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

reply to post by oneclickaway


Apparently you did not read the definition I provided WITH LINK.

It pertains specifically to FORGED DOCUMENTS and ties to DISINFORMATION and PRESUPPOSITION. It is a form of INFORMAL FALLACY.

It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.

en.wikipedia.org...

Make any sense to ya?



[edit on 5-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Jenna


Yes she could've taken a new picture. But when you compare the 2 images they're in the exact same spot and all the shadows etc. are the same. So for 100% it's the same image, just edited.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I didn't necessarily mean take a new picture, I meant upload a new copy to her desktop from a disc or flash drive. Not that I can come up with a good enough reason why she would need to unless she deleted it off her hard drive already. Even that wouldn't really make sense to me though.

That doesn't compress images either. Also when it says 'edited' in exif it's been opened with something. In this case Photoshop.

Originally posted by Jenna
Not really. She didn't make the claim, so she's not liable. People who jumped the gun and automatically believed it's the real deal without waiting for authentication are to blame if anyone is.

Let me insure I am clear with your defense of her.

She provided "evidence" as a basis for a lawsuit. This "evidence" admittedly was not authenticated. If the "evidence" is proven to be true, the case would most likely proceed.
If proven untrue, the case does not proceed but has raised a air of doubt.

It is all of us, here on ATS and on both sides of the political blogosphere who are to blame?

If I have framed your argument correctly, I stand by my original assertion. She is culpable. She is a willing participant. A shill, or agent provocateur if you prefer.

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

And this is where your theory falls apart, because the Australian Birth Certificate has been on line since 2006.

If that were the case it was faked in 2006 then. Maybe they were psychic.

As I had posted before, WHO IS search revealed the Bomford site was launched in 2005:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7f45b9acef3.jpg[/atsimg]

(Address info redacted by me for T&C compliance.)


[edit on 5-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious

Let me insure I am clear with your defense of her.

She provided "evidence" as a basis for a lawsuit. This "evidence" admittedly was not authenticated. If the "evidence" is proven to be true, the case would most likely proceed.
If proven untrue, the case does not proceed but has raised a air of doubt.

It is all of us, here on ATS and on both sides of the political blogosphere who are to blame?

If I have framed your argument correctly, I stand by my original assertion. She is culpable. She is a willing participant. A shill, or agent provocateur if you prefer.

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.

So what evidence do you have that she is a shill? Who is she enthusiastically encouraging? Who is she affilliated to? What con is she perpetrating? The woman believes, as far as any of us know, that fraud and illegality have been committed and she has found or been given possible evidence that she wishes to have authenticated to support her case.
If you have some evidence that it is something more sinister then please do share.

reply to post by kinda kurious


orly taitz was not the first one to raise the issue of obama's eligibility. that was philip berg who was a hillary supporter and believed that obama was ineligible to be president and if the democratic party nominated him, he (berg) would be deprived of a valid candidate representing his party. he believed the republicans would raise these issues. he was the one who went in and asked questions to discover that there is no vetting process done by the fbi or state department or anybody of potential candidates. you can read it in the original lawsuit. so if anybody is a shill and culpable, you better start accusing him. why have you hit upon orly taitz as the villain in this piece?

Here is an excellent example of why we should question every thing we see on the net:



kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com...

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Here is an excellent example of why we should question every thing we see on the net:



kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com...

lol well thats interesting. That kinda proves that the aussie one could have been hack of the kenya one tho does it not? The Kenya one was viral *way* before the aussie one. I get your point tho. Interesting any way you look at it.




[edit on 5-8-2009 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by earlywatcher

Interestingly, Berg later went back on his claims that Obama was born outside the States, and started claiming that he was just trying to conceal the fact that he was the son of Frank Marshall Davis.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

She provided "evidence" as a basis for a lawsuit. This "evidence" admittedly was not authenticated. If the "evidence" is proven to be true, the case would most likely proceed.
If proven untrue, the case does not proceed but has raised a air of doubt.

I don't believe it has raised any doubt that wasn't already present. This isn't something new that Taitz has started, it began before the elections. Taitz cannot take the blame for something she didn't start.

It is all of us, here on ATS and on both sides of the political blogosphere who are to blame?

Did you jump on this alleged BC as though it was real right off the bat without waiting for authentication? I don't recall you doing so. I can recall perhaps three posts that did so, but out of the 99 pages so far most have understood that this document hasn't been authenticated yet and cannot be claimed as definitive proof. So yes, any who jumped on this as 100% proof and spread it around that it was such without awaiting authentication do bare some blame for doing so.

