Posted on 07/19/2010 5:00:25 PM PDT by nysuperdoodle
Robert Gibbs, Obama's White House spokesman, had an interesting reaction today when he was asked point-blank about Obama's alleged use of a Connecticut social security number. We've got a clip of that, and right below that is a clip that explains the allegation (in somewhat dramatic fashion) - it's interesting that the identity theft allegations that sounded so outlandish to me when Dr. Orly and I first discussed them last year, are now being supported by people like Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily.
(Excerpt) Read more at evilconservativeonline.com ...
And the fact that the HDOH has either destroyed or lied about the non-existence of the original birth index which would (probably) contain the BC#’s... speaks volumes also.
Why can we not find a single law enforcement person in this country who will touch this? That’s the thing that eats me up inside, because the nation can’t survive this level of lawlessness.
We can survive Obama (hopefully; though at the rate he’s going I’m not too sure about that any more either). But we can’t survive this level of corruption and lawlessness - especially if all the legitimate means to confront the lawlessness seem to have been taken away by a complicit judiciary and law enforcement system. It’s suicide.
You can’t turn the heat up to 3,000 and expect a canner with no pressure release valve to survive. The thing is gonna blow; the only question is when.
About the only hope I see is if some brave AG realizes that it is suicide if he/she DOESN’T take up this issue, break the superficial scab the media has put on all this, and let the gangrene within our system drain out in all its putrid stench for all the world to see. That’s the only way this land can heal. And if it doesn’t happen soon the gangrene will be fatal to this country. I think we all know that.
I’ll have to watch his video. His opinions changed over time. Your own experiments are probably as valid. Anybody with even passing experience with scanning documents knew immediately that the Daily Kos “scan” was questionable.
What I notice on the FactCheck photo that shows the document, on its side, on a table, with a bright light in the background, presumably to highlight the embossing on the seal: There are black, foreshortened blobs representing the lines of text on the far side of the COLB. Where are the black blobs to correspond with the father’s information? You can triangulate where they SHOULD BE, based upon the other photos and by counting down from the blobs representing the other lines of text. But there are no blobs for the father’s information. Where are they?
Do you know what I hate the most about this whole experience?
Given how the history of our nation is so tied up with the sin of slavery and the civil war we fought to purge our nation of its sins, the election of a Black man to our highest office should have been a cleansing experience.
It should have been cathartic.
But it’s been anything but. I can forgive Obama a lot. But I cannot forgive that he stole “what should have been” from us.
And I think the experience will leave us a little gun shy before we pull the lever again for our next Black president.
The nation will remember what its like to be called racist, when in fact it is not.
I noticed that too. Different people tried to say that the brightness of the light basically glared out the line that would have been there. That, I don’t have the ability to test. The fact that the page doesn’t seem to be the same as Obama’s could possibly be explained away if there is such a phenomenon.
But like Edge said, only an incompetent person would try to “prove” that the seal was real on the document without proving that the real seal is actually on the document it claims to be on. Only an incompetent person, or a person who can’t do any better because they’re trying to prove something they know isn’t true.
And the seal which doesn’t distort when the paper it’s on folds was definitely added digitally.
FactCheck did not claim “in August 2008 they had taken the pictures within a couple of days prior to publishing the pictures.”
From their story, they said “recently”. Recent is a relative term. It may be 5 months, in someone else’s opinion. They gave that impression, but careful reading of the story shows otherwise.
In fact, iirc, I don’t think they even claimed to have taken the photos. Didn’t they say they brought them “home?” Yes, they did. I just read the story again.
And I must correct myself: In re-reading the current version of the story at FactCheck, there is a photograph within the story where the caption claims that their writer Joe Miller is holding the document. So maybe he didn’t personally avow that he held it, but the organization’s blog says that he did. My bad. I don’t know, however, when they put that caption there. I didn’t save screen prints from 8/2008.
I contend that they didn’t take poor quality photos because they’re bumpkins. There’s a reason for those shadows and flares of light on those images. You suggested it yourself when you wrote, “In none of the photos of the back of the document can it be ascertained that these elements are indeed on the back of the alleged Obama COLB.” Nothing can be ascertained from those photographs, because of the poor resolution and the flares of light and shadows.
Is that the way a “normal” person would photograph a document? No, a normal person would set the document down flat on a surface and photograph it head on. Under good lighting. Making sure everything is legible. Both sides, too.
btw, so far as I know, nobody at FactCheck has gone on record to explain why the date is wrong. I tried to find a statement from FactCheck and I can’t find it. All I can find is early speculation from a writer at Israeli Insider where he says something like, “IF they try to say they didn’t set the date on the camera . . .” So if anybody can link us to an actual statement by anyone from FactCheck explaining away that exif data, I’d be happy to read it. Same for whether anyone can point us to a link with a QUOTE from any of the so-called FactCheck “staffers” telling the world that THEY are the people who “spent time” with Obama’s “birth certificate” in Chicago.
