Posted on 07/20/2009 2:26:53 PM PDT by frog in a pot
Dammit I'm getting sick of pointing this out: there were TWO sets of photos depicting BHO's COLB - one plainly a forgery, the other very convincingly real. Way too many birthers are fixated on the first and clueless about the second, which makes them clueless. Get that point straight before you continue with this!!!
“document examiners have identified several unmistakable defects and anomalies in the provided COLB”
“Dammit I’m getting sick of pointing this out: there were TWO sets of photos depicting BHO’s COLB - one plainly a forgery, the other very convincingly real. Way too many birthers are fixated on the first and clueless about the second, which makes them clueless. Get that point straight before you continue with this!!!”
*******************
Well, thank you for that important information. It is amazing no one has picked up on that. I imagine you are getting sick.
To say nothing of the fact the forgers have so far avoided facing a long list of very serious federal criminal charges.
You may be referring the COLB Obama told the judge he placed on the internet, no attorney would dare lie about that in court. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link?
Polarik needs to know about this right away before he expends further efforts.
It would be helpful if you have a theory that helps us get around the fact the issuer of the COLB specifies the document is not conclusive proof of U.S. citizenship.
You can get around it because all of the photos are of bogus COLBs. Yep. Every one is a stone-COLB forgery, and Hawaii never issued Obama a 2007 COLB, so whatever is shown on the internet is a nonexistent document, AND PROOF POSITIVE OF DOCUMENT FRAUD. Obama can go to jail for that offense, among others. THE ISSUER OF THESE COLBs IS A FORGER.
The work around question was addressed to ct.
For the validity of this thread readers should understand there is no work around to Hawaii’s position that its COLB, real or forged with crayons, is not conclusive proof of U.S. citizenship.
Nonetheless, it would be interesting to have ct’s theory.
More importantly, when ct provides the link to the “real” COLB we can at least put the forgery issue behind us.
“one plainly a forgery, the other very convincingly real”
1. Are these images available for viewing? Posted on line somewhere?
2. If a real one was available, why was a forgery offered in the first place?
3. In this day and age, what constitutes “convincingly real?” Bet I could do one with photoshop that would look real when viewed as a jpeg on the Inet.
4. The conservatives here are honest. They would rather discover the truth than be right at the expense of the truth. If a convincingly real COLB was presented, why is that fact not broadly known and accepted here?
Yes, this is not proof that the backing documents (i.e.: the "long form BC") exist or are unquestionable. The indicated photos DO show (short of physically handling it yourself, which you won't get to) that the standard, legally binding certification does exist, which means that the State Of Hawaii stands by the claim that BHO is in fact a natural-born citizen.
Yes, there was another earlier scanned copy which was provably and obviously falsified, which of course raises more circumstantial evidence that something gravely illegal is going on. Address that in its proper context as suspicious behavior.
So drop the "doctored COLB" BS. Much as I want to see proof BHO is not eligible to be POTUS, and much as I believe there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence thereof, anyone who obviously is oblivious to the second "high-res" set of COLB photos is not worthy of further consideration and should shut up already. The "doctored COLB" has its place in discussion, but so far anyone talking about it as most do obviously is ignorant of the larger story. Pardon my harsh tone, but this is a point seriously harmful to the "birther" movement.
Do you actually listen to yourself when you write? Did you actually read and understand what Factcheck wrote? Do you know WHY Factcheck took photos? Do you know WHAT Factcheck photographed?
I already know that you haven't read what I wrote about it.
Factcheck said that they photographed the same document that was used to make the scan. If the scan image is bogus (or "falsified"), something that I, and I alone, proved last November, which you readily admit, then the photos also have to be bogus.
If what they photographed is what was was actually scanned, then the Seal in that photo would be clearly and completely visible in the scan image (it was barely and partially visible and required image enhancements to see it), and the 2nd fold line would be clearly and completely visible in the scan image (NO 2nd fold line exists, period).
