There’s more to that also, that I just thought of. Wikileaks, through somebody with the name “jeena paradies” (who is friendly with the Soros types, according to what I was able to find on him), published Obama’s so-called “Advertiser” birth announcement, claiming that it was the first time they had been published even though images had been online for some time. But it was the first time that the document was in searchable pdf format rather than as a graphic image.
Those announcements were forged. The microfilms were documentably changed out at least once in 3 libraries and at least twice in another.
The Advertiser was working to convert their archives into searchable pdf files.
Wikileaks has since removed their announcement image from the web - before any of these large leaks so it wasn’t because they didn’t have space to keep it on.
The evidence we have at this point strongly suggests that somebody at The Advertiser perpetrated both the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin forgeries. The Advertiser had the archived microfilms of both papers at their office and would have been able to make the pristine copies from the silver nitrate first-generation master microfilm.
They also had microfiche - which together with the microfilm was available for the public to use. I can’t find out when that was no longer the case but the first time there’s any written account of it was when “infidel granny” on the Atlas Shrugs blog said she asked to see the microfilms and was told they are not public. The microfiche sheets would have had some wear and tear, with which to make the copies that now show up in the Hawaii State Library that are very heavily scratched with DIAGONAL scratches in bizarre places like the shipping charts, which would not have gotten that way from microfilm readers. The Hawaii State Librarian says their microfilm was NOT made from microfiche sheets, but the diagonal scratches on microfilm would only come from somebody trying to take a diagonal copy of the page. Why would tons of people be trying to take a diagonal copy of the shipping charts - the most heavily used page on the whole microfilm, if the scratches are genuine?
It would not surprise me one bit if Obama had The Advertiser and Wikileaks work together to try to give legitimacy to what somebody at The Advertiser had forged for Obama.
So there IS something that Wikileaks “leaked” in regards to Obama’s eligibility: the forged Advertiser announcement, in a format intended to provide legitimacy, as if it came from the Advertiser’s digitized archives.
Glenn Beck talked about the Wikileaks connection to a number of Soros groups. Considering that nothing was leaked that is damaging to Obama but only furthering his ends - including an attempt to legitimize a forgery regarding Obama’s eligibility - I would say it looks pretty likely that Obama IS behind the Wikileaks.
Either that or Wikileaks has voluntarily supported only very critically-timed BHO causes such as damaging Palin, damaging Odinga’s rival, supporting Obama’s fake eligibility story, damaging the war efforts, and damaging Hillary when questions were being asked whether she would run against Obama in 2012.
Ping to another piece in the puzzle that might be considered.
Another thing that should be considered is the fact that Obama chose to lend credibility to his forged COLB (as indirectly confirmed by the HDOH in 2 different ways) by having it released by a so-called “independent” quasi-news agency which utterly lied for his benefit.
Seems like his modus operandi.
The best he can do with even the MSM is to threaten them into not reporting. But these quasi entities he can get to actually make up the doo-doo that he wants to pass off as legitimate, without risking perjury charges himself (on that particular instance).
He still should be facing perjury charges for his statement to AZ that he is eligible to be POTUS, and he should face charges of violating the Federal General False Statement Act for not correcting what he knew to be inaccurate statements about the genuineness of the Factcheck COLB, and he should face charges of misprision of felony for not reporting the people who forged that COLB for him.
There’s more to that also, that I just thought of. Wikileaks, through somebody with the name “jeena paradies” (who is friendly with the Soros types, according to what I was able to find on him), published Obama’s so-called “Advertiser” birth announcement, claiming that it was the first time they had been published even though images had been online for some time. But it was the first time that the document was in searchable pdf format rather than as a graphic image.
Those announcements were forged. The microfilms were documentably changed out at least once in 3 libraries and at least twice in another.
The Advertiser was working to convert their archives into searchable pdf files.
Wikileaks has since removed their announcement image from the web - before any of these large leaks so it wasn’t because they didn’t have space to keep it on.
The evidence we have at this point strongly suggests that somebody at The Advertiser perpetrated both the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin forgeries. The Advertiser had the archived microfilms of both papers at their office and would have been able to make the pristine copies from the silver nitrate first-generation master microfilm.
They also had microfiche - which together with the microfilm was available for the public to use. I can’t find out when that was no longer the case but the first time there’s any written account of it was when “infidel granny” on the Atlas Shrugs blog said she asked to see the microfilms and was told they are not public. The microfiche sheets would have had some wear and tear, with which to make the copies that now show up in the Hawaii State Library that are very heavily scratched with DIAGONAL scratches in bizarre places like the shipping charts, which would not have gotten that way from microfilm readers. The Hawaii State Librarian says their microfilm was NOT made from microfiche sheets, but the diagonal scratches on microfilm would only come from somebody trying to take a diagonal copy of the page. Why would tons of people be trying to take a diagonal copy of the shipping charts - the most heavily used page on the whole microfilm, if the scratches are genuine?
It would not surprise me one bit if Obama had The Advertiser and Wikileaks work together to try to give legitimacy to what somebody at The Advertiser had forged for Obama.
So there IS something that Wikileaks “leaked” in regards to Obama’s eligibility: the forged Advertiser announcement, in a format intended to provide legitimacy, as if it came from the Advertiser’s digitized archives.
Glenn Beck talked about the Wikileaks connection to a number of Soros groups. Considering that nothing was leaked that is damaging to Obama but only furthering his ends - including an attempt to legitimize a forgery regarding Obama’s eligibility - I would say it looks pretty likely that Obama IS behind the Wikileaks.
Either that or Wikileaks has voluntarily supported only very critically-timed BHO causes such as damaging Palin, damaging Odinga’s rival, supporting Obama’s fake eligibility story, damaging the war efforts, and damaging Hillary when questions were being asked whether she would run against Obama in 2012.
37 posted on Monday, December 06, 2010 11:04:12 AM by butterdezillion
Thanks for the info.
ping to butter’s #25
Thanks for the info about the inclusion of the bogus birth announcements, butter. Very interesting and very supportive, imo, of the notion that our dear leader is indeed the Wikileaks deepthroat.
make that #37, not #25