Sorry to be so slow on the uptake!
***
Russian Spy Mission 10 Arrested
“They took that birth certificate number and checked it against records in Philadelphia where it had been issued,” she said.
“And that person apparently did not exist.”
***
Is butterdezillion saying that if same was done with Obama birth certificate number, that
a — Obama apparently does not exist
or
b — Obama is using a dead child’s birth certificate number?
It’s pretty sad when you can’t even remember that you yourself posted something about this a long time ago!
(My daughter tells me I have ADD!)
rosettasister Says:
January 7, 2009 at 5:19 pm
***
POLARIK says:
December 30, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Jean:
Now, IMHO, the reason why it was redacted on the alleged “scan” image, but allegedly shown as 010641 in the phony Factcheck photos, is that Obama’s birth registration was, in fact, a late one, and would not have a number less than 14,000 (approx. the number of births for 1961 that actually were recorded during 1961).
I believe that if you looked up birth record #151 1961-10641, you would find someone who is now deceased!
(I believe this was Kevmo quoting Polarik.)
Reply #7 on this page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2159775/posts
I’m a bit late to the discussion (been too busy to read daily a lot on FR lately) but I just wanted to offer butterdezillion my thanks and support for her incredible investigative work. She is *not* a blog pimper but a topnotch researcher with a bulldog tenacity. I don’t want to try to speak for her, but from my reading of her comments on FR and a couple of visits to her blog, she is a courageous heroine who is dedicated a tremendous amount of time and brain power to solve the 0thugga BC riddle.
Please, do not clump her in with bloggers who don’t even write their own stuff and are only trying to get hits. She could not be more different. Her aim is to find information and get it out there for the benefit of truth and restoring our Rebublic and the rule of law.
Not exactly. They give a sequence of events at the beginning of the story:
"In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is 'fake.'
"We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."
Above they mention a a Jerome Corsi interview, which appears to have been on Fox around Aug. 17 or 18. The Factlack story was posted Aug. 21. They use a current claim that they have NOW seen and photographed the alleged COLB (it's obviously NOT an original birth certificate as they called it). You could argue the semantics of what they mean by 'recently,' but as their page is written, the claim looks to be that they took the photos between the Corsi interview and when they published the photos, which would only be a few days. It's odd that you want Gibbs 'year and a half comment' to mean exactly 18 months, but you want the facklack 'recently' to be general enough to cover a five month period.
Also, I'm not sure why you seem to be put off by my use of the word 'bumpkins.' These two staffers obviously have an agenda, but they still executed it poorly (which is why we notice so many holes in their story), so yes, they are bumpkins.
mark
The thing that really stands out is that their story (whether stated directly or implied) doesn’t match what either the exif data said or what Gibbs seems to have said about the timing.
Unless somebody was technologically competent enough to reset the camera’s clock but stupid enough to deliberately set it 5 months off, the clock would be about 12 hours off at most. Factcheck refuses to respond to the questions about the exif data and they deleted it as soon as they became aware of it, if I’m understanding the story correctly.
The two items that DO match regarding the timing are a couple of the most compelling forms of testimony: one the mechanical log on the camera, and the other the blurting out of somebody in basically a cross-examination type scenario. One or the other could perhaps be explained away but to explain them both away when they fit so well with each other would be stretching.
I think the immediate goal in the passport breach was probably to get rid of the incriminating evidence that was already there. Obama traveled on SOME passport documentation. We know he doesn’t have any valid legal documentation from Hawaii at least since 2006 when he made the amendment, and if the amendment was to complete the BC then he had NOTHING from Hawaii before then.
But he traveled before then. In fact, everything he’s done in his life which required documentation had to have been done with some other document that was not from Hawaii.
They had to get rid of that document in the passport file and replace it with anything besides it - even if what they had as a replacement lacked some of the required information. A scan of a COLB with the BC# redacted would be sufficient for every situation in which the passport records would be released EXCEPT in a court case where the confidentiality laws were over-ridden.
I wonder if they knew Berg was considering a lawsuit. When did he make his first rumblings?
Thanks for your kind words and support, LJ.
Hearing what irritates the “pimp-busters” helps me know what to avoid now, I guess.
