Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Me too!
I’d be equally happy to discover that BHO is or isn’t constitutionally qualified, either way he still isn’t up to the job.
No matter how this BC business ends up, we HAVE to beat him.
Why, the date stamp reads left-to-right on one “authentic” BHO BC, and right-to-left on another.
I’m confused.
Does this mean that if you are a liberal you really can have it both ways?
Or does it mean that even his birth certificate flip-flops?
ya THINK!?!?!??
Goes without saying, huh...!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626
The ‘snip’ I posted came from the above website.
It’s part of his MYTH BUSTED story. I think what he’s done is printed a MIRROR IMAGE.
Then, the MYTH BUSTED story is itself BUSTED!
Ya Toot?
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626
“...The date stamp from last year is clear, the stamp of the seal and signature area is less clear, but that just means someone applied little pressure - it is the ink that counts and I am sure we will see a scan of the back, when the blogosphere stop’s making themselves look foolish...”
The more I stare at it and the more I think about it, the way strata-sphere has shown that snip with the date on it, it’s as if he was looking at the BACK of the document, and, as that could not possibly be, that statement makes no sense.
I’m Toot Toot Tootin right along...
Me too.
A best not saying so is a simple error due to inattention to details.
At worst, it isn't mirror imaged and is a simple, albeit damning, error due to inattention to details.
I'll pick on him either way...
Uh, there is only one jurisdiction on Oahu: Honolulu city and county. He was allegedly born in Honolulu, yes?
maybe he was so excited after figuring out a way of creating a circular smudge on the CoLB with the bottom of a damp wineglass...after he printed out a copy of obama’s document from the fightthesmears website...hehehe
“Why can’t they simply scan and post both sides instead of relying on graphically enhanced faint appearances of a seal? “
I suppose if they wanted to do, they could. Be brave and ask Obama campaign directly.
But I have a plea:
Why can’t the rumor-mongers stop for a second and realize that leading questions are not a substitute for evidence? That absense of a particular piece of evidence is NOT evidence of its absense?
This thinking ... “Thy myth isn’t busted until Obama releases both sides of the document” ... is WRONG. Until Obama releases exactly what you want you have suspicions but thats all. that’s why the myth remains busted - you CANNOT simple concoct ‘evidence’ out of your own suspicions, theories and rumors.
And when you do come up with “theory X” and it is shown to be wrong, admit it and think on what it means before you move on to theory Y and Z of why ‘its a fake’.
See #3223 for the faint impressions of the stamp that ARE on the Obama COLB graphic, and in the right plce, near the reversed date stamp bleed-through.
http://www.barackobama.com/images/fts/BO_birthcert.jpg
The fact that they were detected *after* people insisted they “didnt exist” proves the point that the ‘its a forgery’ crowd have made claims that turned out not to be true.
Everyone keeps trying to be Buckhead on this thread and gets just close enough to be off by one letter.
And that is where you are wrong.
Obama has not released anything at all, no matter how you want to dress up the document on the Kos and Smear sites. Obama linked to an invalid web artifact and demands that the rest of us accept it as legal and valid substitute for a physical document with clear certifications. I don't have to concoct any evidence at all, because Obama has not offered any legal evidence in the first place.
But Obama has concocted evidence, as it clearly is not the physical certified document that the state of Hawaii says it only deals in, but a web image of only one side of a claimed document. Until Obama provides the real thing to an authoritative body, only he is concocting evidence.
-PJ
“Thus, both his mom and dad were visiting him that Xmas from places of residence that were thousands of miles away. Obama’s appearance in the airport photo is consistent with how he looked on the couch with his Indonesian stepfather (i.e., both in terms of his face and being a little chunky) and his face looks like the one in his 5th grade picture as well. His mother’s face looks young, but she also still looks young in the Indonesian photo and the length of her hair in both photos is consistent. I don’t know when her hair grew out, but when she was in college, I assume it was closer to the short length we see here:”
This is correct.
All the people in it, Sr, Jr and Barack Jrs, Mom, are
consistently pictured relative to what they looked like in 1971. Barack Sr has a bit of age on him, Barack Jr is 10, and his Mom is consistent, as you mention, with picture in Indonesia and other early 1970s pics. She looks young, yes, but then was only 28.
There are clear and obvious reasons to consider that the photos had to have been taken in 1971. For one, you have to assume that the boy who looks exactly like 10 year old Barack Jr is someone else. The nutty theory that it would have been Malik come to HI to pack, has the problem that in 1961, Malik would have been 2 years old.
Further, the whole ‘nonsense’ of the ‘wedding picture’ should stop, inasmuch as TIME did *not* use that as a caption, and ObamaFile website gave the correct setting as a pic of them in 1971. Nobody, except some on this thread, think it is a wedding picture.
“Thus, I think one has to ignore some evidence to conclude that the airport photo was from 1961 rather than 1971.”
Absolutely!
“Why wouldn’t the same thing apply to McCain? He, in fact had two U.S. citizens as parents, not one. What difference does it make where he was born?”
It makes not one iota of difference where John McCain was born. He was a US citizen at birth on account of having a US citizen father and mother. The US law *since 1790*(!) grants citizenship at birth in such situationsto children of US citizens born “across the sea” etc. John McCain is a natural-born citizen and the discussions of where he is born is irrelevent trivia.
You bet it is. I wondered why no one else had caught that.
I think one has to acknowledge that it isn't just the supposition that it is a wedding picture (which I never said) that leads people to think the pictures were taken earlier. It is also the terminal it was taken in, and the timeline of that terminal. You can disregard the "wedding picture" conjecture completely, and still address the terminal timeline on its own merits.
-PJ
Kinda like Hillary being named after Sir Edmund....
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.
