Christopher F. Rufo

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

Monday, CBS News published a story attempting to contradict our reporting on cat-eating in Dayton, Ohio. I published a rebuttal to the story on the social media site X, which I have reproduced here.

CBS News has published a response to the “Cat Eaters of Ohio” story. It’s a supremely dishonest and completely partisan report, but let’s break it down, to show exactly how the establishment media maintains its lines of propaganda.

The CBS report hinges on two arguments. First, CBS writes: “The video shows what appears to be animal carcasses on a grill. The man filming the footage alleges, without evidence, that they are cats.” Without evidence? The eyewitness directly observed the incident and took a video recording of it—both of which are firsthand evidence. But CBS’s apparent standard, when such evidence violates the establishment narrative, is: Don’t believe your lying eyes.

The report also quotes Dayton’s Democratic mayor, who says there have been “absolutely zero reports of this type of activity.” Which is true, but does not contradict the evidence at all. Nobody filed a police report, so there would be no police report—and the absence of a police report does not mean that something did not happen. This is a convenient way of ignoring the evidence, and laundering lies through friendly media apparatus.

What did CBS not do? Journalism. The network, which has massive resources, did not send a reporter to the scene, interview the eyewitness, interview the neighbors, investigate the visual evidence, conduct background research, or provide a detailed analysis. They simply adopted “don’t believe your lying eyes” as their standard and repeated an empty, evidence-free statement from a partisan political figure. Now, I’d like to take you through exactly how we produced the story and analyzed the evidence. This is precisely the case that I made in the original piece, that the establishment media is more interested in denial and obfuscation, even when the evidence points the other way.

Sourcing

An individual in my personal social network reached out with a tip and a link to the social media post with the video. (This source neither requested, nor received, the monetary prize I had posted on social media a few days prior.) Our team then collected the timestamped social media from August 2023, which was still live. We tracked down the author, authenticated the video, matched it to his voice, and conducted an interview by phone, in which he confirmed the key details of the story.

The following day, we had the author bring us to the location and make introductions, had a team member conduct background research, and sent a reporter into the field to make observations and conduct interviews. To confirm the exact location of the video, we matched the visual elements in the picture to the visual elements on the scene, down to matching knot patterns in fence planks, which provided us with the precise address and camera position relative to the scene. For extra care, we also cross-referenced the visual evidence with street and satellite images, plus residential property records.

Eyewitness Account

Our interview with the eyewitness matched the details of the original video and was unambiguous in its conclusion: “This African dude next door had the damn cat on the grill. They was barbecuing the damn cat!” The eyewitness was familiar with the African families in the housing complex (his son played with their children) and his child’s mother, who lived next door to the Africans, had observed them on at least one occasion butchering a large mammal on the street. The eyewitness had a close, unmediated look at the incident and maintained a consistent story over one year, to multiple different groups, including his own peer group. He is familiar with barbecuing and, like anyone, is familiar with cats. The source of his initial shock was that the animal on the grill was not a chicken, burger, hotdog, or other usual fare.

Again, he witnessed the incident firsthand, recorded a video, and maintained a consistent story over a year. This is all direct evidence, contrary to CBS News’s disingenuous claim.

Field Interviews

Our field reporter spoke with a half-dozen people in the housing complex, who confirmed the following details: all of the residents of the complex were migrants from Africa, most commonly the Congo; they were familiar with the eyewitness, his child’s mother, and his son; they told us another African family had recently moved out of one of the units; this family owned and used a blue grill; the father would go out with a knife and gather meat; there were stray cats breeding on the property and some residents wanted to get rid of them.

We also made the following direct observations on the scene: we matched the visuals in the video to the location; we found an abandoned grill that matched the make, model, and color in the video and the descriptions in the interviews; we noticed that there were at least ten cats on the property, which appeared to be strays and were very comfortable with the residents, coming onto the porches and milling around the exterior of the house.

Background Research

Our research team learned that there is a tradition of cat eating in the Congo and surrounding nations. We also learned that, since at least 2021, Dayton has accommodated a relatively large number of migrants from the Congo. By chance, one of our in-house researchers had experience dissecting cats and studying their anatomy. In addition, we spoke on background with a chicken farmer, surgeon, biologist, hunter, and medical professor.

Forensic Analysis

Over the weekend, some left-wing conspiracy accounts on social media began claiming that the animals were chickens, rather than cats. We asked our experts to provide forensic analysis and their opinion.

The chicken farmer, who has processed thousands of animals per year, confirmed that it could not be a chicken in the video:

• “The most obvious evidence is that the claws on the grill are facing the wrong way for it to be an avian creature. Size-wise the only poultry [the claws] could credibly be compared to is a Cornish game hen or something small, but the carcasses are much larger than that. Literally any poultry farmer or butcher would tell you that’s not a chicken or a waterfowl.
• “A bird wouldn’t be able to rest upside down like that. Its heavy legs would cause it to flop to one side or another, or the legs would just drop down to either side … There’s no way for a bird to naturally sit that way. They’re bottom-heavy creatures.”
• “The legs are too skinny [to be a chicken]. The ‘drumstick’ even on a laying hen would be much meatier. Number two is that, even if it were a bird, the talons are facing in the wrong direction. But they are in the right direction for cat’s paws. They are basically claiming that the two legs on the left are those of a chicken, and that its butt is somehow propped in the air. First of all, why would it be propped in the air? … But more importantly, why would the drumsticks be stuck up in midair? For a quadruped like a feline this makes sense (they are the front legs) but not an avian creature which has one set of legs with a sort of folding joint in them. If the bird were face up as they are claiming, the legs would fold down onto the thighs, not project straight into the air.”
• “The feet of a chicken or a waterfowl are much larger in proportion to the carcass than what’s in the video. Whereas the proportion fits that between a cat’s leg and paw. When you shoot a cow or sheep or pig, they might fall and roll onto their back with their legs straight up in the air like the cat is. Because they’re also quadrupeds. Not possible with a chicken because it just has a totally different leg structure. Made to do different things.”

