Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Fred Nerks; KJC1; Calpernia

“WOSG, thanks for the link to that comment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040486/posts?page=1440#1440

You’re welcome.

“IMO trying to cast doubt on the validity of the deCosta document smells.”

Grrrrr. NOBODY is casting doubt on the validity of the deCosta document. It is valid. And KJC1’s form is valid. We have a document that is *exactly* like the Obama COLB. reported by a freeper, KJC1. The fact that other COLB forms might have a different format does not invalidate the Obama COLB. We have to conclude that, rather than insist that only “one way” is done, that both formats were validly used.

“WOSG, using this statement from that comment doesn’t enlighten us in any way.”
Yes, it does. It elightens us that those claiming the Obama COLB is “a forgery” on the basis of “accepted by” vs “filed by” are spouting nonsense.

Please pay attention to the thread of the argument.

“What we need to see is a FILED dcument bearing seal.”
The impression of the seal in the Obama graphic of the doc has been identified. Tehy’ve delivered what you asked for.

The myth remains busted.


3,214 posted on 07/13/2008 3:46:23 PM PDT by WOSG (http://no-bama.blogspot.com/ - NObama, stop the Hype and Chains candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2978 | View Replies ]


To: WOSG
What we need to see is a FILED dcument bearing seal.” The impression of the seal in the Obama graphic of the doc has been identified. Tehy’ve delivered what you asked for. The myth remains busted.

Why can't they simply scan and post both sides instead of relying on graphically enhanced faint appearances of a seal? And then there is still the question of the signature block. Again, there are traces of smudges, but unlike the traces of the seal, the smudges can't be identified as being a signature block.

Thy myth isn't busted until Obama releases both sides of the document. By only show the front side with traces of certification and demanding that it be accepted as valid, he's continuing the perception that he only has one side of a document to show.

-PJ

3,216 posted on 07/13/2008 3:51:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3214 | View Replies ]

To: WOSG

Different master forms do NOT have the same date and revision letter.

Any change, no matter how minor, gets its very own revision number or letter.

To do otherwise is to breed utter chaos.


3,217 posted on 07/13/2008 3:51:15 PM PDT by null and void (Give a hoot - don't vote for Toot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3214 | View Replies ]

To: WOSG; KJC1
Grrrrr. NOBODY is casting doubt on the validity of the deCosta document. It is valid. And KJC1’s form is valid. We have a document that is *exactly* like the Obama COLB. reported by a freeper, KJC1...

It was KJC1 who cast doubt on deCosta - asking me over and over again WHO IS DECOSTA.(As if, if I couldn't produce her in person, she didn't exist!)

as for 'we have a ducoment that is *exactly* like the Obama COLB' that's absolute nonsense. Maybe you and KJC1 have seen it with your own eyes - but no one else has.

3,228 posted on 07/13/2008 4:52:40 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3214 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson