A quick refresher on the claims about the accuracy of cell phone geolocation data
In response to several recent claims on Twitter regurgitating the so called “debunkings” of ‘2000 Mules’, I offer the following supplemental info to my previous post.
Destroying the absurd "fact checks" on cell phone geolocation used in '2000 Mules'
You may have heard the term “triangulation” before in context of finding something or someone. The idea being you need reception information from at least 3 different points, that are not on one line, to pin down the location of something. Here’s one of the “fact checks” claiming that cell phone data is not accurate enough to determine if people were …
As a comment on that post, I linked a New York Times article from late 2019 about how cell phones are tracking our every move. The timing is significant because it was well before ‘2000 Mules’ came out, and thus does not have any watering down of the precision that is available location wise to cell phone data vendors, and thus what was available to the team behind ‘2000 Mules’.
Very early on the NYT article mentions “the precise location”. There is no talk of “crude” or “approximate” location.
Later on the article uses the language “collecting precise movements”.
Even further in the article has a data table showing sample data with 4 decimal places of precision in the latitude and longitude values. In the text above the table you can see “precise location” mentioned twice.
What I did NOT see in the data is a mention of “CLSID data”, which is the “fact check” claim that is constantly circulated by bot accounts on Twitter that are literally (apparently) running constant searches for the term “2000 Mules” so they can visit any tweet mentioning the film and then reply spouting the same talking points that supposedly “debunk” ‘2000 Mules’. This ongoing cover up activity also tells you something is fishy.
You can do a lookup to see how much precision 4 decimal places gives you, and it’s about 36 feet. Even at 36 feet the “100 feet” claim made by the fact checkers is completely shredded. Read my other posts I linked above and I show in pictures how even 36 feet is beyond the maximum error I saw in my own testing while moving at well above walking speed. I also detail how you can do your own tests by adding a simple free app to your phone. The thing is that outside in a typical city or town, your phone will be able to connect to over a dozen satellites such that the precision is usually within 10 feet. This is plenty enough to tell you if someone visited a ballot drop box.
Looking back at the data table from the NYT article, you can also see a “Time at Location” column. So not only is the location precise, but anyone buying the data can see how long someone was at that location. This means you can easily tell if someone is stopped for 30 seconds or more to stuff ballots into a box, or is just walking right by.
And again, even with 100 feet of accuracy, if someone is driving many miles all over town to visit the locations of 10 or more drop boxes, interspersed with trips to democrat donor office locations, you know there is no way that person is going to all of those specific locations by random chance.
Then factor it down to with 20 feet pretty much all the time, and usually within 10 feet, going to all of those locations with drop boxes, and you know someone telling you that type of movement proves nothing, is either completely clueless or a damn liar.
Thank you for this info. I will keep it handy for anyone who wants to discuss the use of this technology. The Feds found it useful against the j6 defendants.