'The Obama code': Hidden message in birth doc?: [ATS & Boon-dock Saint in report]!

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by anon72

User "boondock-saint" posted on AboveTopSecret.com an interactive version that flashes between the short-form and a brown version of the long-form birth certificate, demonstrating how text from the short-form appears to be bleeding through. The word "VOID" also appears behind the long-form:

I think I was the one that produced the version that flashes between the short form and brown version of the long form here. And my whole point was debunking the nonsense boondock-saint "found." Great reporting, WND.

edit on 21-5-2011 by nataylor because: tags

Yes, u r correct. U did create the animated gif
and thank you for doing so. However, it did
not have the effect you intended, it made the
case for forgery even more prevalent.
But I thank you and credit you for making the
gif. However, the gif did not discover the bleed
through, it just helped hone what was found
underneath after the discovery. So thank you

reply to post by Antiquated1

I never claimed to be a computer expert.
So I do not think Corsi was talking about
me. I think he had his own computer
gurus examine what I found and they
concurred with my findings. Then he just
credited me and ATS with the discovery
since ATS is where this originated from.

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks
Can someone please explain how the word "void" would logically appear following these words:
"...TOWN OR LOCATION OF" or "...TOWN OR LOCATION OR" ?
as appears on the blue enhanced copy of the certificate

I might be able to help explain that.
To me it would appear the typed text
on the bleed through and the handwritten
text are in 2 different colored markings.
Therefore, using the same color enhancement
might not bring both sets of text to the forefront.
You would need one color enhancement to
bring the typed text to light. Then another
different enhancement to bring the hand written
text to light. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Both are fruit, but are different colors.
the typed text probably was black and the hand
written text probably was blue ink or even pencil
which is why it needed a different color enhancement
to bring it out.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
So glad to see Boondock's hard work and creative, inquistive genius validated. His thread was an astounding and remarkable discovery.

I am seriously losing faith that there are any honest people on ATS behind this birther movement. I am not asking anyone to say Obama is Hawaiian but at least be honest about the details.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by anon72

User "boondock-saint" posted on AboveTopSecret.com an interactive version that flashes between the short-form and a brown version of the long-form birth certificate, demonstrating how text from the short-form appears to be bleeding through. The word "VOID" also appears behind the long-form:

I think I was the one that produced the version that flashes between the short form and brown version of the long form here. And my whole point was debunking the nonsense boondock-saint "found." Great reporting, WND.

edit on 21-5-2011 by nataylor because: tags

How is this being overlooked by anyone that read that thread?
How is the fact that in that thread, BDS was completely proven wrong by the end of it.

Really. I am not looking for a fight with anyone over this topic but this thread is a sick display of what looks to me like people just doing their best to pretend a given narrative is true in the face of all contradictory evidence. I mean, the post I referenced is so easy to check out. No one can cop to even this stuff?

My whole faith in ATS and denying ignorance is just about shattered already.

I concur. This is a shameless display of conceptual theft. Though omitting to tell truth isn't by definition a lie, in effect it's the very same.

I remember the thread clearly. The animated gif was presented AGAINST boondock's claims. It's my opinion that Boondock should in no way be credited for focus of the OP's article.

It's bad enough that the author of the article got it wrong; it's even worse to see ATS members erroneously congratulate boondock.

ATS is in very murky waters in my opinion.

Barry Soetoro was a British subject working for the Queen of England as a spy in Pakistan. We have a Treaty with England and create backgrounds for spies to cover for when they were gone, new backgrounds.

Barack Obama was a British Spy just given a background to settle down in America. Hence why nobody at that college ever saw him there and hence why he has a Connecticut Social Security number.

He's protected by a Treaty.....but clearly he's not eligible to be President of the United States due to the Constitution. Also explains his hatred for the Supreme Court Justices...they were going to call him out on it.

But he's got power now to trump the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
This is a shameless display of conceptual theft. Though omitting to tell truth isn't by definition a lie, in effect it's the very same.
I remember the thread clearly. The animated gif was presented AGAINST boondock's claims. It's my opinion that Boondock should in no way be credited for focus of the OP's article.
It's bad enough that the author of the article got it wrong; it's even worse to see ATS members erroneously congratulate boondock.
ATS is in very murky waters in my opinion.

2 things to note:

BDS did in fact was the first to find the bleed through.
I have already asked anybody to show me evidence
where it was discovered before the creation of my thread
on April 28, 2011 at 12:13 am. NONE have surfaced
to counter that claim.

And Corsi never claimed BDS was the computer expert.
Even though he did cite computer experts examined
it, he did NOT say they came from ATS per se.
Even I do not admit that. But he did credit me for the
discovery in which case he would be correct. I was
the first to notice the bleed through and to deny it
is insulting.

The only thing I can see that Corsi got wrong was
he credited BDS for the animated gif. That came
from nataylor who was trying to disprove BDS
but it backfired.

