Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:53 PM PDT by Calpernia
You should because
A) it is your thread and
B) I am well-known anti-birther from around last October, but stopped posting on those threads until recently.
But if there is a factual error in what I have posted or if my theory stops making sense, then I will say so here. Otherwise I am going with the simplest and most reasonable explanation which is that someone downloaded an image from SRIBD but either capture or saved it as a lower quality JPG. That is what got posted early Sunday AM, followed by much cleaner versions of the same image. The same image is now on share.adobe.com where it has been all along and not hacked or altered.
>>>No the “K” version is posted at http://images.quickblogcast.com/4/2/6/6/5/166425-156
Really? You are brilliant. I concede. You win.
FROM:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307989/posts?page=1
The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse - should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience. This document was obtained on December 10, 2008, and provides explicit detail of a “gag order” imposed on this host before and immediately following the national election last November.
did bomford say that he looked at the doc recently?
the only stuff on the aussie doc that’s problematic is miller lavender and 44b 5733.
he probably didn’t even compare his original with the current jpg that we have.
True, but it depends on Sunday's thread, not this one. The image labeled "original" at the top of this thread has no trail of custody.
“First off, thats a coin from 1938, not 1958.
I am from Adelaide, the home of the Bomford certificate. Its real. And to prove it, heres an interview with David Bomford on ABC Radio Adelaide - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm";
Interesting, mikizee just registered today in order to impart this piece of information. Is this some old obot’s new handle? So I thought I’ll register too. Color me skeptical about David Bomford’s interview. He probably has no idea that the website was hacked and has no memory of what his original birth certificate looks like (neither do I). He looks at the forged birth certificate, sees all the correct information - so it looks OK to him. Consequently, he gets outraged that someone used his document to forge Obama’s BC.
Signed up today, yes. Its about 130am here and I’m wide awake, and very bored, and was reading on another US forum about all this birther stuff, started googling things. I was shocked to see that a certificate from my little city has been the one that was copied!
I’m still amazed that people think the aussie one is fake, it appears very real to me and all the info on it checks out.
Bomford BC is a fake? All the information in it checks out.
Ive seen south australian BCs from this era (ie, my parents) and they are the same.
Sowing confusion? The only people getting confused are you guys. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
ie - kenyan birth certificate was forged from the australian one.
Why would the australian one be forged? everyones getting caught up in paranoid hysteria, its quite funny.
ORLY TAITZ BLOG UPDATE AUGUST 4th Addresses Bomford forgery and Hillary headed to Kenya.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
You said it is from SCRBD but it is not.
I said, you are brilliant. You win.
Right now I am having my own problems trying to contact “Arlen Williams” to remove that stupid black background thing.
It’s a BLOG and there are no “contact” links whatsoever.
I posted to the comments, hoping Arlen Williams will read it and remove the picture.
Good lord.
So quickblogcast is the same as SCRBD? If not, how did the image at quickblogcast which is at the top of this thread get from SCRBD to there?
Bravo Sierra! How can your explanation jive with the fact that the "K" has clearly The angles (like a less-than sign) and the "E" has only horizontal components?
Anti-alias-smailius, your logic is defective, Palm. IMO.
You are the brilliant one that knows all from all your tireless followings of this. You tell me.
It looks a lower case K (probably typo).
Was any previous President or George Bush the child of a foreign national?
Re: your #1319. “Legally, we are up a creek without a paddle…I absolutely hate it, but that’s the truth.”
Don’t throw in yet, TE.
As mentioned elsewhere, the biggest part of this shell game is that O and his handlers have convinced most of America that it has the burden of proving O is unqualified.
O, however, has always had the burden of proving he is qualified. He acknowledged that burden when he signed or arranged for his agent(s) to sign each state’s primary election certification that he was qualified/eligible for the office of the president.
Such execution, of course, was made under penalty of perjury.
Later, during the January 8, 2009 Joint Session called solely for the purpose of assuring America that the election was conducted properly, Obama had the burden of satisfying any request by Congress to demonstrate his citizenship (see 20th Amendment, “…if the President elect shall have failed to qualify…” as well as 3 USC 15).
Imagine that through the failure of Congress to conform with 3 USC 15, the EC votes for and the Congress accepts Mickey Mouse as president.
Is the nation bound by that action or can Congress take steps to correct that Constitutional defect? While there may be no legal precedent, clearly the latter is obvious.
Here is, perhaps, a work-around:
Imagine there is a Republican from each chamber of Congress that will stand and move for such action, but the motion is defeated by the Dem/Socialists. Would those members have standing to present the Constitutional defect to the USSC? One would hope so. Will the USSC be able to resolve the issue? Not directly, only Congress can correct its mistake, and that is the way we should want it.
But if the Court agrees Congress’ failure to conform with its statute was a defect and the Congress continues to take no action there will be substantial political reverberations.
At some point in such events, O’s handlers may cause him to resign rather than risk what they have achieved (much of which may be in the small print of unread legislation).
They would accept Biden and Hillary as backup players.
Whether or not O resigns, the result may slow the leftist juggernaut that has its arms around our nation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2296931/posts
Compare signatures of like documents on same or near date.
Analyze the type writer make and model.
Imperfections in the type writer hammers.
Microscopically analyze the paper for the same threads and characteristics.
Attempt to gain access to the volume and pages listed on the certificate for the filed document.
I dunno, doesn't seem that difficult to do.
I have ALWAYS said that there are several good, positive reasons for conservatives to push this issue, even if it turns out that Obama was born in Hawaii.
However, I am also forced to evaluate the possible motivations of the “anti-birthers” -— Orly has filed court documents and obviously has the original document, fake or real.
What possible LEGAL help can the “anti-birthers” or “after-birthres” provide to Obama, with these hackers and redirects?
NONE! No legal help, anyway.
Some PR help, short term, is about all they can provide.
Is it a sign of their desperation, that they are fighting this so hard?
The courts will be totally unimpressed with the digital stuff, for they have a PAPER document to evaluate. Of course, we can not be sure that the Courts will really care about the paper document, either.
Therefore: “follow the money” or “follow the motivation” -—If the left knows that all they can buy is time, what is the end game of the left?
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.