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.
[Obama] Too right-wing for me. By far.
Correct. The posse's excuse is that they wanted to see the original in Hawaii to verify it, to make sure. So the Hawaiian Health department is either negligent or guilty of lying to admit that the document is good, if it is fraudulent.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by juveous
So from what I take from that response, you cannot explain to me how the Hawaiian health department with both the previous and current directors, whom vouched for the authenticity of both birth certificates, could be innocent in all this?
Did the whitehouse slip the fraudulent birth certificate to trick them into authenticating it? Did they release the real birth certificate but it was secretly swapped with a fake one without any Hawaiian official noticing?
The truth is, you know that your position on the long form birth certificate directly conflicts with that of Hawaii, you can't bring yourself to say it you know because it would stretch your position alittle too far for comfort. Tell me that I'm wrong now, come on, give me your theory on why Hawaii could be innocent in all this since you're not accusing them of anything.
I'm trying to see whether you find this logical. Since they without a doubt concluded the birth certificate was fraudulent, why would they want to examine the actual BC? These are the investigators you have put your complete trust on concerning this issue.
" no I actually agree with you,"
No you don't. From this posse's investigation you have already concluded the long form was fraudulent.
Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
[Obama] Too right-wing for me. By far.
Are you trolling? You got to be kidding me.
Too Far Right?
To me, Obama is just to the left of Mao Se Tung
Originally posted by juveous
Correct. The posse's excuse is that they wanted to see the original in Hawaii to verify it, to make sure.
So the Hawaiian Health department is either negligent or guilty of lying to admit that the document is good, if it is fraudulent.
I could have been fraudulent the entire time, the Whitehouse knew, but few other didn't.
I already did. You don't even know what my position is lol.
You want me to be a die hard birther
bah, come on. I've given the investigators the benefit of the doubt,
They wanted to examine the actual before the digital. Instead investigated what they could, and are again asking for the original, with their own probable cause.
I have put it in the realm of what the consequences are, or assumptions you can gather if the document is fraudulent. No where have I explicitly stated I agree with Arpaio's "without a doubt fraud". I only call for them to be challenged
They concluded the digital was. Why are you mixing them up? I'm actually more confident it will get debunked, because I believe the president was born here, as I've already stated. Beliefs are malleable, I have to rely on people who present their cases, so why am I not allowed to suspect otherwise?
Originally posted by Southern GuardianOriginally posted by juveousHold on, they already concluded that the birth certificate is fraudulent, why do they need to make sure? Are you sure the birth certificate is fraudulent? Are you confident of their findings?
But this investigation already concluded the birth certificate was fraudulent, you came to this conclusion yourself. Negligent? Define negligent in Hawaii's case since this birth certificate is fraudulent.
Just the whitehouse?
I know what your position is. You have already concluded the Hawaiian long form birth certificate is fraudulent, Hawaiian authorities have time and time again vouched for the long form birth certificates authenticity.
Essentially it's your word against the Hawaiiah health department. Who is the one lying here? Niether?
You said Hawaiian authorities could be guilty of negligence, not of lying, I'm waiting for you to clarify this for me.
You want me to be a die hard birther
I do believe you are a birther, although I'm not sure what exactly a die hard birther is. Most birthers prefer not to be referred to as birthers.
Benefit of the doubt? It sounds to me as though you're softening your position on this investigation now. A while back you were solidly behind the conclusions of the investigation.
They wanted to examine the actual before the digital. Instead investigated what they could, and are again asking for the original, with their own probable cause.
Oh, so now the conclusions of the investigation are probable now, not conclusive?
So you have doubts about the conclusions of the investigation I take it? You weren't completed satisfied with the conclusions of the investigation?
Originally posted by juveous
They concluded the digital was. Why are you mixing them up?
I'm actually more confident it will get debunked, because I believe the president was born here, as I've already stated.
Which birth certificate? the digital? Negligent = didn't actually check.
I've been sympathetic to the investigation at the most.
Now whether the findings can be confirmed by an outside or governmental source is the question, to explain away user error/misinterpreted settings in the program etc.
Originally posted by juveous
You didn't bother quoting me when I asked.
All becaue I wanted some confirmation, instead of dimissing it right off the back,
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I thought you were done here?
I think I quoted you rather well, I also quoted the many times you decided to move goal posts on your position throughout this discussion. Despite your attempts to be deceptive about your true positions, in the end I found you to be doubtful of Arpaio's investigation, and a reluctance to fully back his investigation conclusion. You even admitted that you believed Obama to be eligible and backed away from calling his actual long form birth certificate a fraud. What more can I ask from you? I got what I wanted from this discussion.
This was and still is the problem with your position, the fact that you are seeking anything that will confirm your belief, you aren't seeking the truth. I'm really not sure what you are trying to achieve here in the end especially if you are going to work so hard to hide your true position on bitherism but if you see this as productive to debate, who's going to change your mind?
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Southern Guardian
So this all just a bunch of proper procedure nowadays, right? The layers in the document means that this is the way it was supposed to be created at the Hawaii Dept. of Health, right? They just had to change schemes cause they don't store paper certificates anymore, nothing's wrong, yada yada. Right?
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
And not a single interesting thing about the records they discovered missing from Aug 1 to Aug 7? Or the SS registration? No smoke here. Nope. So quit looking for the fire?
Man am I glad Arpaio doesn't listen to people like you. Cause when they sort this all out and present more findings, are you really worth bailing out of the fire?
What is it you don't understand about probable cause established?
Originally posted by juveous
I will repeat, nothing wrong with questioning the authenticity of anything, as long as the case is presented.
Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Skewed
He should be removed from office and anything he has done should be null and void.