Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I uploaded the picture to our server and alerted several members who were active in the Obama legitimacy debate... FlyersFan was the first to post.

Were members on "both" sides of the debate sent this?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by beebs
Would you happen to know how this document came about? or who found it?

Yes. But I can't say unless the source tells me I can. Sorry.
But that's all I can say at this point. Take it or leave it.

Were the members “instructed” NOT to reveal source?

I am kinda kurious.

In case I mysteriously disappear, it has been nice knowing you all.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Right ... this is where I get myself in trouble ...

This is what I stated 3 days ago:

And to the ATS brain trust ... congratulations on allowing this community to be one of the last in the world to declare this jackassery a hoax. To this moment the obvious "hedging" of our official position on this matter is not characteristic of the clear thinking, sound decision-making, and dignity I am either used to, or have come to expect from ATS hierarchy ... proud days indeed.

My apologies SO if I sound harsh, I am aware that these are not easy decisions to make, and I am also aware that the above statement will win me no friends, but it is what it is.

And in the meantime, two other threads on the same topic have thrived:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

An Above Politics show was all but dedicated to the topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And last but not least, this abomination (pun intended):

Barack Obama: A Question Of Eligibility (video) created by:

WND Editor Joseph Farah has produced the first major DVD documentary on the critical issues surrounding the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president

www.wnd.com...

When we know for a fact that Mr. Corsi (WND) is a known bigot with an gigantic Obama axe to grind.

Finally, when ATS is the last internet outlet to declare this document a hoax, AFTER WND themselves have come to that conclusion, this thread gets the smallest (hoax) tag ever and is the only such one to my knowledge that doesn't get to reside in the HOAX forum.

Perhaps some/all these decisions can be viewed in isolation and make individual sense, but in regards to this ...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

I wanted to ensure that we (ATS staff/owners) were far outside this debate, and leave it up to our members to work out the issues related to the photographed "document."

... such ambition, was in my and the eyes of many simply not achieved.

Again, nothing I have described above is really debatable other than my last statement. It is simply the denouement of the situation as it evolved.

And I reiterate, that none of the above is meant as a personal indictment or accusation ... as I said in my other post, I realize that in the fluidity of the situation things aren't as clear cut as they undoubtably are as I sit here Monday morning quarterbacking. Nevertheless, an honest look and assessment of the situation by all parties after the dust has settled is surely required and expected.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Well, if it is now a proven hoax as the thread title implies, isn't there a dedicated forum where this thread belongs?

The [HOAX] forum is a dedicated location for topics that are indeed a full-out hoax... but I'm not convinced that's the best location for this particular topic... where the hoax may likely be part of a larger conspiracy.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It should have had a HOAX watermark.

I'll see what I can do about applying a watermark that signifies it's been proven as a hoax. However, you should be aware that the CDN system that delivers our images relies on "content caching," so the watermark may not appear for anyone who has already seen the image.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
The birth issues are irrelevant, and a mass distraction and deflection from far more serious issues. You all are playing their game perfectly.

The number of pro-Bush posters who had that exact same sentiment regarding the National Guard issues were just as numerous (if not more so) than those who have your point of view regarding Obama's potential "natural born" designation. Similar skepticism, different target.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Were members on "both" sides of the debate sent this?

I sought out those who were active in the "natural born" discussions, who were also long-time members. I'm not sure it ended up representing a balanced perspective.

Were the members “instructed” NOT to reveal source?

Yes... or at least until I could ascertain more details on my own... which I didn't, which is why I posted as I did.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Finally, when ATS is the last internet outlet to declare this document a hoax...

Our response-time is often dictated by other factors... but respond we do.

And even still... I'm not sure "hoax" is the proper designation. Perhaps "malicious prank," "bad joke," "political hack-job," or "divisive fraud" are more accurate. In any event, it's clear that the ruse was an intended political statement of some type... which is very-much a completely different animal than any fabricated UFO video or photo.

