Replies

Well, what you recall is wrong.

This is what I recall reading. There may have been follow-ups elsehwere, I don't recall that.

Inconsistencies undermine FactCheck report on Obama "birth certificate" from israelinsider:

This would seem to suggest that Factcheck went through the process of requesting the birth certificate (after all, why else reproduce and link the request form?), but no -- it turns out that they had a special invitation to visit the birth certificate at its residence, as if they were visiting some long lost relatives or a reclusive celebrity:

The article goes on to pose many questions, although they don't answer any. I can't recall of later articles elsewhere attempted to answer the questions.

So, now we can move onto the next step of debunking each others sources.

-PJ

You know PJT, that COLB is nothing but a $10 dollar computer printout with the minimum of information.

Obama treats his as if it's the one and only COLB. Like it's the Mona Lisa hidden to the world in his private art collection. Why have teams of lawyers hide his past when he can easily order hundreds of COLBs from Hawaii having them send his COLBs directly to every news organization in the world and to any person who wants one?

What Obama is doing is preposterous and absurd. Obama says he was born in Hawaii and the COLB he showed online to the world says he was born in Hawaii, so what's the problem?

Give everyone a hard copy of it straight from the the Hawaiian Department of Health. That would go a long way to help Obama quite the criticism to where he was born. Hand his COLB out to everyone like its candy since it's only worth 10 bucks.

Unless Obama was not born Hawaii then he has a problem.

Israel Insider says, "This would seem to suggest that Factcheck went through the process of requesting the birth certificate (after all, why else reproduce and link the request form?), but no -- it turns out that they had a special invitation to visit the birth certificate at its residence,"

They assume it was a special invitation, but there's no evidence of that.

The article goes on to pose many questions, although they don't answer any.

The article is full of inuendo, and very short on facts. As far as I could tell, there are only two facts they bring up:

1) The photos of the COLB were taken within a 6 minute time from. They seem to attach a lot of significance to this, but I'm not sure why. I can't see why it should take a photographer any longer to take picutres of a single document. Six minutes seems like a pretty reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, just because it only took them 6 minutes to photograph the document doesn't mean they only spent 6 minutes looking at the document.

2) The date stamped on the photographs was from March. Again, they attach a lot of significance to this, but I don't see why that's warranted. It either means they examined the document in March, or the date on their digital camera was off. How exactly that is supposed to invalidate the photographs is beyond me.

They also make a lot of assertions about the lighting and image quality, which simply don't ring true. The lighting and image quality seem fine to me. I don't see what they are talking about.

Oh, and of course, they bring up the Annenberg connection, which they totally misrepresent.

If you want to understand that point, Google Lenore Annenberg and read about her political donations over the last 10 years. If anything, the Annenberg connection strengthens the credibility of factcheck.