Posted on 08/11/2008 4:41:52 PM PDT by Amityschild
Actually, back in June it was shown that it wasn't scanned from a paper document, it was shown to be entirely electronically constructed. If it were truly a scan of a physical document, then why wasn't the reverse side with the embossing seal and signature block also scanned and shown to the world?
-PJ
In what State and what prefix did you call last and will you call next?
This information is not a secret so give us specifics. Also, give the name and contact number for your supervisor so we can check on your truthfulness. In a real campaign this is not a secret either.
Put up or shut up n00bie.
Nodding. See ya.
You are the one complaining what a waste of time Certifigate is troll boy. Not I.
Here is a little clue for you. No matter how many times you argue your line of BS that “no one has proven it - therefore concentrate on the issues”, there will be loads of freepers exploring this and all other avenues of Obama’s seedy, gay banging, crack smoking life.
So take your own advise and go find the threads about those “important” issues so you can help publicize them. You can start on the link to my Obama threads. Pretty much covers the entire specturm of issues. Enjoy them.
So I don’t expect to see you around on these threads anymore. /s
Potlatch and RR, check this out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2060208/posts?page=47#47
He’s working the phone banks alright. For the Obamarroid.
Let's be simplistically clear here. All the Obama camp had to do when this whole controversy began was to release the BACK SIDE of the document. That would have been huge. It would have gone a very long way towards quashing this whole discussion.
But it didn't happen.
We think it's because it doesn't exist, because only the front side was entirely electronically manufactured.
-PJ
Yes, thanks Lucy, I already replied to it.
How about ending this debate once and for all? That's what you're arguing too, isn't it?
Don't you think that showing the back side, once everyone saw the confusion that only showing the front side caused, would be the simplest clarification that one could make to reply to critics?
Come on... Obama is running for President. No clarification should be considered to be too small when so much is at stake.
-PJ
Moron.
You should not pursue this.
It’s a red herring.
Stop.
No really, stop.
</src>
Tapping toe, waiting on a response to #65 with detailed info.
Better watch out now, I think he is going to call you a fire ant or some other ant........
Techdude was of the opinion that it was based on a real original with the ink soaked out. He said the sex was “female” and, of course, he asserted that the original name was Maya Soetoro.
Actually, I didn't think Techdude thinks the ink-soaking was what they did, but some other electronic remove-and-paste-over was used.
In my mind, Techdude was a late-player in this, leveraging the thinking of many that came before him. Even Polarik joined the discussion a week after it began to unfold here.
But, if it was an ink-soaking, that would erase the back side, too. Is that why we never saw a back side of the document?
-PJ
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.