This video seems to be from Spring 2008 after Iowa and before the Edwards pulled out.
Here is a 7-minute version of the video with more explosive claims including Barry having a hidden full-blooded sister whose father was also BHO Sr. Lots of UK-CIA-Kenyan intelligence awareness and access to birth records claimed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOK_li8F5GA
Here is a bio on Shrimpton:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/
Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.
He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.
His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.
ping to release this AM of a video of a UK barrister and intelligence advisor appearing to date from early in 2008 claiming that Barry was born in Mombasa in 1960 with BHO Sr. as the dad and an unidentified woman (not SADO) as the mom and also that Barry has a hidden full-sister of these parents plus many more claims...
The investigation of this tape and the claims has just begun.
I note that Carl Gallups has just put up this video and same bio on Shrimpton that I have found and Gallups is, of course, wired into Zullo. This might mean that the video is consistent with Zullo’s findings...or not.
Zullo has made statements indicating doubts that Stanley Ann was Barry’s mom and that there is no record of Barry being in HI before age 5.
I am just reporting what has come on the web this AM and don’t personally endorse any of it until corroborating witnesses and documents are found and Shrimpton can be evaluated for credibility.
I’m starting to listen to the 1 hr 33 min long version of this video compilation for more hints on when it was done and who was there who would have known about these claims.
There are at least two separate events cobbled together to make the 7 minute version.
At the very beginning of the long video Shrimpton says that Medvedev is “about to win” election, which occurred on March 2, 2008, so this portion of the video would have been late February 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Medvedev
“The 2008 presidential election, held on 2 March 2008, was won by Medvedev with 70.28% of the popular vote, and he was inaugurated on 7 May 2008.”
Shrimpton also jokes that “we’ve had excellent snow this winter” frustrating global warmists and indicating that enough of the winter had passed to make this judgment, as would be true in late February 2008.
Shrimpton’s blog:
http://theshrimptonreport.blogspot.com/
Here we go again , Fred!
Gallups confirms that the 2008 Shrimpton claims on these tapes do NOT include Zullo’s “Universe Shattering” revelations.
Gallups said this on a video and there is an article up on BirtherReport:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/breaking-report-british-barristers.html
Earlier on Wednesday, The Post & Email asked “Freedom Friday” host Carl Gallups, who has been close to the Cold Case Posse’s investigation, if the information imparted by Shrimpton is part of that which will be released next month, to which Gallups responded, “As far as I know this is not a part of the March announcement.”
Nearly 5 years after his Feb 2008 article Shrimpton published an article on November 8, 2012 updating and elaborating extensively on his claims about Barry.
In this Nov. 2012 arcicle he is far less certain in what he says about whether or not Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom. Instead he offers his personal survey of the Western intelligence services and THEIR preferred narratives regarding Barry’s birth.
The date of this article is interesting in that is just days after Barry was reelected. Shrimpton may have hoped that Barry would be defeated, but since he was not, Shrimpton splatters these claims (still no documents or named witnesses) saying he hopes the Electoral College will refuse to certify the election.
Here is the article link followed by key quotes regarding who might be Barry’s mom and where and when might he have been born:
“REJECTION OF OBAMA BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/08/rejection-of-obama-by-the-electoral-college/
The competing theories may be shortly stated. President Obama and the Democratic Party claim that he was born in Honolulu in the State of Hawai’i on August 4th 1961. They have been consistent about the date but not the place. Two different hospitals were put forward at different times in the 2008 election (I have been tracking this issue since Obama first came on my radar, as a state senator in Illinois, about ten years ago). The President and the Democrats have now settled on the Kapio’lani Maternity Hospital in Honolulu. Mainstream media commentators like Anne Applebaum are seemingly unaware that two different US birthplaces have been put forward by the President and his supporters. They tend to take the latest White House position as fact.
The Kenya theory, supported by many Republicans, a broad swathe of the international intelligence community (behind the scenes) and, in the public domain, by the entrepreneur Donald Trump, asserts that the President was born in or near Mombasa in what is now Kenya. Within this group there are five main sub-groups – those who say that the date of birth is correct but not the place, those who put the birth in 1960, those who say that the claimed maternal relationship is true but not the paternal relationship, those who put it the other way round and those who accept the claimed parentage but not place of birth. There is of course cross-over between these groups on the date of birth.
