Posted on 04/28/2011 6:26:54 AM PDT by wistful
“A professional forensic investigation still needs to be carried out on the document.”
Uh, huh. And if they said it`s legit, the birthers would accuse the investigators of being part of a vast conspiracy to protect whats-it`s-name.
That’s funny. It’s been bandied about so much I assumed it had already been verified.
“And you can bet the Obamah’s Pom-Pom media will be demanding Trump do exactly that”
It’s obvious BHO et al are VERY worried about Trump.
“regardless of how many experts delcare the COLB-II a fake.”
Well, Obama’s not going to voluntarily offer it to be examined or scrutinized, so someone will have to insist on having the appropriate forensic experts do so, and I sincerely hope that someone will be Trump.
I always wonder how much important information (much of which is contained on FR) gets sent to DT’s people - two things in particular - the natural born citizen issue and the technical evidence of probable BC forgery.
So have you read Jerome Corsi’s book and if so, what did you think? It sounds as if he’s done a ton of research, but I haven’t gotten it yet.
It keeps getting keeps getting curiouser and curiouser!
Haven’t read it, intend to do so
he risked his life in Kenya in 2008, gathering information
I'm starting to lean toward this explanation due to additional analysis from several sources. One of which: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2712356/posts.
What if there IS a serious problem with Obama's birth location and he wasn't born in the hospital claimed? A tactic might be to hide behind the "birther" conspiracy theory controversy. To aid in this, artifacts are created in a legit COLB to create a smoke screen of controversy. So, even if the truth is finally discovered, not everyone believes it.
One thing for sure, whatever the problem is or isn't, all of this and the division it's creating is playing right into Obama's hands.
Ann Dunham’s signature. Apparently, she forgot to put her first name there, and then added it in parentheses, as an afterthought. Now, seriously: If you were forging such a document, and you forgot putting her first name there, you would toss that thing in the garbage and start over, wouldn’t you?
no
LOL! Sorry, friend, but that is mos def NOT the case. Not the case at all.
This is a fundamental, foundational, most basic, issue. Let me rephrase what the issue really is here "Is anything about Obama trustworthy?" Merely keeping that question -- in the form of questions as to his birth legend, his eligibility, his school records, etc -- in the currency of public discourse it itself somewhat hobbling to Obama, as it would be to anyone.
The Marxists, the Left do this kind of thing all the time. For the whole time that Dubya was President the public media space was filled with the general theme "Bush is stupid," or in variant, "Bush is an incompetent lazy silver-spoon wanna-be-cowboy." Every possible minor evidence or rumor that would question his intelligence (which in all fact is quite high) was moved to the fore.
A constant incessant onslaught. Upon the great burst of propaganda upon Hurricsne Katrina--the utter lies that the US response was slow, meager, incompetent, etc.--George W. Bush folded. He broke. Only so much of this crap a man or woman can take. It was all lies. All fluff made into arrows of mockery. The sky was darkened with those arrows, all arrows of lies and vile intents.
Why use such a vile and vicious tactic against Obama?
Because lies are poison, and arrows of words made into poison arrows only kill and maim, but truth is a medicine, and a equal barrage of arrows, this time of truth, find their target too, eventually. But they kill the liar's lies. If the man or woman who lies has wrapped their very life around those lies -- yes, the arrows of truth will kill.
The campaign for the disclosure of the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Obama--the man who now holds the world's most powerful office--is both needed and effective.
Go and listen again to Obama's quavering, spiteful and bullying tenor at the press conference he gave where he announced the release of this new "BC". The tone and the degrading terms by which he described those with honest-- and historically legitimate--concerns about his birth circumstances told me we are winning on this issue.
Moreover the public response to his sudden and unexpected release of the record is also telling. There's no great swell of sympathy for him, nor is there a sustained, mean "see we told you so" reaction (a reaction that would be completely in line, psychologically, with Obama's tenor) from the anti-birthers. There's no "oomph", no legs, no spirit, no wave of reaction to his release.
It was a squid round. The birthers have the field.
Even that is not what was released. That is what HDOH say they produced, and even assuming that they did produce a certified abstract in that manner from a copy machine, that is not what was released.
It is impossible for the image on the White House website to have been scanned from a piece of papr. If the White House color scanned the paper document produced by Hawaii then it WOULD HAVE chroma aberrations around the black text because it is IMPOSSIBLE to scan a piece of paper in color without producing some chroma aberrations around the black text. The green version posted on the White House website has NO color fringing around the black text. None. THE GREEN VERSION ON THE WHITEHOUSE WEBSITE IS NOT A SCAN.
Video
Cordially,
About the chroma and hue “diffusion” on a scanned document that makes only sense. I hadn’t examined the “security paper background” image except a cursory look, so thanks for the suggestion that this is not a scanned image of a paper doument, but rather just a digitized confection of an image, because of the observations that there are no such expected aberrations in chrome and hue at the edges of the black letters.
What then does the stamp of Alvin T. Onaka mean? My impression of the security paper document was that by printing a high res digitized image on security paper and then stamping that paper with his official state stamp, Doctor Alvin T. Onaka, PhD., was attesting that it was a faithful representation of the actual image of the page containing Obama’s birth record in the Hawaiian official archives. If he didn’t actually stamp the printed document I would gather that even under modern laws and court rulings regarding digital images, there is in all fact no attestation — no certification, no official imprint, no official meaning — to this record.
If so, is this an actionable attempt to defraud or an abuse of the use of his official stamp by Alvin?
I would like to see the piece of paper.
I don't have any reason at the moment to believe that Alvin T. Onaka, PhD. did not stamp what came off the copy machine. Onaka may have done everything by the book. But I do wonder why the White House posted that digitized confection, as you put it, and then distributed a different paper copy to the AP - not the certified copy itself, but a copy of the certified copy. A copy of a certified copy does not cut it when I deal with court clerks, and it doesn't cut it for me when 0 or his minions do it to us.
I would also like to know when that abstract in the books of the HDOH, was originally created, on what type of information it was based, and what, if any information was left out. I'll probably never get an answer to these questions.
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.