Obama's hidden birth certificate now exposed

Originally posted by Honor93
you are the one all over this thread claiming you know everything

There you go again, telling lies.... why do you?

I simply pointed out a lie, that it contained the phrase "There is no god but Allah"

if you really want to know why he wears it, you will have to ask him.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, simply sharing what seems to be truth.

No, it is not the truth at all, as a simple search would have shown. I showed a picture of the ring, but as it destroys your conspiracy theory you ignore it. Here are some more pictures of it.
www.tinyurl.com/as5y3gk

At best, that claim is unresolved. It's worth looking into. If someone could get a nice close up of the ring, and compare that, it might help,

No, it is resolved but you ignore it as it destroys your conspiracy theory....

All the claims by conspiracy theorists have been shown to be just made up stories, but some people keep persisting in reposting them here and elsewhere. Birthers have lost every court case about 200 of them and still have not learnt anything.

edit on 20-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

No, it is NOT resolved, simply because some people are satisfied with the official explanation. The pictures of the ring, where they claim there is no writing, look altered. There is also no explanation as to why he wore the ring for long years before being married. You can't learn not to call names, so don't complain that others supposedly can't learn.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How much more detail can you give? I said it right there. "In the very post you quote." That could not be more clear.
You are continously posting lies that have been debunked to hell a milion times over. You are just trolling.

Maybe you should learn the definition. You don't address a single point I make, or provide any actual evidence, or contribute anything to the thread......and you accuse me of trolling? Go figure.

Let me help you: link

My posts are not off topic, and that you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean it's "trolling". Aren't you neglecting a bridge someplace?

Originally posted by Honor93
*snip*

then, i also noticed pictures of it from a time before he was married ... so, what's the deal, really ?

and as someone who has been married, since when does a spouse wear a ring, in that position, that isn't their wedding band ?

That's one reason people started paying closer attention to the ring. Also a reason some people want ot avoid that part of the issue entirely, assign labels to their opposition, and post over and over that others are "lying", or "trolling" to avoid discussing the facts.

He wore the ring for a long time before being married, and then it's supposed to be a "wedding ring"? I never heard of anyone doing that.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That's one reason people started paying closer attention to the ring. \

the only people "paying close attention to the ring" are conspiracy theorists who claim it contained a phrase about Allah. That has been shown to be a lie, but some people are now making other claims about the ring. The conspiracy theorists have lost every single court case they have pushed against Obama, (nearly 200 of them) courts have declared him a natural born citizen. Still the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the fact that again he is the legal President. All they have now are conspiracy theories about a ring he wears.... it shows that they are getting desperate

reply to post by hellobruce

i could care less why he wears it, i'm interested in its symbolism.
if it isn't a wedding band, so be it, however, clearly it holds some symbolic value or it wouldn't be presented as it is.

since you haven't seen it, how do you know what is or isn't on it ?

and, how do you know the phrase "There is no god but allah" is a lie?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That's one reason people started paying closer attention to the ring. \

the only people "paying close attention to the ring" are conspiracy theorists who claim it contained a phrase about Allah. That has been shown to be a lie, but some people are now making other claims about the ring. The conspiracy theorists have lost every single court case they have pushed against Obama, (nearly 200 of them) courts have declared him a natural born citizen. Still the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the fact that again he is the legal President. All they have now are conspiracy theories about a ring he wears.... it shows that they are getting desperate

No, the fact that you can't stop coming on this thread, and trying to shut down discussion, shows that a lot of people are, in fact, interested. If you weren't, you would not bother. Modified pictures don't prove a lack of a phrase, either. You are repeating yourself on the court case thing. You are also missing the fact that most were dismissed because the judge decided the person didn't have a right to question his eligibility, not because of any evidence or lack thereof. But, hey, don't let the facts get in your way. Unless you can post some actual data, with real proof (and pro-O blogs aren't proof), then you are wasting time.

Ok I'll bite. Despite the strong "not sure if..." vibe.
If the images are altered then:
1) Articulate exactly what makes them look altered. If it's just a feeling you have you wont be able to do that. Write down simply what exactly makes it look altered.
2) If it in fact has the phrase on it as you claim then you will have no trouble of showing us a unaltered picture? Or is it your claim that all pictures are somehow altered? Or some other verifiable source.
Prove you're not just trolling.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
You are also missing the fact that most were dismissed because the judge decided the person didn't have a right to question his eligibility, not because of any evidence or lack thereof.

Of course you can back that up with some facts -

Unless you can post some actual data, with real proof?

I have done that, shown you some court cases where Obama was shown to be a natural born citizen.... and what have you shown that is factual? Nothing but false claims and silly comments from conspiracy blogs.... and 200 failed court cases by birthers!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Ok I'll bite. Despite the strong "not sure if..." vibe.
If the images are altered then:
1) Articulate exactly what makes them look altered. If it's just a feeling you have you wont be able to do that. Write down simply what exactly makes it look altered.
2) If it in fact has the phrase on it as you claim then you will have no trouble of showing us a unaltered picture? Or is it your claim that all pictures are somehow altered? Or some other verifiable source.
Prove you're not just trolling.