So the only retraction I see necessary would
be credit nataylor for creating the animated
gif. Though he probably does not want the
credit since he was trying to disprove my
findings.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
This is a shameless display of conceptual theft. Though omitting to tell truth isn't by definition a lie, in effect it's the very same.
I remember the thread clearly. The animated gif was presented AGAINST boondock's claims. It's my opinion that Boondock should in no way be credited for focus of the OP's article.
It's bad enough that the author of the article got it wrong; it's even worse to see ATS members erroneously congratulate boondock.
ATS is in very murky waters in my opinion.

That came
from nataylor who was trying to disprove BDS
but it backfired.

Where did it backfire? You haven't uncovered anything, nice work and all, but you guys are still grasping at straws. When the copies were made, the long and short form were put in the scanner together.

The conspiracy of the white house copy machine.

Why do you guys want something to be wrong with the BC?

Originally posted by adeclerk
Where did it backfire?

It backfired when the other handwritten text
bleed through just as the typed text did.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by adeclerk
Where did it backfire?

It backfired when the other handwritten text
bleed through just as the typed text did.

But, it showed nothing anomalous, am I correct? Seems that all you guys are seeing is what you want to see.

Again, why do you want something to be wrong with the BC?

I am finally convinced...that even if the birth certificate IS a fraud, and given everything else we know about Obama, it probably is, and given the "mercurial" nature of the "evidence," technically, as a digital document, as well as legally, there is no way a case against Obama can be made that will, one, satisfy the skeptics, two, convince the undecideds, and three, sway a majority of Supreme Court justices. The controversy over the birth certificate, although legitimate, and fascinating in its own right, will never be anything more than a footnote when the true story of Obama is finally written.

My advice is to concentrate on something not quite as "sexy" as birth certificates and nationality, and focus on the Social Security Number anomaly. According to this guy (www.youtube.com...), there's enough "mundane" dirt to dig up related to Obama's SSN to put him away on federal charges for a long, long time.

Sort of like going after Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Originally posted by Pervius
Barry Soetoro was a British subject working for the Queen of England as a spy in Pakistan. We have a Treaty with England and create backgrounds for spies to cover for when they were gone, new backgrounds.

Barack Obama was a British Spy just given a background to settle down in America. Hence why nobody at that college ever saw him there and hence why he has a Connecticut Social Security number.

He's protected by a Treaty.....but clearly he's not eligible to be President of the United States due to the Constitution. Also explains his hatred for the Supreme Court Justices...they were going to call him out on it.

But he's got power now to trump the Supreme Court.

None of this has any basis in fact. Here is an essay Obama wrote while at Columbia, it was in the school paper. Here is an article debunking the rest of your claims.

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
I am finally convinced...that even if the birth certificate IS a fraud, and given everything else we know about Obama, it probably is, and given the "mercurial" nature of the "evidence," technically, as a digital document, as well as legally, there is no way a case against Obama can be made that will, one, satisfy the skeptics, two, convince the undecideds, and three, sway a majority of Supreme Court justices. The controversy over the birth certificate, although legitimate, and fascinating in its own right, will never be anything more than a footnote when the true story of Obama is finally written.

My advice is to concentrate on something not quite as "sexy" as birth certificates and nationality, and focus on the Social Security Number anomaly. According to this guy (www.youtube.com...), there's enough "mundane" dirt to dig up related to Obama's SSN to put him away on federal charges for a long, long time.

Sort of like going after Al Capone for income tax evasion.

A youtube video from "birtherreport", a website with an agenda. Surely you could find some unbiased evidence that is true, if there is in fact a problem with the BC or SSN?

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
I am finally convinced...that even if the birth certificate IS a fraud, and given everything else we know about Obama, it probably is, and given the "mercurial" nature of the "evidence," technically, as a digital document, as well as legally, there is no way a case against Obama can be made that will, one, satisfy the skeptics, two, convince the undecideds, and three, sway a majority of Supreme Court justices. The controversy over the birth certificate, although legitimate, and fascinating in its own right, will never be anything more than a footnote when the true story of Obama is finally written.

My advice is to concentrate on something not quite as "sexy" as birth certificates and nationality, and focus on the Social Security Number anomaly. According to this guy (www.youtube.com...), there's enough "mundane" dirt to dig up related to Obama's SSN to put him away on federal charges for a long, long time.

Sort of like going after Al Capone for income tax evasion.

A youtube video from "birtherreport", a website with an agenda. Surely you could find some unbiased evidence that is true, if there is in fact a problem with the BC or SSN?

Unbiased evidence that's true? As opposed to biased evidence that's false? Evidence is evidence. Evidence isn't "biased." The source may be biased, but facts are facts. And just because a source is biased, or unbiased, it doesn't automatically follow that the evidence is true or false. "Biased" sources (aren't they all?) could conceivably report "true" news. Unbiased sources (whatever that is) could conceivably report "false" news. Just because evidence favors a "biased" agenda, it doesn't make it false. Doesn't make it true, either.

