Birthers: We Were Right. The BC is a FRAUD!!! Obama Lovers: Debunk THIS!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Homedawg
Hes a fraud...a creation...someone made to fill a particular place at a particular time to do a paricular job...then he will go away and be taken care of for the rest of his life....

Tell us how you truly feel and please don't hold back!

I just did...thanks

reply to post by Homedawg


You are just reading off the GOP Daily Talking points and have yet to produce an original thought.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
They copied me,not the other way around...Ive known he was a creation since he surfaced in 05....you are the blind,not me....look real close at Taco Bill Klinton nad his roise to the Big Office....notice anything similar?...a virtual unknown,being groomed along,biding his time until he was needed,then BANG....hes Prez....oh yeah...its all planned....

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by imitator

 

Still pushing the Barry Soetoro nonsense aren't we? My, my.

There is no person by the name of Barack Soetoro so your credibility is instantly trashed and shredded.

You pay no attention to Soetoro in the videos, just listen to his grandmother, Obama is from Kenya. That's all you need to know.

As well, if you learn to read I never mention Soetoro... so your reading education instantly trashed and shredded.


Obama sheeple need to watch these videos over and over.

My conclusion: Obama is a fraud!
What more proof do we need, Obama has a fraudulent Birth Certificate, he's from Kenya! According to his grandmother, as well as his half-brother, half-sister and friends, Obama is from Kenya.

His grandmother


His "wife"


His friends




Obama himself


Fraudulent SS# 042-68-4425

Imitator is 100% correct...O is a fraud and a creation...sent to do the job of breaking the Middle Class and, therefore,America....sit back and watch...he is well on the way

This is a lie and a blatant case of disinformation.

Originally posted by Elbereth
DOH is saying what was posted is a "certified copy".

Yeah and read the words on the bottom of the certificate;

I CERTIFY that this is a true copy OR ABTRACT of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health. APRIL 25, 2011

The certificate is a certified ABSTRACT. Do you know what an abstract is? It usually means it is information that was abstracted (removed or separated) from a source. The PDF certificate from the White House is NOT a exact photocopy of the original certificate... it was modified to add security features, and probably modified for clarity in the process by the State Department of Health. The original certificate did NOT have a green patterned security background. They abstracted the information from the certificate in their records via photocopy, and then they modified it to include security features. So it is NOT an exact photocopy, it is an abstract.

Obama must have requested his certificate form the Hawaii Health Department, and then the department photocopied the certificate that is in their records, then digitally added the security features that are required by law, and in the process probably cleaned up some of the text so it is readable (the dates that people think were forged), and then CERTIFIED IT, and then sent it to the White House.

All the digital artifacts that people claim prove forgery were added by the Health Department and certified by the health department..... So what we have is a big useless conspiracy and a bunch of misinformed people claiming it proves fraud.

Originally posted by imitator
You pay no attention to Soetoro in the videos, just listen to his grandmother, Obama is from Kenya. That's all you need to know.

Assuming that’s what she said, you’re telling us you take the word of an African old woman over the word of US officials and certified documents from a state of the union and the Department of State? Is this truly what you believe?

Is this your ‘case’? I’m sure a court will see it that way too.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Once again folks, don't take this stuff at face value as presented on youtube. Do your own research, if you don't understand some bit or another, do more research to fill in the blanks so when you step up to the plate you know of what you speak rather than quickly showing that you bought into more ignorant misinformation.

Honestly, you've got lots of people spreading falsehoods as facts. Why no cries of outing the disinfo agent? Isn't this what disinfo agents do, knowingly spread falsehoods and lies about things like constituitional law?

And how about the sheeple? Aren't they the ones who mindlessly buy into whatever they are told without thinking for themselves. Eagerly buying into "I'm an expert, trust me" because it falls in line with what they are pressured to believe? Oh, the irony...

Parrot, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

Since joining this site and becoming a little bit active in the "conspiracy community", this is something I've found quite humorous. You constantly hear people talking about how you can't take things at face value when you get it from the mainstream media. After all, all the MSM is, they claim, is a puppet show. It's there to churn out propaganda for people to mindlessly process.

And yet, despite this, those same people who harp about that stuff simultaneously read the most unreliable, ridiculous blogs and alternative news websites, and apparently take everything they read at face value.

It's really not a matter of a source being trustworthy/reliable or not. The only barometer for the a respectable source is whether or not it corroborates their ridiculous conspiracy theory.

o.k., if the constitution isn't going to do it for you, how about Obama's OWN mccain resolution, that says an american has to have two american parents in order to be eligible for POTUS?



www.freerepublic.com...

Originally posted by imitator

Obama sheeple need to watch these videos over and over....

Why? Does it get any less hilarious?

His Grandmother - This was an interesting pick on your part. You chose the only vid that was debunked by birther lawyer Philip Berg: citizenwells.wordpress.com... ama-kenyan-birth-affadavit-tape-transcript/

You're *still* embarrasing yourself...

reply to post by userid1



actually IF YOU READ again..... "They believe it's bogus."... they can't prove it's bogus, because it's NOT...