Sometimes in a thread it becomes clear that a person doesn’t know the basic facts which are critical to understanding. I tried my best to make my blog post so that the facts could be read concisely. Rather than bog down the threads with another re-hashing of all that information, it’s more efficient to just send them to the blog to catch up on the facts so we can keep all the threads accurate.
I don’t think that’s what the “pimp-busters” are objecting to though - now that I see the points they’re making. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
My dear friend: Thank you so much for this cogent, well-thought-out, LOGICAL response to edge’s commentary. I got busy yesterday and couldn’t respond in a timely manner. But you saved me the trouble (yet I’ll respond myself, anyway, being seldom at a loss for words).
I second all comments applauding butterdezillion’s hard work and patriotism in the cause of freedom and saving this Republic.
edge919 wrote, “You could argue the semantics of what they mean by ‘recently,’ but as their page is written, the claim looks to be that they took the photos between the Corsi interview and when they published the photos, which would only be a few days.”
******
Much of what FactCheck blog claims “looks to be” what it is not.
________
edge919 wrote, “It’s odd that you want Gibbs ‘year and a half comment’ to mean exactly 18 months, but you want the facklack ‘recently’ to be general enough to cover a five month period.”
******
I don’t “want” anything. I’m dealing with reality, not what I want. How much more specific can “a year and a half” be? Subtract a year and a half from the date he said it and you come up with the point in time that he’s referencing. Simple math. It’s certainly MUCH more specific than “recently.” Or even “now.”
For example, I could write: In 1975, I didn’t have a car. In 1983, I bought a Mustang. In 1994, I bought a Camaro. Some people told me that Camaros aren’t energy efficient. Recently, my sister told me that foreign cars get better mileage. Now I have a Honda.
When did I buy the Honda? Answer: I bought it in 2000; my sister was complimenting me on my choice of car.
A TRULY non-partisan factchecker, a true reporter, would write something like this:
“’In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted . . . skepticism about the document’s authenticity.’ On (insert date here), FactCheck contacted the Obama campaign and asked to view the document that was scanned to create that digital image, which was posted on an Obama campaign website and released to, among others, the Daily Kos blog. On (insert date), Joe Miller (if true) and FactCheck photographer (insert name of photographer) traveled to Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago to view the document, which they examined and photographed. Below are the unaltered photographs taken by (insert name here) of the document that (insert name) provided to our staffers that day. S/he assured us that this is the document that was scanned to create the digital image posted on the Internet as Obama’s birth certificate.”
____________
edge919 wrote, “Also, I’m not sure why you seem to be put off by my use of the word ‘bumpkins.’ These two staffers obviously have an agenda, but they still executed it poorly (which is why we notice so many holes in their story), so yes, they are bumpkins.”
******
I’m not “put off” by your use of the word. I’m simply disagreeing with you. I believe, as you do, that FactCheck staffers and probably everyone associated with that blog, have an agenda. I also agree that sometimes they do seem to execute their agenda poorly. Case in point: Quickly removing the exif data and downsizing the resolution of the photographs. Why would self-avowed NON-PARTISAN factcheckers do such a thing? There’s no explanation BUT that something about the exif data revealed what they do not want revealed and that they did not want independent experts to analyze the photos that they claim to have taken and which they claim prove that the document underlying the digital image is an embossed Hawaiian “birth certificate,” which, of course, we know it’s not.
You used the term bumpkins with regard to the date on the camera. We disagree on this point. You seem to want to believe that they simply didn’t set the date or set it wrong. I gave a list of alternate explanations that, imho, make more sense, given the context.
I think that, whatever these agenda-driven people at FactCheck blog are, they are far worse than simply “bumpkins”.
FYI
Polarik
Dr. Ron Polland speaks with The Post & Email
“THAT’S NOT A GENUINE SCAN”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 21, 2010)
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/07/21/dr-ron-polland-speaks-with-the-post-email/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2556964/posts
"Barack Obama's presidency is illegal! That's what political insiders are saying after a shocking birth certificate from a hospital in Kenya reveals America's Commander-in-Chief was born in Africa! GLOBE has all the explosive details you can't afford to miss!"
Latest attack from the Globe. Maybe spread out over thousands of supermarkets across the U.S, it will get Mr. and Mrs. Bubba Sixpak to do some thinkin'. LOL
According to the Obama Timeline, The Kenyan and the lovely Michelle have used over fifty - yes fifty, different SS #s.
I HIGHLY recommend a careful reading of this Polarik interview. edge919 and butterdezillion: Polarik talks about his communications with FactCheck about the photo session. VERY interesting stuff.
Sorry, but your post is overkill and overly defensive. Worry about the important issues instead of a couple of vague time references.
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.