Another glaring logical fallacy is the notion that information damaging to Obama could be found anywhere other than from a "biased" source. Help us out. Give us an example of an "unbiased" source you'd believe.

Personally, I think you have a lot of nerve. You are basically accusing the witness, the debt collector, of being a liar. That, or the entire interview was staged. For no other reason than to make Obama "look" bad.

Truth is, most of us DO have better things to do. I assume that goes for you, too. We're concerned because it appears Obama is not what he appears to be. What, precisely, are you concerned about. That Obama's not getting a "fair shake"? That he's being wrongly accused, and needs your help? What we see as a civic duty, you characterize as a vendetta. I find that very odd. Instead of saying, "Good job, fellow patriots, I hope it's not true," your first instinct is to attempt to discredit the messenger and assume it's a lie.

I think we know an agenda when we see one.

reply to post by WayfaringStranger


Could you refer me to the link where the "facts" they presented are independently verified? Last time I checked, they weren't.

Personally, I think you have a lot of nerve. You are basically accusing the witness, the debt collector, of being a liar. That, or the entire interview was staged. For no other reason than to make Obama "look" bad.

Truth is, most of us DO have better things to do.

Truth is, birther report is made for no other purpose than to make Obama look bad. They will stage an iterview just to draw the ignorant to their website (thereby receiving ad revenue). So I would say, no, birtherreport has nothing better to do than discredit Obama.

Why do you guys want there to be something wrong with his BC or SSN?

reply to post by boondock-saint

So does this mean that Corsi frequents ATS? OR....is Corsi Boon dock saint!!!!!

either way the BC is faker than a $3dollar bill

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by WayfaringStranger

 

Could you refer me to the link where the "facts" they presented are independently verified? Last time I checked, they weren't.

Personally, I think you have a lot of nerve. You are basically accusing the witness, the debt collector, of being a liar. That, or the entire interview was staged. For no other reason than to make Obama "look" bad.

Truth is, most of us DO have better things to do.

Truth is, birther report is made for no other purpose than to make Obama look bad. They will stage an iterview just to draw the ignorant to their website (thereby receiving ad revenue). So I would say, no, birtherreport has nothing better to do than discredit Obama.

Why do you guys want there to be something wrong with his BC or SSN?

edit on 5/22/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

Last time you checked? It's a breaking story, nitwit. "Independently verified." By whom? Mainstream media? Riiight. I get it. You're a fanatic. Obama doesn't need help "looking bad." If it's your job is to make him "look good," you suck at it. Whatever they're paying you, it's too much. And since you can't provide an "unbiased" source you would believe, you're a hypocrite and cry-baby wanker. Say good-night, Gracie.

Originally posted by i am just saying
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

So does this mean that Corsi frequents ATS? OR....is Corsi Boon dock saint!!!!!
either way the BC is faker than a $3dollar bill

lol
I have been called lots of things here
at ATS, but Jerome Corsi is NOT one of them.
If I was Corsi, almost every thread I post
would be a WND thread.

So just let me clarify for all:
I am NOT Jerome Corsi
and I find it amusing that anyone
would think so but u feel free
to make up ur own mind.

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by WayfaringStranger

 

Could you refer me to the link where the "facts" they presented are independently verified? Last time I checked, they weren't.

Personally, I think you have a lot of nerve. You are basically accusing the witness, the debt collector, of being a liar. That, or the entire interview was staged. For no other reason than to make Obama "look" bad.

Truth is, most of us DO have better things to do.

Truth is, birther report is made for no other purpose than to make Obama look bad. They will stage an iterview just to draw the ignorant to their website (thereby receiving ad revenue). So I would say, no, birtherreport has nothing better to do than discredit Obama.

Why do you guys want there to be something wrong with his BC or SSN?

edit on 5/22/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

Last time you checked? It's a breaking story, nitwit. "Independently verified." By whom? Mainstream media? Riiight. I get it. You're a fanatic. Obama doesn't need help "looking bad." If it's your job is to make him "look good," you suck at it. Whatever they're paying you, it's too much. And since you can't provide an "unbiased" source you would believe, you're a hypocrite and cry-baby wanker. Say good-night, Gracie.

Thank you for the insults, it really speak volumes for your character and your cause. Here is a post that explains why the "anomalies" exist. It's also been verified by a mod, check a few posts up for a link to that.

Originally posted by adeclerk
But, it showed nothing anomalous, am I correct?

well I guess that all depends on how
you interpret the hand written text
"VOID" on a legal document.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by adeclerk
But, it showed nothing anomalous, am I correct?

well I guess that all depends on how
you interpret the hand written text
"VOID" on a legal document.

I interpreted it as pareidolia and wishful thinking, you're going to see what you want to see.

Why do you want the BC to be fake?