You are missing the point. Anyone can shoot down conspiracy armchair sleuths - like shooting fish in a barrel - because as you say, one can conjecture in either direction from facts. A death can mean one thing, or its opposite, and still be part of a dastardly plot. We’ve all read enough mysteries and seen enough courtroom dramas to know how motivation and coverups can splay into different directions.
What butter and a lot of others here are trying to do is to sift through facts and general info to attempt to arrive at any truth.
There is too much evidence that something is amiss with Barack Obama’s citizenship. No one knows exactly what the story is, only that there is a story. Questionable citizenship means our president may not have been eligible to hold office. There are enough powerful forces apparently to aid him in hiding the information about his eligibility.
These questions have never been dealt with intelligently by any mainstream investigative news shows, papers, or reporters. There are a few in the media who have signed affidavits that they were threatened to not speak on this topic by their bosses. If George W Bush had had such questions surrounding his eligibility, they would have been investigated before his first election. Barack Obama’s citizenship issues were never even vetted.
Why don’t you speak on this topic? It would be more interesting to debate a “non birther” on why he believes evidence points to a normal American birth and normal citizenship of Barack Obama. There is nothing interesting about you ripping Butter by basically mocking the whole idea of corruption or conspiracy.
Perhaps it's unintended, but your comment is susceptible of the impression that such conjecture is equally plausible on both sides. It's not. That's why I invoked Occam's Razor as a guide.
A death can mean one thing, or its opposite, and still be part of a dastardly plot. We’ve all read enough mysteries and seen enough courtroom dramas to know how motivation and coverups can splay into different directions.
And, again, my point is that -- given a) there was no hint that Ms. Fuddy perceived herself to be under any sort of legal scrutiny, b) there is no sign of any legal scrutiny by any prosecutor's office or the Congress, c) there was no sign of Ms. Fuddy indicating she need to "come clean" on anything, and d) there was no sign about any of this as regards her Hawaii colleagues who have equal information, yet who remain alive -- there is no plausible theory of motive for staging some overly complex airplane crash assassination plot.
What butter and a lot of others here are trying to do is to sift through facts and general info to attempt to arrive at any truth.
There are some who are a bit more even-handed in assessing the data. Though in Butter's case, she does back-flips and all manner of logical contortions to shoe-horn data bits into a pre-conceived theory.
There are enough powerful forces apparently to aid him in hiding the information about his eligibility.
Here is encountered one of the HUGE flaws in the Birther narrative: this ASSUMPTION that there is some "powerful force" that has been at work (and been at work since 1961, for the Birther narrative to make sense). If one steps back into early 2008, the Force (in the Democratic ranks) were the Clintons. She was the 'inevitable' candidate. He was the ex-President having all the political connections. They had the name recognition. They had the "hardball" killer instincts. (And to read these threads about Ron Brown, that is believed by many to be literally true).
By contrast, it was Obama who was the feeble upstart. And then this amazing thing happened. As Obama overtook Clinton in the lead, this sinister, all-powerful Force (that was just a bit before the mantle of the Clintons) magically transferred to Obama.
That is the view Birthers project. With a wave of the hand suddenly Obama becomes the face of The Force. It's never explained who or how this happened. Birthers just assume the Force is there. To say the least, I find this notion rather fanciful.
These questions have never been dealt with intelligently by any mainstream investigative news shows, papers, or reporters.
That's perhaps because for "these questions" to first have a semblance of intelligence about them one has to buy into the Birther assumptions which underlie them.
There are a few in the media who have signed affidavits that they were threatened to not speak on this topic by their bosses.
Who, specifically, are among these "few?" This nameless bit of hearsay is oft-repeated. I've yet to read who exactly these media personalities are who signed these affidavits.
Why don’t you speak on this topic? It would be more interesting to debate a “non birther” on why he believes evidence points to a normal American birth and normal citizenship of Barack Obama.
My interest here was initially the NBC issue, involving as it does the confluence of history and law spanning over 400 years. Fun topic. I have far less interest in debating pixels on a .pdf scan (which is what it seems the birthplace issue usually devolves into).
But as I said to Butter as to Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation for why so many accept a Hawaiian birth is that Obama actually was born in Hawaii. And while I've never been inclined to debate this topic, there a few bits of evidence I find persuasive towards that view. These include: a) the newspaper birth announcements, b) the INS file (dated August, 1961) which mentions BHS Sr. having a child here, c) the Indonesian school application (circa 1970?) which lists "August 4, 1961, Honolulu HI" as the place of birth, d) the various media reports around 1990 when BHO II was named Pres. of the Harvard L.R. stating a Hawaiian birthplace, and, ultimately and most importantly, e) the repeated affirmation by State of Hawaii officials (of both party persuasions) that BHO, II was born in Hawaii.
There is nothing interesting about you ripping Butter by basically mocking the whole idea of corruption or conspiracy.
Well, you have me there. It is a bit like shooting a fish in a barrel.