I thought ATS did a fine job of putting this info out there. They didn't seem to be swaying one way or the other to me. They probably contacted a few people who they knew had been involved and would post about it. I don't see anything wrong with that. No matter what they did, some members wouldn't like it.

I feel pretty good about it because once again, the members of ATS used their resources to root out Yet Another Debunked Obama Myth (henceforth to be known as a "YADOM").

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Were members on "both" sides of the debate sent this?

I sought out those who were active in the "natural born" discussions, who were also long-time members. I'm not sure it ended up representing a balanced perspective.

"Interesting" response.With all due respect, I smell...................
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eca83ae33a73.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I think if anything the wish-wash attitude of the site and the amount of stars and flags this has and continued to receive even after it was labelled [HOAX], then [LIKELY FORGERY], then (hoax) shows how vocal minorities can use the art of persuasion and deflection to perpetrate fraudulent claims to meet their agenda. In the course of this "conspiracy", I think I've seen every semantic method known to man used in order to circumvent the obvious truth in order to further the goal of ousting Obama from office.

It's just unfortunate that ATS continues to prop the conspiracy up with articles laced with falsehoods (like the one Alex Jones released several months ago), and now with this eligibility video from a source that has proven time and time again to be nothing but a biased source of propaganda.

What's interesting me to is that all of the "official" releases clearly state that ATS is trying to be balanced and not take sides, but I have yet to see one single piece of media or article reflecting the views of the other side of the argument.

It makes me wonder if ATS is really looking for the truth, or if they're trying to drive traffic to the site through "shock value" and sensationalism.

After all, owners of LLCs aren't paid on payroll...they're paid directly through disbursements of the company's profits. More views > more revenue > greater monthly disbursements of profit.

Alright, I'm taking the tin foil hat off, now.

ETA: Thanks for addressing the post's SO.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Avenginggecko]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
"Interesting" response.With all due respect, I smell...................

ATS is a social content community where "conspiracy theories" are one of the primary areas of topical focus. If you're unable to tolerate a valid contemporary conspiracy theory while participating in ATS discussions... then there's very little I can do that would satisfy you.

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I think if anything the wish-wash attitude of the site and the amount of stars and flags this has and continued to receive even after it was labelled [HOAX], then [LIKELY FORGERY], then (hoax) shows how vocal minorities can use the art of persuasion and deflection to perpetrate fraudulent claims to meet their agenda. In the course of this "conspiracy", I think I've seen every semantic method known to man used in order to circumvent the obvious truth in order to further the goal of ousting Obama from office.

It's just unfortunate that ATS continues to prop the conspiracy up with articles laced with falsehoods (like the one Alex Jones released several months ago), and now with this eligibility video from a source that has proven time and time again to be nothing but a biased source of propaganda.

What's interesting me to is that all of the "official" releases clearly state that ATS is trying to be balanced and not take sides, but I have yet to see one single piece of media or article reflecting the views of the other side of the argument.

It makes me wonder if ATS is really looking for the truth, or if they're trying to drive traffic to the site through "shock value" and sensationalism.

Quoted for agreement. I don't agree about the other profit part. EVERYONE should be entitled to make a buck. (Especially for innovation, which this site generally maintains.) I starred your post for courage.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Yeah, "President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a Natural Born Citizen" is hardly a conspiracy theory. Although if his long form certificate were to be released anonymously to Bill, I'm pretty sure he'd make sure it got on the board somehow.

Understand that all the Bush/Cheney/Palin conspiracy theories were explored here, too. THAT is the other side of this particular argument.

It's not about being balanced and exploring both sides of an argument, it's about exploring the conspiracies that are out there about those in power.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Ah, I was just adding a little conspiratorial spin of my own. I don't think it's off limits.

No ominous U2U as of yet!

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
...I think I've seen every semantic method known to man used in order to circumvent the obvious truth in order to further the goal of ousting Obama from office.

Is it any different than the attitude toward Bush just one or two years ago?

