Replies

That thing Obama calls a birth certificate is an absolute forgery. Even the delusional should come to that conclusion.

On what basis?

If you or anybody else can produce any evidence that actually holds up under scrutiny, then I for one will quite happily declare the certificate a forgery. But it's not the number of the arguments that proves a point. It's the quality. A thousand invalid arguments aren't going to prove the point, except to the gullible who believe that if there are a lot of arguments for something, then it must necessarily be so.

ONE VALID ARGUMENT will. But I, and a lot of others, are still waiting for that one valid and genuinely irrefutable proof. To be honest, I've hunted for it. Such a proof would be worth its weight in gold. To date, I simply haven't been able to find one. Neither, as far as I can tell, has anybody else.

As for the certificate itself, it may or may not be a forgery. I don't know. Obama may have been born on Easter Island for all I know.

But what I CAN tell you is that a) If it is a forgery, it's a good one, and b) every single point this guy makes is invalid. There's not one single thing in here that will actually stand up in a court of law.

Nor should it, because none of it makes any sense to anyone who carefully, meticulously, and honestly examines and weighs the facts.

I have always believed that conservatism was in line with truth, and I still believe it. What's disappointing is to see how many conservatives (like a grea many in the liberal camp) don't really care about the actual truth that much when it contradicts what they want to believe.

There was no such thing as a PDF document in 1961.

Therefore, this is not the original document.

Since it is not the original document, it stands to reason it is a manufactured document.

So just show us the original documents.

Color aberrations,should appear on a true color scan - and present in throughout the WH PDF, but absent in many places indicating manually edited portions of the image.

Kerning present in multiple locations on the document. Typewriters don’t overlap letters.

These are elements that are not introduced by accident of a poor scanning process.

If you or anybody else can produce any evidence that actually holds up under scrutiny, then I for one will quite happily declare the certificate a forgery.

It's obvious it is a forgery. Reams of experts have weighed in about Obama's forgery. You just don't want to believe it.

But it's not the number of the arguments that proves a point. It's the quality. A thousand invalid arguments aren't going to prove the point, except to the gullible who believe that if there are a lot of arguments for something, then it must necessarily be so.

You stating that it is real doesn't make it a valid argument. And we're gullible? LoL. Anyone who takes Obama's word on anything is gullible. We're still awaiting for the Fraud-In-Chief to show that crap of his to court of law. Everyone else in the world would do so if it was a genuine document that backs up their claims, except for Creeps, Cons, and Obama.

We know that the microfiche exists ,, we also know that it would be impossible to fake a full sheet of 96 or so b.c. images on a single 4” * 6” sheet... anything created 50 years after the fact from disjointed bits of info will be suspect ,, that is why the originals are always retained.. show me the fiche. You want the truth ? Show me the REAL document... Don’t expect anyone to believe this “document” when all parties with access to the data needed to create a pretty good forgery were tap dancing around disclosing anything for almost 3 years...

On what basis?

How about this?

BAMIE BC II IS AN OBVIOUS FRAUD

Note: this is an unretouched image. You can duplicate this simply on your own machine by going to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf. Once the document opens in your browser, specify that you want to view the document at 1000% (10x) magnification in the little dialog box in the toolbar above the document. Then scroll down about 60% and right about 60% to to get to where you can view the Dunham and Sinclair signatures at the same time.

The different size pixels that make up the two different signatures could not occur in a single scan of an original document. This is prima facie evidence of fraud.

Find one, just one, document posted to the internet prior to April of this year that purports to be a single scan of a single document that exhibits multiple pixelations; and prove me wrong.

ML/NJ