You cannot, on the one hand, forge a scan image and then turn around and say, "Hey, we made an image forgery from a real COLB, but now we are showing it in these photos."
THAT is insanely ludicrous!!!
What you are seeing in Factcheck's photos is a PHYSICALLY-FABRICATED COLB. The photos are real but the COLB object is not. I describe how it was done and how I proved that it was fabricated here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2292609/posts
Last November, in a 160-page report, I conclusively and irrefutably proved that the one and only "scan image" of one and only one side of an alleged COLB, which is what you called an "obvious" forgery. If it really was "obvious," then why do the media, Obama supporters, and Factcheck, Politifact, Snopes, Politico, Chicago Tribune, and the Honolulu Advertiser, continue to treat it as being real?
If you noticed it, then why haven't they?
NOW, in addition to what I demonstrated last November, I've now proven, conclusively and irrefutably, that what Factcheck photographed is not a real COLB at all, but a physically-fabricated COLB (and if you want to know how it was fabricated, then you'll just have to read my post like everyone else).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2292609/posts
So, the only thing that's oblivious is your awareness of reality. The only BS here is emanating from you, and all of the other trolls who still believe that Obama has a real 2007 COLB.
News flash: he doesn't. Obama does not have a 2007 COLB, and never had a 2007 COLB. Hawaii never made a 2007 COLB for him. Hawaii confirmed that. What Hawaii never confirmed is that Obama was born in Hawaii. When Hawaii's DOH Director said that they had Obama's original birth certificate on record, they did not say if it was a physical, paper certificate or from where it came.
But, hey, don't let me stop you, or anyone else like you, from being delusional. It's what trolls do best.
INDEED.
THX.
You do raise one good point in your #27.
That is, we certainly do not want to go forward with a patently defective argument.
Polarik has expertly addressed your technical concerns and we await your comments.
Your express concern about harming the “birther” movement also raises the question:
“Assuming, as you do, the COLB presented on FactCheck is authentic, what is your opinion as to how the “birther” movement should proceed?
What of my earlier question to you concerning the fact that Hawaii specifies a COLB is not conclusive proof of U.S. citizenship; thus, it has no determinative value.
How do propose that Obama resolve that issue without asking Hawaii to provide Congress with a verifiably authentic copy of his BC?
1. Keep raising court challenges re: BHO's authority to issue assorted orders. The soldier who did so got it exactly right, and while the issue was diverted, the diversion raised a lot more questions than it answered. The core problem is establishing "standing", which is solvable. One case alone won't do it, we need LOTS of such cases - enough to statistically overcome the judicial bias against such a case.
2. Establish viable legal concern that a COLB is not sufficient proof of US birth, necessitating revealing the long form original. The idea has been kicked around a LOT, but nobody has enunciated it in a legally viable form.
3. Go to Kenya and other relevant countries to elicit copies of any relevant documents. Most likely they have been erased, but so long as he's in power keep scouring the bureaucratic world for disqualifying evidence.
How do propose that Obama resolve that issue without asking Hawaii to provide Congress with a verifiably authentic copy of his BC?
He won't. Those who have power to act decisively & immediately on the issue have, somehow, been persuaded that either he's legit or to not go there. Until he is compelled to satisfy a court by showing the long-form BC, he won't show anybody anything. There is no reason for him to resolve the issue - he's POTUS, he can ignore those demands unless SCOTUS compels him to.
If he's legit, he can let the issue stew indefinitely, and hand over the proof when it suits him. One tactic in war is get your opponents to waste inordinate resources on petty goals. If he has a proper long-form BC, he can let his opposition burn political capital struggling to enforce demands, only to embarrass them in the end.
If he's disqualified, he has no incentive to comply. Even if SCOTUS demands it, he can play long stalling games, and pull the classic line "that is their ruling, now let them enforce it." Only Congress can legally remove him from power, which the current occupants are not inclined to do. Even a hard-right Congress may hesitate to depose a seated albeit disqualified POTUS, as doing so would cause enormous upheaval; many would rather just ride out what little time would be left and move on from there.