...and now with this eligibility video from a source that has proven time and time again to be nothing but a biased source of propaganda.

If you can locate a quality counter-point video or article for which we can obtain the rights or permission to use, I'll gladly post it and give the same level of awareness as the current video.

What's interesting me to is that all of the "official" releases clearly state that ATS is trying to be balanced and not take sides, but I have yet to see one single piece of media or article reflecting the views of the other side of the argument.

There has been no official "side" taken at any point. Can you point me to where you believe such a thing happened?

It makes me wonder if ATS is really looking for the truth, or if they're trying to drive traffic to the site through "shock value" and sensationalism.

During the past five days, this thread was the 13th (odd that) most-popular thread on ATS... certainly not a traffic-driver as you seem to assume. Of the 12 threads getting more traffic, 9 covered UFO-related topics. This particular thread attracted traffic from far more members than visitors, which is just the opposite of any other typical topic on ATS.

After all, owners of LLCs aren't paid on payroll...they're paid directly through disbursements of the company's profits. More views > more revenue > greater monthly disbursements of profit.

LLC structures and financial arrangements are whatever the charter specifies, and clearly you're unfamiliar with ours and are only making assumptions.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah, "President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a Natural Born Citizen" is hardly a conspiracy theory.

It most certainly is!

First, there is a fair amount of vagueness associated with the ability for anyone to obtain birth credentials in Hawaii at that time to sow sufficient seeds of doubt. I'm not saying I believe those particular avenues, only that enough doubt exists to fuel skepticism.

Second, the veracity with which the "right wing" media picked up what was once a "fringe" conspiracy theory is, in itself, a rather compelling conspiracy theory. Birth or "natural born" issues aside... the right wing media vilified birth-conspiracies just one year ago, and now seems unable to get enough of it.

Third, there is enough "rumor" and innuendo "in the wild" to speculate that these conspiracies (and even the document inspiring this thread) originated via covert operations of the ideological left to perpetuate unproductive distractions and continue the divisive left-v-right rhetoric that deflects real attention away from real issues.

There... three short paragraphs that clearly define three very-viable foundations for conspiracy theories related to the "natural born" issue.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Is it any different than the attitude toward Bush just one or two years ago?

Well, one or two years ago what were the issues with Bush? Leading the country to near financial ruin? "Illegal" wars for WMDs that don't exist? Shady circumstances for the largest domestic terror attack against US soil?

All of which carried a much heavier cost and weight than this widely discredited conspiracy. I will admit that "widely discredited" doesn't mean untrue, especially for this site. We are anti-mainstream, after all.

If you can locate a quality counter-point video or article for which we can obtain the rights or permission to use, I'll gladly post it and give the same level of awareness as the current video.

I'll work on that, thanks for your help in the situation, and I appreciate it.

There has been no official "side" taken at any point. Can you point me to where you believe such a thing happened?

I agree. I stated the ATS official position is to not take one certain side/point of view. What I'm saying (and what I believe you have addressed) is that ATS has yet to post any counter evidence to the issue, which can make it seem like it is.

During the past five days, this thread was the 13th (odd that) most-popular thread on ATS... certainly not a traffic-driver as you seem to assume. Of the 12 threads getting more traffic, 9 covered UFO-related topics. This particular thread attracted traffic from far more members than visitors, which is just the opposite of any other typical topic on ATS.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was merely trying to inject some conspiratorial spin on the matter, as is the point of the site. Thanks again for not banning for the opinion!

LLC structures and financial arrangements are whatever the charter specifies, and clearly you're unfamiliar with ours and are only making assumptions.

You're right, as I said, I was just trying to add some conspiratorial spin to the matter, and since most LLC member managers pay themselves through disbursements and not through payroll so they don't pay double taxes, I just did a little creative thinking.

