Let’s contribute to debunking the misinformation contained herein, point-by-point... then let’s share the hell out of it!
But if we find ourselves wrong on any assertions or assumptions, let’s use it to tighten our arguments.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
Setting out "to debunk" something is thoroughly unscientific.
You should set out to examine the evidence, which may or may not support the "fact-checkers'" arguments. An educated guess would be that it won't, but our goal shouldn't be to find the truth we want to find, but to find the truth, period.
Sure. Let’s get to the bottom of each claim with the intent to debunk it should it be false or otherwise deceptive.
Truth is, Mike knowingly straight-up-in-your face LIED about the nature of the data that was on the screen. In the 9-0 video he didn't say "data like this" or "if only you could see the real data you'd be convinced" or something like that.
Instead he used up every remaining ounce of his charisma, looked you directly in the eye and shouted, "WOW!" as the fake data rolled past.
He should have said “this is a simulation of the data.”
That site is literally worse than Snopes.
Took me two minutes to read it, because there's nothing there. It's sophistry, and poor sophistry at that. It doesn't really even make claims, just asserts that Mike's been debunked a bunch basically.
yeah didnt you know they can just label it false and like magic it is now false
Again, LeadStories is expecting 100% of Lindell’s proof and sources to be presented online before presenting it to a courtroom?:
Lindell equates these alleged pcap files with video of a bank being robbed, but in that analogy, a bank robbery investigator would also need to say WHERE that video came from, how it got from the source to you (chain of custody), how you got your hands on it, and how you know it is legitimate. He does none of those things yet these would likely be the first questions that would be asked if this data was ever presented to a court.
This is a common refrain throughout:
“Lindell equates these alleged pcap files with video of a bank being robbed, but in that analogy, a bank robbery investigator would also need to say WHERE that video came from, how it got from the source to you (chain of custody), how you got your hands on it, and how you know it is legitimate. He does none of those things yet these would likely be the first questions that would be asked if this data was ever presented to a court.”
Essentially, the argument goes: since the actual evidence cited by Lindell hasn’t been presented to a court for verification, the evidence isn’t real.
Or how about this:
“The title of Lindell's movie refers to a claim he made on May 27, 2021, in an interview with David J. Harris Jr., when he said the U.S. Supreme Court would vote unanimously to return Trump to office using something called a "quo warranto." Lead Stories looked into that claim and found it lacked merit since a sitting U.S. president can only be removed from office through impeachment, death or a declaration of disability (and not through Supreme Court action).”
The neglect the fact that a fraudulently elected president is not a real president. He doesn’t have to be impeached, only arrested.
This:
“Lindell and his expert also claim pcap files are an immutable record that can't be forged. They seem to be unaware software has existed for years that can create pcap files with dummy data for testing purposes.”
Hashes CAN be verified though. A dummy data file just appears legit, but its “hashes” can’t be verified.
When you can’t debunk the current story, just say it was already debunked in a previous story:
Lindell relies on the same debunked information he already presented in "Absolute Proof" and "Absolute Interference": data files he claims to have received on January 9, 2021, from unnamed people.
How about this claim?:
“To prevent unauthorized snooping, all important data (like banking info or login attempts or ecommerce transactions) is also encrypted before being split into packets and transmitted over the Internet. That means people along the way can only see who is sending packets where, but not what the contents are.”
Yet encryptions have keys. And this data is saved for the purpose of running verifications. German servers receive the packets, right? And they “open” them to read and “count” the contents. If they couldn’t be opened they could never have been tallied.
How about some of this info?:
...already presented in "Absolute Proof" and "Absolute Interference": data files he claims to have received on January 9, 2021, from unnamed people. A detailed Lead Stories investigation found the files originated on the website of a man named Dennis L. Montgomery who has a long history of fabricating data files and evidence. The files were then promoted on a website named The American Report that published several conspiracy theories in the past. Next, the data files made their way to Brannon Howse who claims he was the one who brought them to the attention of Lindell.
Do we know about the claims regarding Dennis L. Montgomery? And what is his history of “fabrication”?