People are responsible for their own actions. Taitz motion makes it clear that she doesn't know if it's authentic or not. Any who assume otherwise before it's been authenticated obviously haven't done any research on it and are responsible for their own lack of research and willingness to believe something as fact without checking into it.

If I have framed your argument correctly, I stand by my original assertion. She is culpable. She is a willing participant. A shill, or agent provocateur if you prefer.

She isn't selling anything, she filed a motion. I've seen no proof or claims that she has pretended no association with a seller/group. She hasn't assumed the air of an enthusiastic customer. Nor has she encouraged others to purchase anything or support any claims. So I guess that shoots down the shill label.

What she has done, is file a motion requesting that a document be authenticated. That is no different than any other lawyer in any other court case with a document that needs to be verified before it is used in the case. So I truly don't understand how she can be blamed for something she didn't start and hasn't tried to pass off as 100% unadulterated truth.

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Here is an excellent example of why we should question every thing we see on the net:



kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com...

lol well thats interesting. That kinda proves that the aussie one could have been hack of the kenya one tho does it not? The Kenya one was viral *way* before the aussie one.

Well except for the fact that the Aussie one BELONGS TO SOMEONE!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Here is an excellent example of why we should question every thing we see on the net:



kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com...

lol well thats interesting. That kinda proves that the aussie one could have been hack of the kenya one tho does it not? The Kenya one was viral *way* before the aussie one.

Well except for the fact that the Aussie one BELONGS TO SOMEONE!

Right! It always has! Question is, was it hacked? It's good to remain objective in either case.

reply to post by Disinfo Agent


really? i haven't followed up on berg after the first few times he was denied standing. his entire case was based on the slight possibility obama was born elsewhere, the problems with his parents ability to grant him "natural born" status, the adoption in indonesia and giving up of citizenship and later travel to pakistan on that indonesian passport. there was nothing in the original case about obama's father being anybody other than obama senior. maybe later he was so relieved to have a democrat for pres he wanted to take it all back, but the case itself was the first one to raise the eligibility issue. orly taitz came later, built on berg's case and tried to figure out to get "standing" which is how the came to start using military people military people might have "standing". If the courts had been willing to do their job of clarifying this issue months ago, we wouldn't be in this situation now.

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Here is an excellent example of why we should question every thing we see on the net:



kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com...

lol well thats interesting. That kinda proves that the aussie one could have been hack of the kenya one tho does it not? The Kenya one was viral *way* before the aussie one.

Well except for the fact that the Aussie one BELONGS TO SOMEONE!

Right! It always has! Question is, was it hacked?

It's good to remain objective in either case.

What do you mean was it hacked?

The BC from Australia belongs to someone, as-is. In what way could it be hacked?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You're right, wrong choice of words there! I regress. I think the only argument left on the new BC is that perhaps the template was found in a haystack not-so-full of needles to discredit the Kenya one. I see the argument has progressed to this: A biased individual posted the BC and that makes it shady. The argument that there are some inconsistencies concerning some features in that BC make it close but not exact to the kenya BC. The fact of the same page numbers etc are the same show some curious signs that the Kenya one might be false. I think the Kenya BC is a hoax. However, if there is more evidence of the opposite, I will be open to hearing the arguments. One thing that could solve this for sure are 2 things: A Kenya BC from the same exact province/district? In 1964 to show the differences AND/OR Obamas full BC shown to the public to end the debate once and for all.


*edit* bad wording corrections



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Wookiep]

reply to post by Jenna


I don't see how her legal action will succeed.

A US court can't compel the Kenyan embassy to do anything, diplomatic immunity etc. They might be able to force the US Government to make inquiries ... but if the Kenyans don't play ball (hardly surprising considering the hoo haa of the last few days) then the certificate cannot be authenticated.

And where would that leave the issue ? Allegations of a US & Kenyan government cover up etc etc.

Which is perhaps all Orly wished to achieve ?

MY ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION:
THE KENYAN BC AND THE AUSTRALIAN BC ARE BOTH FAKE!

I have been following discussions about these two alleged birth certificates on several boards for days now. It is very sad, because people seem to have lost common sense.

1. No registry book will ever have 5733 pages. Just imagine a book with that many pages, it would be grotesquely thick. A registry book will have to be handled, opened, written into, closed and put back for each manual entry. Imagine doing that for 5733 pages, it would be totally worn before even reaching page 1000. The largest books i have are

Here's a funny way to make your own version if you want to:

Kenyan birthcertificate generator

*warning making these could lead to a bunch of delusional birthers believing the one you made is in fact "real"