However, to really be able to put the issue to rest, we as members of ATS have a vested interest in ensuring the non-bias of the site. We'll need to see scanned copies of the charters and payroll stubs proving this to be true. I'd also like some independent verification of the matter. Otherwise how do we know!

Totally kidding on the above, just using some of the birth conspiracy logic. Kind of silly, huh?

Thanks for the replies.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
On the evening of August 1st, I received an email to my personal "Above Network" email account that contained the attached photo I uploaded to our media server. The body of the email contained only this message: "Hi. you probably know me but i need to send this anon. this was sent to me by someone claiming to be close to a foreign investigation of obama. i don't know if its real but i figure your members could find out."

The email was sent via an anonymized web mail service, with no follow-up responses to my questions as to the source.

Strange...

I was very surprised to learn this originated within ATS staff.

Many questions..

I remember in the past with threads where someone claims to work at Area 51 or some other government facility or office...The ATS staff would REQUIRE some form of authentication privately or they would SHUT DOWN the thread. "Please U2 the Mod with proof you are who you say you are" etc.

Here ATS Policy seems just the opposite? An intentionally anonymous email is received and ATS forwards it demanding anonimity (again) to those within the birther movement...Please note this is precisely how this information is spread unquestioned throughout partisan websites.

Whereupon FLYERS GAVE THE SPECIFIC IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS AN IDENTIFIABLE SOURCE SHE WAS IN CONTACT WITH...and ATS Staff failed to dispel the notion despite clearly knowing better....

My question is...Why wouldn't ATS staff post a thread presenting the evidence neutrally for debate and explain the context in which it was received?

In the PAST ATS went out of it's way to discern the credibility of a source or shut down a thread ...and NOW ATS seems to have actually went out of it's way to propagate UNSOURCED and HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE material

Why not simply present the "evidence" received neutrally, up for discussion?? Rather than hand to an individual who has clearly shown complete lack of objectivity within the debate?

I might accept the answer that ATS doesn't post evidence in the "birther" debate, but rather has a policy to hand it over to members...but did ATS just post a thread with that video questioning Obama's legitimacy?

....the birther debate represents money these days, Corsi, Taitz and crew have "donate" tags all over multiple websites they own.

I will not be so crass as to outright claim the difference between the PAST and PRESENT is that ATS is now a for profit entity, but it begs the question.

Confused and disappointed....and hopefully not soon to be banned.





[edit on 7-8-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Third, there is enough "rumor" and innuendo "in the wild" to speculate that these conspiracies (and even the document inspiring this thread) originated via covert operations of the ideological left to perpetuate unproductive distractions and continue the divisive left-v-right rhetoric that deflects real attention away from real issues.

With all due respect, it can always be said that there is 'enough rumor and innuendo in the wild'. There is also substantial indication suggesting that this was merely done for 'lulz'. Meaning that the entire issue is a joke and a self fulfilling prophecy when considering 'partisan conspiracies intended to distract'.

Indeed, one would wonder, if one comprehends the idea that a particular issue is intended to distract away from the real issues then would one be irresponsible if one continued being distracted?

Perhaps. In my opinion, there are only two saving graces this issue has are the really interesting sociological interactions that have resulted and the indications they give towards national polarities and naiveties. But we already knew that .

The second is how an internet conspiracy/issue was picked up by the mainstream, suggesting that internet chatter is no longer stand alone and that the world is paying ever more attention to the internet as a source for news and interpretive analysis (even if the concept of objectivity is worn out beyond reasonable means). The internet is starting to come into its' own and while in this case it perpetuated a topic, in my opinion, that is on par with world news weekly, it is a universal communicative tool that is starting to be treated as such.

Good Times.

Hmm.

To those criticising ATS "management" here for putting the image out there in the public domain - question - who ran with this?

Who has been on mainstream news arguing the case for this?

The debate over the legitimacy (or not) of the document would be happening regardless of whether ATS hosted the images it received.

The BC "on trial" here is nothing to do with ATS. Orly Taitz made her own bed with this one.