The only way he'll show it is if there is adjudicated proof he's disqualified - not circumstantial evidence as we have now, it must be PROOF to wit a Kenyan BC.
Keep looking. Get the legal ducks lined up and press the issue in many courts. Allegations of faked COLBs are interesting and motivating, but hardly constitute legal proof. Keep stirring up interest, keep pressing so that the suspicious responses mount and garner more interest. And realize that he, as the most powerful man in the world, has a lot more motivation & resources to stay in power than we do to get him out - it will not be an easy victory.
Well, thank you for that. One could guess you are a retired college professor.
Let me sort out the facts in your dissertation and respond in line.
“Assuming, as you do, the COLB presented on FactCheck is authentic, what is your opinion as to how the “birther” movement should proceed? “
1. Keep raising court challenges re: BHO’s authority to issue assorted orders.
The soldier who did so got it exactly right, and while the issue was diverted, the diversion raised a lot more questions than it answered.
Ans: We all agree with that statement and it is fairly set out above. In progress.
2. Establish viable legal concern that a COLB is not sufficient proof of US birth, necessitating revealing the long form original.
Ans: “viable legal concern”? Given Hawaii’s expressed position, a court would likely take judicial notice of the matter.
3. Go to Kenya and other relevant countries to elicit copies of any relevant documents. Most likely they have been erased, but so long as he’s in power keep scouring the bureaucratic world for disqualifying evidence.
Ans: In progress, perhaps completed.
“How do (you) propose that Obama resolve that issue without asking Hawaii to provide Congress with a verifiably authentic copy of his BC? “
He won’t.
Ans: Of course, he won’t. It is not possible to do so.
There is no reason for him to resolve the issue - he’s POTUS,
Ans: Disagree. He has much at stake politically, Yellow Dogs, and border line voters and even disillusioned supporters. He and his handlers are racing the clock.
he can ignore those demands unless SCOTUS compels him to.
Ans. The USSC will make no such ruling which you concede below. The Congress certified O as the President and it is the body to revoke that certification.
he can let his opposition burn political capital struggling to enforce demands, only to embarrass them in the end.
Ans: See above. Why would anyone who was qualified run the risk of presenting a forged document to a court of law, or to the public, while at the same time vigorously defend against being compelled to produce authentic documents?
Even a hard-right Congress may hesitate to depose a seated albeit disqualified POTUS, as doing so would cause enormous upheaval;
Ans: Disagree. He and the Dem-controlled Congress are taking a sharp turn to the left and they have given us fair warning of that in pre-election writings and statements.
Allegations of faked COLBs are interesting and motivating, but hardly constitute legal proof.
Ans: Misleading. Allegations do not constitute legal proof of any issue. Demonstrating forgery of identification documents, however, is very useful to a finding of criminal fraud at both state and federal levels.
it will not be an easy victory.
Ans: Regarding victories in general, many FReepers have been there, done that. No problem.
To summarize:
The significance of the forged document is to point out that no one, including Congress, has any basis for concluding O is a U.S. citizen. This must be viewed against an abundance of circumstantial evidence that points to the conclusion O is not a U.S. citizen.
With the exception of military suits, you essentially advocate business as usual and at the same time you seem resigned to our political fate.
This thread advocates taking action that is immediately available. That action is to point out the Congress failed to act in accordance with 3 USC 15; which is a substantial Constitutional defect. If the issue is presented by a member to the Congress, and Congress does not responsibly correct the defect - which it almost certainly will not - the issue can be presented to the USSC.
If the USSC agrees with the petitioners, Congress is then on notice it is in violation of the Constitution. Granted, Congress may continue to irresponsibly chose to do nothing. In such event the voters, if not the general public, will decide the matter.
Thank you for the adresses.
“Yes, they’re provided by FactCheck.org, so they’re suspect”
Suspect? They’re comical. I saved those photos to my hard drive and opened them in Photoshop so that I could give them the closest scrutiny of which I am capable. I began with some trepidation, but finished laughing.