We also spoke with a surgeon, who also has practical experience with animals, explained that the proportions of the animal, particularly the “ilium-to-scapula distance,” resemble a mammal, more specifically, a cat, rather than a chicken:

• “It’s fascinating how different animal species have remarkably similar skeletal structures – the humerus is proximal to the radius, the sternum anterior to the scapula – but the relationship of those bones to each other is what largely differentiates one animal species to the next, not only in appearance but also in function.”
• “[In the video,] you can see that a cat has a greater distance between the scapula and the ilium. This provides more space for the abdominal organs (i.e. small bowel, liver) between the thoracic cavity and the pelvis. When the legs are stretched, a 90-degree angle is formed between the legs and the pelvis/abdominal cavity (as can be seen in the picture).”
• “In contrast, a chicken has a very short distance between the scapula and the ilium. The reason for this is that the abdominal organs are located more caudally (i.e. towards the tail). When a chicken’s legs are stretched, this exaggerated 90-degree angle (as is seen in the video) is absent because the thoracic cavity is so close to the pelvis – hence, short distance between the scapula and ilium.”
• “The animals in the video are cats and not chickens due to the pronounced right angle between the legs and the abdomen that occur as a result of a longer ilium-to-scapula distance.”

Conclusion

The CBS News report is not credible and does not make any attempt to investigate the facts. Rather, it simply denied the eyewitness account and firsthand video as “without evidence”—a logical contradiction—and copied a statement from the Democratic mayor, who also did not investigate the matter. There is no indication that CBS sent a reporter into the field, conducted any interviews, or provided any visual analysis. There is no indication that CBS even knows where the incident occurred, something that took our team some time on the ground.

As I wrote in my original piece about the story, the establishment media wants to maintain a line of propaganda and wish away any evidence to the contrary, appealing to authority rather than the facts. This is dishonest and does a disservice to productive debate.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Senior research psychologist and Google critic Dr. Robert Epstein told popular podcast host Joe Rogan on Wednesday that a “free and fair election” is an “illusion” now, warning about the rise of the “technological elite.”

In June 2019, Epstein addressed Congress over his concerns that Google not only poses a “serious threat to democracy and human autonomy,” but also advising how the lawmakers could “end Google’s worldwide monopoly on search.” Appearing on the “Joe Rogan Experience,” Epstein explained his belief that there hasn’t been a “free and fair election” nationally since 2012, because tech has been used to manipulate public opinion.

“We are finding overwhelming evidence that they are very deliberately and systematically messing with us and our elections, especially. I personally believe that as of 2012 the free and fair election, at least at the national level, has not existed,” Epstein said. “It’s just been manipulated since 2012. I say this in part because I met one of the people on Google’s tech team — on Obama’s Tech Team, I should say — which was being run by Eric Schmidt, head of Google at the time.”

“I talked to him at great length about what the tech team was doing. They had full access to all of Google’s shenanigans, all those manipulations and one member of that team, asked by a reporter, how many of the four points by which Obama won, how many of those points did he get from the tech team? And the guy said … two of the points came from us. Now Obama won by 5 million votes, roughly, and two out of four points came from the tech team — that’s two and a half million votes,” Epstein said.

Epstein, along with several others at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), released a study that claimed tech companies have the ability to influence decisions of undecided voters through search suggestions on search engines. The Google whistleblower told the Daily Caller News Foundation that search engine operators controlling search suggestions could have “the power to shift a large number of votes without people’s awareness.”

Epstein continued to call out the 2016 election between former President Donald Trump and former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, stating that if Google’s interference had been taken out, the popular vote “would have been tied.”

WATCH:

“By 2016 I had calculated that Google could shift — and it would be toward Hillary Clinton of course, whom I supported at the time — that Google could shift between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton in that election with no one knowing. She won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes,” Epstein said. “If you take Google out of that election the popular vote would have been tied. Couple days after that election everyone — all the leaders in Google get up on stage … and they’re talking to all of Google’s 100,000 employees and one by one they’re going up to the mic and saying, ‘We are never going to let that happen again.’”

The Google whistleblower added that between President Joe Biden and Trump, if Google had been taken “out of the equation,” Trump would have won “11 out of 13 swing states instead of five.”

“So going forward from roughly 2012 I think the free and fair election has been an illusion, an illusion. And this is something — it’s very weird and kind of ironic, but this is something that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in that last speech of his farewell speech he warned about the rise of the military-industrial complex, everyone’s heard about that,” Epstein continued.

“But he also warned about the rise of a technological elite that could someday control public policy without anyone knowing. And the technological elite are now in control. That’s what we have. That’s where I get back to my ranting and my pain because I realize no one is paying attention! Eisenhower said we have to be alert or this will happen,” Epstein said.