Posted on 05/01/2011 3:35:44 AM PDT by grundle
Expert says lack of "chromatic aberration" means Obama BC is computer generated, not photocopy
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Sure looks like you are, when you claimed the following just above in Post 51:
I'll repeat my statement, until such a time that the Court rules on the central legal question (which isn't not a discussion in dicta) on what difference (if any) there are between anchor babies and natural-born citizens, there won't be any difference between those two terms. Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are, in the context of today's legal reality, completely interchangeable terms.
I do not doubt that.
Move on. Where have I heard that phrase before?
If “moving on” is the proper response to a huge criminal enterprise, that means the Rule of Law is over, and the Rule of Raw Power is at hand.
Cowards say what you said.
I ignored you because I'm not going to indulge your ridiculous straw man argument. I never "claimed" that's what happened, I said that it's a possibility. Someone asked me how it could have been done, and I provided an example of how it could have been done. I said, CLEARLY, that it could have been a printed to hard-copy or printed directly to PDF and saved to a flash drive. That's it.
I have no idea how they obtained the document, or what form it was provided - electronic or hard-copy - nor do I care how it was done. Why? Because I think the entire birther business is monumental exercise in intellectual depravity.
"Here’s what Hawaii claims happened:"
Hey, that's PDF - maybe it's "forged" too, with multiple "layers" and whatnot.
People are arguing that Barack Obama "forged" his birth certificate and to prove it, are providing a copy of a press release from the state of HI stating that it specifically gave to Obama that very birth certificate.
If that's not the greatest example of intellectual contradiction EVER, I'm not sure what is.
I wonder when wiki updated that.
But - the footprint on any purported birth certificate, whether souvenir or otherwise, would either match or not match Zero’s, in which case, that would definitely help determine which lies are lies and which aren’t.
But at this point it’s fairly obvious that the spineless and gutless/and/or/evil courts are never going to touch this.
Seems as though American is putting its own shackles on voluntarily.
I want DNA from Maya Ng, Mark Nisend whatever his name is (the only for sure publicly known son of 0bama the Kenyan), the guy in the White House, and one of Malcolm X’s children. That will shock people to the core, no doubt.
The video has been linked to and posted a thousand times already.
You presume that the term "anchor-baby" applies solely to the children of illegal immigrants. It doesn't. It's a largely inclusive term that can be used to describe children of any parents who are not US citizens.
In this regard, the holding of Kim Wong Ark is CRYSTAL clear - children born to foreign-nationals who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens at birth. The prevailing legal opinion is that ALL citizens at birth (born on US soil) are indeed natural-born citizens.
Yes, if he was born on foreign soil, she could not have passed on US citizenship to him, if married to the father.
At minimum we're schizophrenic about it, that's for sure.
Maybe you’d like to read a little more then. IMHO he overplays his hand a bit but he does make some valid arguments.
Here’s an article from the videos creator.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185202
I'm not claiming anything, just questioning what is being claimed. And your claim that a USB flash drive was used is as far out in left field right now as anything. But let's follow it through, IF Hawaii's statement is false, and all they gave Obama was an electronic copy, as you suggested, then per the parent article it's very possibly not actually a copy but a digitally modified document by Hawaii, to cover up the original. Maybe that is what actually happened. Or maybe you didn't do a very good job of debunking what you were trying to debunk.
I know...... He couldn't have used what it's been referred to for the past 20 years...."aliasing". Sort of an ironic term considering the subject.
How would you match a newborn footprint to a grown man? Does your BC have your footprint? Mine doesn’t and neither do my children’s. Let’s at least keep the argument honest.
Speculative at best. A constitutional scholar I trust more than your speculation is Dr. Alan Keyes, who is a party to a trial that starts tomorrow questioning Obama's NBC status, among other things.
Honest? I have heard numerous times that footprints will match or not match, whether from an adult or child.
All I”m saying is there is one document - fraud or not - that has a purported footprint of Zero. If the hospital/s wherein he was supposedly born did the souvenir baby footprint thing, and his adult footprint was matched to the Mombasa doc and any that HI might have someplace, it would be interesting.
How is this dishonesty? Come on.
Well, while I'm not a former Ambassador, I am a practicing attorney - unlike Keyes. I also understand the difference between a trial court and an appellate court. The case that you allude to his going to be heard in front of three judge panel in the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - quite clearly not a trial court, so there will be no trial.
The district court already heard plaintiff's case and dismissed it - probably for lack of standing as a nonjusticiable political question. The chance of the plaintiff(s) prevailing on appeal with the case remanded for trial in a lower court is precisely 0.00% - you know, like ALL the other birther cases that have been dismissed for those very same reasons.
I believe this is at least the second such case Keyes has been party to. I'm sure this won't end any differently than those prior cases.
Yes, my understanding is the Obama defense got the case thrown out by getting the court to agree that if Obama is truly illegitimate, he's screwing over every last American, not just those that raised the question to the court, so they weren't sufficiently representing all of our claims. So that defense may have technically won, which is all you seem concerned about, but it hardly addressed the legitimate claims about questionable NBC status, multiple SSN's on record, etc.
I believe this is at least the second such case Keyes has been party to.
So why care then, right? They can possibly technically win the case by claiming that no one in America has the right to even question this, unless every last one of us are all somehow a party to the suit, and you're all good with it. Doesn't sound like you care if he was born in Kenya or not, or if any future President's are, either. Not projecting, just observing.
An unidentified “police dermatoglyphist” examined the footprints. This print identification expert found 89 percent to be technically inadequate for identification purposes, with only 1 percent possessing sufficient ridge detail for positive identification. The article concluded by stating that the typical health care professional is not fully aware of “...how unreliable footprints of a newborn happen to be for purposes of identification.”1 In a 1988 publication, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated that “...individual hospitals may want to continue the practice of footprinting or fingerprinting, but universal use of this practice is no longer recommended.
http://www.peoplefindernow.com/infanprts.htm
What would you do - have Obama step on an inkpad and then on a piece of paper? Really?
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.