Lawyer Who Beat the NSA Files Obama 'Deportation Petition'

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
that judge was influenced by some political agenda and probably didn't even look at the evidence...

This is the expected response from a birther when faced with real evidence - close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I cannot hear you"!

Every single silly birther court case has been lost, 220 of them, and the best the birthers can come up with is "the judge was influenced by some political agenda"....

Here is another scan showing similar results to Obama's BC
nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...
and
rcradioblog.wordpress.com...
and
www.obamabirthbook.com...:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2013/12/epilogue-confirmed-confirmed-reconfirmed/

As to the so called birther "experts"..
www.scribd.com...

All these explain Obama's BC, but birthers ignore them.
Pathetic really.

a reply to: hellobruce

I did follow the link, and I talked to Xerox technical support. Sorry...you lose. Unless you want to call Xerox and explain to them why they are wrong about the 7535 model.

a reply to: hellobruce

Yes, that is the libtard method. Exactly. You got it. Thank you for agreeing. I love how you cut the sentence apart and used just the part you wanted to use. How perfectly libtard. Cut the language up, rearrange it in a way that makes your point look good and then call it fact. But that just cant happen. I mean, no libtard would ever engage in re-writing history now would they...

a reply to: Hefficide

I thought about this and I disagree with you. The onus is not on me. It is on anyone who makes a statement in direct opposition to someone else. I made a statement of my view. Some whiney liberal made a statement in opposition to mine. Why am I the only one who has to prove anything? If he wants to prove me wrong, then prove it. Dont just make an opposing statement and then consider the point conclusive.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Connector

See, here is the problem. I do know what I am talking about. I didn't ask how a scanner could create text. I know what OCR is and how it works. What I asked, something that hasn't been answered yet, is how a scanner can split individual characters out of a word and place them on separate layers. That statement was made in regards to a previous statement made by libtard that insists a scanner, in particular the Xerox 7535 model, will scan a printed adobe illustrator file and somehow manage to recreate all the layers and revision history in the new file.

BTW, I spoke to "Adrian" at Xerox technical support today about this very situation. He stated very clearly that Xerox scanners do not work that way. They create an image of the document scanned. The only other thing they do, as you mentioned, is OCR, which would not explain how one character out of a word ends up on a different layer in a different color in a scanned document exported in pdf format.

Let me guess...he also doesn't know what he is talking about and must be a birther too, right?

See, ya dont know what you are talking about....OCR is software not hardware I used quality OCR software for years and yes it does separate one letter from a word into layers when the SOFTWARE can't determine what the character is.....it is seeing symbols not letters.

I did't post specifically to reply to you. It is for the other people that may stumble across your mis info. Dude your 5-7 yrs behind the curve. If fact...several senior ATS members, birther and not, conducted tests using OCR software....guess what they ALL concluded. Do a search.....there's thread after thread about it.

You're too far down the rabbit hole....as mentioned my reply wasn't for you but others. Ask "Adrian" at Xerox about 3rd party OCR software used in conjunction with adobe illustrator.

Good god...I can't believe people are still using this nonsense.......

Just looking at the adjectives you have for liberals ( libtard, whiny, etc) shows clearly that you aren't capable of honest debate. Night night sir

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes, that is the libtard method. Exactly. You got it. Thank you for agreeing. I love how you cut the sentence apart and used just the part you wanted to use. How perfectly libtard. Cut the language up, rearrange it in a way that makes your point look good and then call it fact. But that just cant happen. I mean, no libtard would ever engage in re-writing history now would they...

Actual quote..

I will use the libtard tactic here and respond thusly: that judge was influenced by some political agenda and probably didn't even look at the evidence... Did I do it right?

Parts left out "I will use the libtard tactic here and respond thusly: " and "Did I do it right?"

Didn't really do much to take your post out of context...

a reply to: Connector

As you indicated in your reply, 'third party software with adobe illustrator'. I asked a Xerox technician about a Xerox machine. I hope you can see the difference there.

The adjectives I use are no less insulting than the term 'birther'. You are quick to point out when I use an insulting slang term but ignore it when a liberal does it. Typical liberalism.

I am capable of honest debate. If you see me using language that is offensive, and I know this is where liberals go completely off kilter, its because I talk to people in their own language. If someone is insulting to me, I respond in kind. But only to a point. There are lines I wont cross no matter how bad someone acts toward me. If someone is disrespectful to me they can expect me to treat them the same way. Its that simple.

