Replies

Sure, someone looked at the file but that is far from a compelling argument that the file was modified, as claimed in the original article, to remove any evidence that Obama was not born in the US.

No, had it been limited to one look, you might be correct, but why three times? That is what makes it compelling. What records do the passport records link to? Were these people finding information as they went along or perhaps were told to look into further?

Can you explain what recortds may or may not e linked to the passport records? Can you even explain why three \ ventires into the passport records?

Again, you are basing that totally upon what the State Department itself has statesd.. Perhaps we need to have friendlies look into taking an audit of all government records of Barak Obama opassport & otyher relevant records before & after breach to see where discrepancoes may exist. That make\s for the compelling aspect, not that he said it is not a stretch that the purpose was for altering records, for that is just his way of saying that an audit needs to be done, because the same passport records were accessed not once, not even twice, but three consecutive times. For what purppse? Notice that he did not say that it was digfinitvely to change records. But that is what you read into his statement. Now you are claiming that his statement was false, when there was nothing false in it. That is you making the case that whis wors were stated in definitive terms, when that is not the reality at all.

Even if the file was changed, the backup files would remain unchanged. At that point the entire conspiracy theory collapses.

Here you are making the assumption that the backup files were examined. Do you have any proof that was what hapened? None of the articles I have read stated that backup files were examined to see if changes were made.

So, that is what the article is saying. Let there be a complete examination to see if there was any changing of data that took place.

But again, had you been precise as to what you found incorrect, I could have solved this error you made, instead of claiminf that this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

He provded compelling information to make the case that a through audit od the data needs to take place, by examing records that currently exist on the files for Barak Obama, and backup files previous to the illegal access of the files of Barak Obama.

Again, critical thinking skills are not your strong suit at all. Instead, you accept whatever you are told, and anything not conforming to your limited thought process, is immediately labeled by you as being nothing more than conspiracy theory without need to examine any further.

That explains why you cannnot see this article as compelling.

Is it not worthy to mentyion a conspiracy theory? I think it is, because there may be a real conspiracy behind it. Time to find out is my take on the articel.

When you started out you seem to disbelieve that an intrusion into Obama's passport records even existed.

I'm a former computer programmer, I know first hand how easy it is to hide data, and also how backdoors can be slipped into existing code to go to other places that do not readily show up. It is only after these extraneous codings are uncovered does the picture become more clear. If it happens in the private sector you can almost assuredly believe that it happens within city, state, and federal records as well.

Look no further than the records found by the FBI within its own buiilding, that implicate the Obama administration of hiding data, which had been marked for destruction, but apparently someone who is friendly to this nation preserved that information.

This is how copiracies remain hidden,along with people like you who are disinterested in going the extra mile to determine if the conspiracy theory has merit to be examined further to see if the conspiracy is real..