“yet there has been no viable allegations of doctoring on the high-res set.”
True, but irrelevant. They are not doctored, but they are manufactured whole cloth.
“All key parts are clearly visible and look honest: the embossed stamp, the stamped signature, the text, etc. all seem real.”
No, they are clearly visible and look no more honest than old scratch himself. Sure, I can believe that the paper, the embossed stamp, the text, and the stamped signature are real. What I don’t find credible is that the statements thereon are true.
A **stamped** signature? That is a document that may go down in history, at least in the assumed Bamtard presidential library. And the man who has responsibility for signing it allows his signature to be **stamped**? If I had ever had the honor of signing a document so closely associated with, say, Ronaldus Magnus, I would have signed it proudly with a fountain pen.
There’s only one reason the signature on that document is stamped, and that is so Onaka can claim that someone else stamped and released it without his knowledge or permission when, not if, this document is shown to be fraudulent.
“Yes, this is not proof that the backing documents (i.e.: the “long form BC”) exist or are unquestionable.”
Proof? It’s not even a plausible assertion. Think about it. All the fuss over the Bamtard not being a citizen, and this is what he releases? Why not the original? Releasing the original would put the subject to bed forever, yet he releases this, this nothing, that doesn’t even bear a genuine signature. Any man with even half the wits God gave him would see this as prima facie evidence that the original is being hidden.
“the standard, legally binding certification does exist”
Sigh. And now I have to dredge up one of the legally sanctioned but atrocious events of history, I suppose. On a matter of this importance, you would really accept a stamped signature and a promise that the proof really, really does exist, cross my heart and hope to be impeached? When the original could be produced so easily?
Sorry. Not good enough. If the original exists, let’s see it.
“which means that the State Of Hawaii stands by the claim that BHO is in fact a natural-born citizen.”
No, it means that some non-zero number of partisans in the state bureaucracy are willing to commit fraud to protect another leftist.
“Address that in its proper context as suspicious behavior.”
No, sorry, that’s far worse than suspicious. It might not stand up before a jury of hand-picked morons, but it is so telling as to shift the burden of proof onto the forces of Evil to produce the real document.
“So drop the “doctored COLB” BS.”
Right. It is not doctored. It is a false official statement. It is perjury. It is misprision under color of office. It is treason.
“anyone who obviously is oblivious to the second “high-res” set of COLB photos is not worthy of further consideration and should shut up already.”
As best I can tell from the photos, it is not a “set” of documents. It is a single sheet with but a few words on it, and a stamp rather than a signature. Anyone who accepts this sheet of paper as convincing should…figure it out, already.
For that matter, none of the photos show the text and the signature together. Where the entire document is shown, there is no sig. Where the sig is shown, there is no document.
“Pardon my harsh tone, but this is a point seriously harmful to the “birther” movement.”
I disagree. No degree of probity on the part of those who question his citizenship by birth could possibly placate the forces of Evil. It is the disagreement itself that they cannot tolerate, not its substance, form, or tone.
Bump for later.
This is excellent. I’ve saved it to my computer and will send it to my Senators and my House Rep.
Oh, something "convincing" was presented by the Obama campaign, alright, but it only convinced those who wanted to believe in the first place.
The items published to the internet by the Obama campaign and FactCheck are most definitely "broadly known" here, but they aren't accepted because they're utter frauds.
...anyone who obviously is oblivious to the second "high-res" set of COLB photos is not worthy of further consideration and should shut up already.
You obviously missed the party, and have no idea how ridiculous that sounds to those of us who have read the forensic study.
Ron Polarik (digtal medium forensics expert) picked those hi-res photos apart on this very website, detail, by detail, and proved that they're photos of a forgery, months and months ago.
In what sense is the document a forgery? In that the Hawaii government bureaucrats released a fraudulent document, or in the sense that someone not in that chain of command produced a document not actually released by Hawaii?
That the document is a forgery is beyond question. I won't speculate as to who created it, but logic points to the Obama campaign.
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.