The picture posted on UrbanLegends.About.com looks like parts of the design have been scraped or something. If you save the picture, you can also see pixel differences around those portions of the image. Pixel differences are a pretty good indication of an altered image. Check it out for yourself. That's what I did. I am willing to consider that the initial story was wrong, but not because of an image that looks altered, which is all the "evidence" that's been presented to debunk the first story so far. Plus, whatever the image does, or does not, say, there is still the question of why he would be wearing the ring for years before being married. From all anyone can tell, he's had it on since the late 80's. I don't know anyone that wears rings, that would use one they had worn for years as a wedding ring. Never heard of such a thing. That is the reason anyone was looking at the ring in the first place.

This isn't just some anti-O thing for me. I check out any mystery I come across; always have. Did a ton of reading on the whole Skull & Bones thing, too, when that old history about Bush and his opposition sharing the same "club" came out. For the record, I don't buy for a minute that the S&B stuff was "nothing but a club", either.

Anyway, that's why I want a nice, clear picture of the ring. So we can know, one way or the other. That, and an explanation as to why he wore it so long, and then used it as a wedding ring. It's a curious thing, don't you think?

In case you didn't know, all pixel differences mean that they are different pixels Perhaps you could point out exactly what kind of differences you are talking about?

reply to post by PsykoOps


There are places that look like the pixels were altered. Differences in shading, from what should be there, etc. Have you ever edited any pictures? I have, and I know what shows up as looking faked. No, nothing to fool anyone, more like taking a little bit of power line off an otherwise nice landscape pic, or something of that sort. Scratch cover, and the like. It's very difficult to totally remove all traces of alterations.

Plus, there are differences in the pattern itself, between earlier pictures, and those on the "debunking" articles. Different pattern + pixel changes = altered picture, at least from where I am standing. The pictures the debunkers use are not even the same ones that other sites used, to show what they believe is an inscription. In fact, all we see (in the ones I have looked at) are a close up of a hand, with a ring, and nothing around to even prove it's his. Maybe it is, but where is the big picture?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
In fact, all we see (in the ones I have looked at) are a close up of a hand, with a ring, and nothing around to even prove it's his. Maybe it is, but where is the big picture?

Where is the big picture of Obama wearing a ring stating "There is no god but Allah"?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Differences in shading? Perhaps at this point I should mention that I'm a photographer by profession. Just to clear that up. I've taken and altered thousands of images myself. I see nothing specific that would look like alteration marks. I also had a feeling this was going to happen so I've actually looked at other pictures of the ring. All look exactly the same.
Btw, if this is an altered image hypothetically speaking, then how do you know what frase was removed from the image? You would need a source picture with that exact wording to know what was removed.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I have seen pictures from different angles. Do a little hunting, and you should be able to locate some.

So, as a photographer, do you alter images? Some do, some seem not to. If you do, then I would think you could see what I have seen. I am not a pro, but I do take a ton of pictures, and do a decent amount of editing, and I know what it looks like. The debunking pics I have seen look edited to me. If they don't to you, well, at least you did take a look. That's more than a lot of people are willing to do. Did you happen to look at the WND pictures? I believe that was the site that first brought up the whole idea of writing being on the ring. The angle in those and the debunking ones isn't the same. Nor does the design look the same. Now, it's possible that either could be a fake, and I do consider that. I still can't get an explanation for why he wore a ring for years, then used it as a "wedding ring". Ideas on that part of the issue?

As I said I took the liberty of using googles image search and looked at different pictures of the ring. It was exactly the same in all of them. If you can link to a picture that shows this writing then please do so.

reply to post by PsykoOps


This, I think, is the original story that talks about it being writing. The angle of the pictures is different from the ones used in the articles stating those claims are false.

story

Now, I don't know which side is correct, but so far, i have not seen any good, clear images of the ring (from either side). Hence, my statement that this is what we need, to show the facts, whatever they may be.

Again, you didn't address the issue of how long he has worn his so-called "wedding ring". Are you avoiding that on purpose?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Again, you didn't address the issue of how long he has worn his so-called "wedding ring". Are you avoiding that on purpose?

Yes. I dont care if it was his wedding ring or a friendship ring from a magic unicorn.
As for the images of the ring they are taking badly pixelated poor quality images of it and drawing what they think they see.
I've seen that same ring in high quality in dozens of photographs. It's the same as the about.com in every one of them.

Here is another image that shows the claim is just nonsense
obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com.au...

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Again, you didn't address the issue of how long he has worn his so-called "wedding ring". Are you avoiding that on purpose?

Yes. I dont care if it was his wedding ring or a friendship ring from a magic unicorn.
As for the images of the ring they are taking badly pixelated poor quality images of it and drawing what they think they see.
I've seen that same ring in high quality in dozens of photographs. It's the same as the about.com in every one of them.

So, you have no interest in why he wore the ring he now calls a "wedding ring" way back when he was in college? Years before he even met his wife? Such a lack of curiosity seems strange for a member of a conspiracy website.....

I have yet to see a high quality image that shows it's actually his ring. All I have seen are close up images of A ring, with nothing to show who is even wearing it. The sites claiming the ring has writing show it on his hand, then zoom. The sites trying o debunk that only show a ring on a hand. If that was reversed, you would use that as evidence those sites making the claim were lying.

As I said earlier I watched severel pictures of him with the ring. The ring was the same as the about.com and it was worn by him. You can do it yourself. Google "barack obama" then select images and then from the preferences set picture size to large. Then just look for the left hand. Easy, vóila.