coincidentally directly in coordination with whether a “mule” was dropping off ballots for the first time or any of the times after that, respectively. So a camera would be working, then not working, then working again, directly in sync with whether it was a first ballot drop off. Then working again and not working again and working again….all by coincidence aligned with whether the “mule” was making a first trip or a repeat trip.

      I wish I weren’t dumb ’cause then I could understand how such a sequence of events unfolding could be even remotely plausible.

      Of course, it’s possible that the cameras were all working and it’s just that the video evidence of anything other than first drop offs “disappeared” and no one made any copies. Or for a reason Jeff can’t explain, the investigatids decided to only make public the cidence of first drop offs, but not repeat drop offs, ’cause they thought that would make a more convincing case?

      … and it’s possible that if you look closely enough, there might be monkeys flying out of Jeff’s ass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s