Originally posted by roadtoad
o.k., if the constitution isn't going to do it for you

Your definition is not supported by the Constitution, on the contrary.

how about Obama's OWN mccain resolution, that says an american has to have two american parents in order to be eligible for POTUS?

You, like the rest of the birthers, seem to purposely want to misunderstand that non-binding resolution.

The resolution is simply listing McCain’s circumstances. It also states McCain was born on a military based. Following your twisted interpretation, that means one also needs to be born on a military base to be a natural born citizen.

I know you want to desperately find things to disqualify Obama, but use some common sense.

My respectful suggestion, roadtoad, is to stick to the subject matters you feel comfortable with. The law, clearly, is not one of them.

Originally posted by roadtoad
o.k., if the constitution isn't going to do it for you, how about Obama's OWN mccain resolution, that says an american has to have two american parents in order to be eligible for POTUS?



www.freerepublic.com...

Apples and oranges...

The knock against McCain was that he WASN'T born on US soil according to State Dept. qualifications - Obama WAS. This is why Title 8 section 1401-C of US Code applies to McCain and Title 8 section 1401-A applies to Obama.

The point here is that neither the Constitution, nor US Code, nor a NON-binding Senate resolution can support your argument - but keep trying...

Originally posted by imitator
reply to post by userid1

 

actually IF YOU READ again..... "They believe it's bogus."... they can't prove it's bogus, because it's NOT...

So now you're taking issue with a supporter of your position? Are you related to Newt Gingrich by chance?

Originally posted by userid1

So now you're taking issue with a supporter of your position? Are you related to Newt Gingrich by chance?

NOPE...

I guess you never seen Democrats pose as the TEA Partiers posting racist flyers?

reply to post by imitator


So are you insinuating that Berg is *not* serious about going after Obama - that he's a "plant"

reply to post by kevinrulezdood


Kevin, it sounds as though you know your way around as well if not better than anyone else posting at the moment.

May I ask if you've had the opportunity to examine any of the methodology AshleyD used to base her conclusion that the anomalies we are seeing are due to nothing more nefarious than the way certain functions bundled in Acrobat and illustrator handle the data?

The ATS member in question has not simply addressed all of the concerns in your post that you feel implicated the document as a forgery, she has illustrated point by point a the creation of a basic PDF from scan to spit shine in Acrobat that seem to perfectly match what is being touted by some as undeniable proof of forgery in the White House document.

Furthermore, both AshleyD and the creator of the tutorial she has been using insist these results are easily reproducible as a product of basic acrobat pdf editing tasks.

Being an advanced user/ professional as you say, can you please explain your own methodology in upholding the forgery allegation so those of us with access to the software can compare your results to hers?

Here is the procedural doctrine they have been following to reproduce the results...

The claim is that when you open the Obama certificate in Illustrator like this, you can find elements in the "Links" palette that have a rotation and transform history.

When you click on them you can see that it says this was scaled by 24% and rotated a bit. What's interesting that many of these elements are scaled by 24% exactly. also in the layer palettes you will find there are groups of layers that always consist of an image and a clipping mask.

Supposedly the presence of these elements „proves" that the file must have been forged or manipulated. It is claimed that it is impossible that such elements could be innocently created by some automatic processing in Adobe.

I wanted to find out for myself.

Now here I have a sample birth certificate I scanned on April 27. It's a plain TIFF with no layers, here are the metadata, with the scan date, in a plain text editor.

I will save this in BMP format because BMP really can't store any special information.

Now I will open that in Acrobat and use the "Optimize Scan function"/Note - this has nothing to do with OCR.

I will save the resulting file as a PDF and open in illustrator.

See how in the links palettes, all the interesting stuff like stamps and dates and signatures appears to be an external object.

And what happens when I click on them - there it is, rotation and transform history, and again you have those 24 % all over the place.
I don't get any elements with 90! rotation but that's probably just because of which way you scan the paper, portrait or landscape.

In the layers palette you can see groups of layers with images and clipping masks.

So you can see, anyone who actually tries to understand what is going on, by making an actual experiment, instead of just claiming this or that - you will see that this is a normal effect of the optimize scan function.

If you have a mindset of scientific curiosity, you will try to do an experiment to find out what is going on.

There is a different mindset, that already thinks it knows what's going on from the beginning, and only looks at any information that will fit into that preconception.

Why optimize Scan was programmed that way by Adobe, is another question.

Original video post courtesy of Benevolent Heretic


Not content to stop there, AshleyD goes on to further build what looks to be a solid case that there is nothing more nefarious to the released document than quirky algorithms built into Acrobat.

Here is the link to her conclusions and documentation of her methodology post by AshleyD

There is a lot of talk at the moment but few are supplying anything more than rhetoric to bolster their case.

I know the results on my machine matched both the white house document and AshleyD's results conclusively.

I look forward to hearing an educated explanation for the grand contradiction we are seeing between opposing views.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Hmmm that video link is no good, tried to embed it for you, but didn't work.

reply to post by TKDRL


Ty for the thoughtful gesture, should be fixed now.

On a side note, its nice to see that regardless of individual convictions, we are all friends at the end of the day.