It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
what about all the fuss that it was made in adobe using layers and all the fonts and texts were inconsistant
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
In fact, they proved in court that it isn't. Expert witnesses, document people, showed clearly, and the judge agreed. I watched that footage.
No you did not actually, the so called "expert witnesses" were not actually experts at all the judge declared, and he discounted all the birther "evidence" as rubbish!
No, I actually did watch, and the judge did agree that the evidence was valid, and the witnesses were experts. They were accepted by the court as such. Just because those facts don't suit you is no excuse to call be a liar.
Do you have any valid points to offer?
Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by SkuzzleButt
It's basically that the PDF for all intents and purposes is a photocopy. (Literally a duplication of the light reflected by the paper) So from the sense of a legal document it isn't the same since many of the security features of the original won't transfer to the pdf which is why so many birthers have been laughed out of court when they try to use the pdf as evidence. My main issue with the birthers is the massive lunacy of their logic regarding this pdf. Firstly they think he's managed to fool at least 50% +1 of the population but he can't get a proper fake made? Like if there were an issue with layers and whatnot, why not just print out the "fake" pdf and scan it in from paper so it will just be a scan of a physical document? Also, he's the freaking POTUS, whether you believe he's legally there or not isn't relevant to the fact that he would easily have access to the resources to make a real birth certificate, even with fake data. If the birthers really wanted to make a case they wouldn't attack the document since Obama clearly would have the resources to make a 100% real US birth certificate. The real method of attack would have to be some kind of historical research showing that he wasn't born in the USA, since all historical documents (birth announcements, etc) show that he was, they seem a bit weary of going down that avenue. The birthers claim to have a case but everything they bring up is either misquoted information, poorly translated interviews between two people who don't speak the same language or, outright lies.
which is why so many birthers have been laughed out of court when they try to use the pdf as evidence
she sought to present evidence that the president's birth certificate is a forgery.
"It's a joke," she told the judge. "It's not even a good forgery."
"There is absolutely no way that this case will survive the challenge it faces"
Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by SkuzzleButt
Please name at least one person who has examined Obama's official birth certificate and said it was fake. As far as I know, none exist.
Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
*ahem* www.google.com...,mod=9&sourceid =chrome&ie=UTF-8
You mean people who have no legal right to see a persons private information have been denied access to it? Why do birthers always seem so surprised when the laws of the United States of America are upheld? If I walked into a government building and asked to see YOUR birth certificate and/or YOUR social security number do you think I should be allowed to? Also, for ever person saying the pdf is fake there's the same number of people explaining why they're wrong in their conclusions and since it's not the real birth certificate, it's just a digital representation, it's an exercise in futility anyways. Instead of trying to prove he wasn't born in the USA, they should really focus their efforts on proving he was born somewhere else.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, people that do have a legal right have been denied...
...Public figures don't have the same level of privacy as does the average citizen.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, people that do have a legal right have been denied...
...Public figures don't have the same level of privacy as does the average citizen.
Quote that law. Or admid you're making bs. up.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I didn't state it was a law; I stated it was a fact.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, people that do have a legal right have been denied...