It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sheriff's probe finds Obama birth certificate 'fake' (Full conference)

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Still self-evident no matter what you require.




posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Self-evident that you convinced yourself that NO other reasons could exist for the discrepancy you've pointed out other than your predetermined conclusion. Finding a discrepancy is one thing, but convincing yourself of a conspiracy based on that one discrepancy and no other evidence analysis is lousy detective work. You'd be fired from any precinct in short order for what you are doing. Edit: Well maybe not Sheriff Joe. He'd probably buy your nonsense.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If it isn't certified according to the published regulations, then it isn't a certified copy. The regulations are the last and only word on that and unless you cannot read, then you don't need help understanding from someone you deem 'credible.'


ETA: Sling all the ad hominem attacks you want, because that really is all you have to debate this.
edit on 16-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Apparently you are putting words in my mouth or you don't know the full definition of "discrepancy". In any case, me using the word "discrepancy" isn't me agreeing that your claim is legit. Like I said, you've convinced yourself of your predetermined biases based on one issue that you think exists based on a PHOTOGRAPH of the BC you can only see from one angle. Until you get the BC in your hands and do some actual detective work you words mean nothing to me.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope. There are multiple high resolution photographs, taken by Factcheck, and then there's Factcheck's 'error' -- which, btw, they have never corrected even though they've been made aware of it.

ETA: I don't have the slightest interest in convincing you. I think this conversation between us is over.
edit on 16-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Question. Have you held and analyzed the Birth Certificate yourself?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Under the utopian paradise you occupy no one would ever be indicted for anything.

Unfortunately that's not reality.

When DOJ gets cleaned up answers may be forthcoming until then I am patient after all eight years is a long time.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

No I occupy the United States where innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land and has been for the country's history. I don't know how you THINK the judicial system works, but that is definitely the way it works. There MAY be corruption at various levels and justice might not always be blind, but you are lying through your teeth if you are suggesting the law works differently than what I said.

So no grand jury for you. At least MotherMayEye is attempting to bring forth evidence. Your claims and demands are just pure lunacy.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Question. Have you held and analyzed the Birth Certificate yourself?


Not even remotely relevant to proving my claim. It's still self-evident for the reasons I've laid out.

Question: Have you held and analyzed the Birth Certificate yourself?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't need to have seen the BC myself to side with SME's. Furthermore I don't presume guilt then look for any little hole in the story to declare myself the winner. As siding with the mainstream narrative I don't need to prove my point as I'm not the one making the claim. Sorry things don't work and you can't turn that question back on me. You are making the claim YOU need to do the legwork with the evidence.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's some twisted logic there, but ok. Like I said, I am not interested in convincing you.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's some twisted logic there, but ok. Like I said, I am not interested in convincing you.

Burden of Proof is twisted logic to you? Ok...


The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position, to that party's own position

Pretty sure this is what I just said. I don't need to look at the evidence until you've presented evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position. You haven't provided that evidence yet so I don't need to personally analyze the BC. Yet. Welcome to detective work.
edit on 16-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I already satisfied it.

It's the "mainstream" claim that Obama's birth certificate bears the requisite raised seal that has not been proven. Balls in the 'mainstream's' court.

Besides, a 'mainstream narrative' does not prove Obama's short form qualifies as a certified copy of a birth certificate issued by the HDOH.

The published regulations prove it's not.
edit on 16-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Well, it's official now. So who was behind this? The Soviets? I think we have found the new head of the CIA.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No. You provided your opinion based on a photograph. That isn't evidence in ANY court of law.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So under your interpretation of the constitution how does or would anyone ever get indicted for anything.

See, in my country a prosecutor presents facts to a grand jury. The grand jury makes no consideration of guilt or innocence, it either no bills the prosecutors facts or remand the case to a judge. The case is then aged before a judge or panel of jurors who finally determine guilt or innocence.

I have simply stated the probably is enough question raised for a prosecutor to present to a grand jury - after that, if grand jury agreed then guilt or innocence is up to judge and jury.

That's way it's supposed to work in my country but seems to be stymied for let's see....past eight years or so.

What do they do in your neck of the woods?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

What is "presents facts"? What does that even mean? That is a nonsense statement. Especially in a court of law. You mean "present EVIDENCE" and in order to present EVIDENCE one must build a case with actual evidence and an investigation.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No. You provided your opinion based on a photograph. That isn't evidence in ANY court of law.


So.....why not let the subject get to a court of law - after all you seem very self assured of the outcome, or, are you maybe not so sure in that circumstance, court of law that is.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting. Because photographs are all Obama has offered as proof -- not just to the public, but his lawyers directed the Court to view his birth certificate image at Fight the Smears.

Good to know your opinion on the quality of that evidence he's offered.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

I repeat

Why would I be for breaking judicial precedents and law to humor a bunch of internet crazies?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join