The CIA, semi-publicly, accepted maternity but challenged paternity. Two names for the father, including the radical black activist ‘Malcolm X,’ were privately circulated by ‘sources close to the CIA’ in 2010 and 2011. The CIA’s true position, supported I am told by a DNA test, is that the claimed paternity is correct but not maternity. Their official position is of course the White House line, i.e. that President Obama is eligible to be sworn in as President on January 21st. The CIA were actually quite slow to get to grips with the issue. So far as I know no work was done on it until I briefed them in, in 2007. Both MI5 and MI6 held out on them for some months afterwards, indeed I don’t think MI6 made full disclosure of their position until CIA had the DNA test done (I am told they used wine and water glasses, with the DNA swabs verified by fingerprints). Homeland Security are said to agree with the CIA’s internal assessment. They of course have access to the immigration and passport records, which have never been disclosed publicly and are apparently troubling for the Democrats.
The Mossad, DGSE, BND, SVR, MI5 and MI6 go with Mombasa, although there is some disagreement between the agencies about date of birth. SVR are rumored to favour 1961, e.g., whereas MI6 and Mossad are said to go with 1960. MI5 have a file because the colonial internal security files came over from Nairobi in 1963. Since Obama’s father and grandfather were both linked to the Mau-Mau terrorist organization they were very properly made the subjects of intelligence and police surveillance.
There is actually very little evidential support for the Honolulu theory. The document the media refer to as a ‘birth certificate’ is nothing of the sort. It is an electronic facsimile, unsupported by matching Hawai’i file entries, which are sealed. I respectfully associate myself with the criticisms of this document by the forensic specialists who examined it at the behest of Arizona lawman Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It consists of multiple layers and appears to have been generated by software. It is not an original, nor even a photocopy of an original.
It does not take the case very much further, save that its production is damaging to the White House’s credibility, as was the production of a shorter-form purported certificate in 2008, which was denounced at the time as a forgery by a Hawai’ian official, although the state then backtracked, under intense political pressure. The older fabrication was a two-dimensional computer file, which appeared to have been photo-shopped. The purported official seal lacked depth, a common mistake by forgers.
There is a self-serving entry in the Honolulu Advertiser, which again takes the case no further, since it has always been clear that the ‘parents’ were claiming the birth of a baby boy named Barack in Honolulu on 4th August 1961. The address in that advertisement was not real however, an odd feature.
There are some surprising lacunae in the evidence produced. The claimed mother’s medical records, e.g., have never been released. That calls for comment, since in the US there would have been an attending physician. One would expect to see some reference in the medical records for a teenage girl undergoing her first pregnancy. There are no photographs showing Ann Dunham whilst pregnant, and no evidence that she took ‘her’ child with her to Washington State, after she left school in Honolulu. There are no photographs of Barack Obama in the US before the age of about two.
Neither of the alleged places of birth has a record of Ann Dunham being admitted in the first week of August 1961, hospital admission records being something investigators have been calling for over four years. There are no supporting records from the attending physician, whose name was suppressed for some three years after the issue started to gain traction. There are issues over the numbering of the long form birth certificate produced, which does not appear to be in sequence. The relevant immigration records are sealed, something which troubled Sheriff Arpaio, an experienced lawman, and his investigating posse. I know some have challenged the sheriff’s good faith, but I see no reason to question it. He is a man of the highest integrity - we are not talking Thames Valley Police here.
The passport records are relevant, because President Obama cannot have visited Pakistan during the al-Huq dictatorship on a US passport. On what basis was he issued a passport by another state? If Indonesian what was said to the Indonesian authorities about his date and place of birth?
I didn’t know the Abu Grab hood photo was proven to be fake.
I don’t know anything about Michael Shrimpton but I found this:
http://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/crackpot-realist-manque-part-one/
Michael Shrimpton
Michael Shrimpton was termed a ‘conspiracy theorist’ when introduced as a pundit on Sky News, but Crackpot Realist manqué would have been a better term. Nevertheless, he was given free rein to comment on climate change, which he believes does not exist, and particular license on Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which (unlike Tony Blair, Colin Powell and David Kay) he believes did exist, but were moved to Syria. This geopolitical analysis was emphasised by a sneering: “that’s what Syria’s for…” Sky News viewers are normally anaesthetised by a small revolving team of seasoned commentators, such as jovial Al Scardino, who round up that which they deem ‘newsworthy’ before bedtime. But after 25 minutes of exposure to Shrimpton’s conspiracy theories, viewers may have been left thinking ‘that’s what Shrimpton’s for’. So whose conspiracies is he theorising, who put them there? This, and where it leads us, is what I will explore below.[1]