ATS facilitated the discussion. Thats what discussion boards do.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It most certainly is!

So, you think Obama being born in Hawaii could be part of a cover-up, perpetrated by Machiavellian conspirators or something? You think it's possible that 50 years ago, someone wanted to destroy America from the inside, using a foreigner, so they devised a plan to make it look like this baby was born in the US, and had the foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii papers so that when he could grow up, he (hopefully) could become president and carry out their evil plot?

Jon Stewart says it best in "The Born Identity". About 5:30 on the video.

I agree that "the natural born issue" is a conspiracy theory (That Obama was born in Kenya) . But I don't think something that 89% of Americans believe (that he was born in the US) can be considered a conspiracy theory. For that to have any merit, a 50 year plot would have had to take place and everything would have to fall into place.

But then again, probably 89% of people believe that the government had nothing to do with 9/11, and that's a conspiracy theory, so I've talked myself into agreeing with you! It COULD be an evil plot.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

So, you think Obama being born in Hawaii could be part of a cover-up, perpetrated by Machiavellian conspirators or something? You think it's possible that 50 years ago, someone wanted to destroy America from the inside, using a foreigner, so they devised a plan to make it look like this baby was born in the US, and had the foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii papers so that when he could grow up, he (hopefully) could become president and carry out their evil plot?

That assumes that Obama would be in on it if there were such a plan. It's equally possible, if there is any truth to the claim he was born elsewhere, that he had no idea he wasn't born in Hawaii. We only know where we're born because of our parents telling us, and later on seeing our own BC's. To me it's not outside the realm of possibility that Obama grew up being told he was born in Hawaii when he wasn't. If there is any truth to the claims, he could be completely innocent of any wrong-doing. And as has been pointed out in several other threads, a birth announcement in the paper doesn't really mean much as far as where the baby was born unless it specifically states where, which Obama's did not.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
and had the foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii papers so that when he could grow up, he (hopefully) could become president and carry out their evil plot?

I'll say this once more since it doesn't seem to register for the most part.

When my daughter was born, we had birth announcements in my hometown in Florida, here locally in TN, and in my wife's hometown in PA. I don't understand how a birth announcement makes one bit of difference.

And if it does, explain why the address on the birth announcement does not match any of Obama's mother's addresses, nor any of their relatives there at the time.

I know if my child was born in a way to exclude her from U.S. citizenship I would do WHATEVER it takes to get her included.
[edit on 7-8-2009 by KnoxMSP]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by KnoxMSP]

Though I was honest with my assessment of the situation as it evolved on the part of ATS hierarchy over the last few days, I would caution everyone not to jump to conclusions as to causality ...

It is my experience through the course of my membership here that accusations of topic promotion for traffic/profit and/or of political bias have always been misplaced and not reflective of the overall management of the site.

If anything, if I had to venture a guess, it is perhaps this same penchant for neutrality that in this case might have led to an unconvincing response to this thread/topic.

That is to say that, like many of us, SO and the rest of the staff probably had the same sense and suspicions about the questionable nature of both the source and the document itself. As a result, and in retrospect, perhaps declaring this document a hoax a little too hastily. You can imagine the blowback that that precipitated, SO must have been inundated with U2Us questioning the decision and accusing him of bias. Once that wheel was set in motion and the hoax tag retracted, the natural proclivity would have been to err on the other side, thus resulting in what many of us now perceive as an imbalanced stance from ownership.

All of this of course is merely a guess and hindsight is 20/20, if I am somewhat correct, then it all makes sense and is understandable, and does not merit the accusations of bias or topic pimping for profit.

Except for one thing ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I just can't see the merits of embedding that video into ATS media from either an owner's or a member's point of view. But that is not my decision to make and I am not privy to such discussions or the long term vision SO/Springer/admin have for this community. But I do possess a fundamental belief that they are always acting with goodwill and earnestness.

As such and as always, though I might in this case disagree with them, I just choose to trust them.