And lastly, I found evidence I thought to be at least compelling enough to merit investigation. What I discovered in that investigation is that there are two distinctly opposite sides of the same coin. The simple truth of the matter is neither side can prove anything. At least not at this point. The birthers, of which I can not claim membership, insist that the BC is fake. The liberals insist it is real. Neither side has "proven" anything. The inability of one side to prove their position does not qualify as proof of the other. We can both make that claim if we choose to. I choose not to. So far the liberal side has. As you mentioned several people conducted tests using OCR software and had similar results. Can you accept the fact that similar results, or even identical results, does not prove that the method used to duplicate the results is the same method used to create them initially? Just because I can find a way to duplicate something you create doesn't mean you used the same method I did. And that applies here also. Just because people here can use OCR software and reach a similar result does not mean that is what happened to the original document. It indicates it is possible. Nothing more. Possible and proof are two different things. It is also possible that the document was tampered with. And again, possible and proof are two different things.

I know the odds of an illegal alien being elected to the office of president are slim. But I do live in Chicago and I have seen how corrupt a political system the Chicago democrats are. The same party that gave us Obama, by the way. On another site I suggested once that Obama might have bought his senate seat. The liberals went insane. Even though they knew the then governor of Illinois was caught trying to sell a senate seat a few years later. Does anyone think that's the first time it ever happened? Not around here they don't.

Die hard liberals will always believe whatever the dnc tell them. I tend to be more conservative and after so many years of Chicago democrats its hard for me to take anything they say at face value. As for my political view, I tend to be more conservative but honestly I don't fully support either party. I can only observe the tactics used and the outcomes of their policies and decide from there. Just like anyone else who is willing to look at what is happening with honest eyes, not just automatically dismiss anything that comes from 'the other guys'.

You can believe what you like. As will I. No one has proven anything here except that people get very excited when their political views are challenged. And that is nothing new.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Hefficide

I thought about this and I disagree with you. The onus is not on me. It is on anyone who makes a statement in direct opposition to someone else. I made a statement of my view. Some whiney liberal made a statement in opposition to mine. Why am I the only one who has to prove anything? If he wants to prove me wrong, then prove it. Dont just make an opposing statement and then consider the point conclusive.

This is actually a telling response. Why does the person disagreeing with you have to be called "some whiney liberal"? The cheap shots and name calling do nothing to further the debate and, in fact, tend to undermine the credibility of the person resorting to such mudslinging tactics.

As far as the onus goes - it is upon the one making the claim and not those disputing it. Additionally extreme claims require extreme proofs.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
No one has proven anything here

Actually it has been proven when some people are shown to be wrong from various sources and by several people they refuse to accept it.

As I said before, it is not about any bit of paper Obama shows, it is the fact that he was twice legally elected as Potus.

Obama Derangement Syndrome.
www.thepeoplesview.net...

a reply to: Hefficide

On this thread I have been called: birther (not a friendly term), silly, gullible, hater, neocon, etc. Where was your comment about cheapshots, name calling an mudslinging then? Oh wait, you were the one calling me most of those names.

As far as the onus goes - it is upon the one making the claim and not those disputing it.

You are claiming the BC is real. Prove it. I made a claim. You made a claim. But according to you I am the only one burdened with the responsibility of proof. You want me to see it your way? Prove it and I will. Here is your opportunity to convert a conservative. And please don't embarrass yourself by saying something like, "It doesn't how much proof I show you, you wont believe it." I will believe it if it actually qualifies as proof, not just opinion or the absence of proof of an opposing view.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

In point of fact you made a claim and I disputed said claim - that is not the same as making a claim. But semantics aside I will entertain your request:

Here is the proof, in great detail, that you requested.

Now, are you going to attack or berate the source? My feeling is that you will because it is my feeling that you are engaged in entrenched thinking - blind belief. And in such cases no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway. Here is to hoping that you will at least entertain the concept that you might be misled or mistaken.

a reply to: Hefficide

I believe you are more deeply entrenched in your beliefs than I could ever be. I am always open to other concepts and ideas. Always. But what a lot of people call concepts and ideas, and proof for that matter, is just rhetoric and blind belief.

Conservatives are forever assaulted as blindly believing everything the gop says. Liberals are just as guilty And in my experience, something you have no say in, it appears that liberals are more likely to blindly believe what they are told then conservatives are. That is not a skewed perspective, it is just observation.

When the buses parade through the ghettos taking people to the polls offering them a free ride and a free lunch in exchange for a vote on the dnc party line I cant help but wonder what they are being told. One woman was on the news here in Chicago repeatedly shouting, "Obama's gonna pay my mortgage...Obama's gonna pay my mortgage." Obviously she believed what she was told. When faced with gullibility of that degree one cant help but be suspicious of anyone who rabidly backs the same candidate.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You are mistaken. I cannot stand the current administration, nor the previous one for that matter. And the woman shouting about her mortgage? One idiot does not a culture make.

Having said that, if people are to call the guilty to the carpet to make them accountable - all lies like the Orly Taitz birther nonsense does is muddy the water and help the guilty parties by diluting the information stream and confusing the issues.

a reply to: Hefficide

I think that one idiot makes a fine representation. There are many others to be sure. But they aren't really necessary.