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.

 

Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

page: 111
182
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I think political fraud is more correct than hoax. We really don't know the intention of the BC-maker. If it was meant to be a joke or to "trick" people, then it would be a hoax, but I suspect the motive behind this was to actually commit fraud. To try to pass off that piece of paper as the real thing. I know... it's crazy. But that's what I think.



Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Why post the video and do a ATS disclaimer and not the Kenyan Birth certifiate with a disclaimer?
Why different protocals on information sharing?


Great question!

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ah, the importance of semantics:

Hoax:


A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive or trick an audience into believing, or accepting, that something is real, when the hoaxster knows it is not; or that something is true, when it is false..


Fraud:


In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds


In this case, as has been stated, the motives of the individual (personal gain) behind this document can only be assumed, and cannot or have not yet been be ascertained.

As such, and until such motives can be established, this falls under the clearest definition of hoax.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think political fraud is more correct than hoax. We really don't know the intention of the BC-maker. If it was meant to be a joke or to "trick" people, then it would be a hoax, but I suspect the motive behind this was to actually commit fraud. To try to pass off that piece of paper as the real thing. I know... it's crazy. But that's what I think.



Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Why post the video and do a ATS disclaimer and not the Kenyan Birth certifiate with a disclaimer?
Why different protocals on information sharing?


Great question!

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


Were you able to see the pictures posted a few pages back (I believe between 98-105)? They showed several pictures of the certificate at different angles, the typewriter they used, and the coin to make the raised seal.

The final picture was of the BC ripped up and written in graffiti, "You've been punk'd" (or something along those lines). Seems pretty clear that they meant this as a hoax to rile about the conspirator crowd. You never know though!



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Okie dokey.
I'm going to have to agree with you.


Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Were you able to see the pictures posted a few pages back (I believe between 98-105)? They showed several pictures of the certificate at different angles, the typewriter they used, and the coin to make the raised seal.


No, I didn't see that! But if that's the case, and with dog's definition, I definitely think it was a hoax. I'll have to go check those photos out. Because if we know where they came from, we know the hoaxer, right?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Okie dokey.
I'm going to have to agree with you.


I missed you so much.



Listen, we can call it a pamplemousse if we want for the sake of filing convenience ...

... but it is what it is.

In any case, these are not really our calls to make. Perhaps now we should focus on provenance and intent.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I missed you so much.


Same here, love.




Perhaps now we should focus on provenance and intent.


Sounds good to me. I looked at the pictures and the source, but can't figure out where they actually came from. Was it a blog? A thread? Is there any way to tell who originally posted the pics? I'm sure we'd know if there was, but I'm a little confused.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Who gains most by it being a hoax?

two lines



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Video of Obama admiting he wasn't born in US.

Video



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Who gains most by it being a hoax?


In my view, some kid who wants his 15 minutes. I mean, anyone who seriously wanted to fool people would have done a lot better job of looking at the history of the country.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Who gains most by it being a hoax?

two lines


That is not the question. The reason it was hoaxed is because someone was hoping to gain something through deceit. Who gains the most by presenting this false document? Who was hoping to gain by getting their hands on it? Just because it was so easily figured out does not mean that it was planned to be discoverd thus keeping the guilt in the victim's court.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


You should view Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. facebook page her friends list says a lot. People like Michelle Steele, Steve Gresh, Michael D Brown "Bushes Brownie", Bruce Thompson.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Watching the good Sensai Doctor Esquire on Fox news, running her lips up one side of Hannities backside and down the other, pretty much summed that up. I am not at all surprised but now I am compelled to go look. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


SA has different emblems / coat of arms and it changed in 1980's
Ill see if I can find Birth Cert coat of arms for bomford era
www.about-australia.com...





[edit on 7-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
Video of Obama admiting he wasn't born in US.

Video


Yes he DID admit it but you know this is a conspiracy site so of course some people are going to say he was just joking.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 



South Australia Coat of Arms The State Coat of Arms conferred in a proclamation gazetted on the 19th April, 1984 replaces an earlier Coat of Arms conferred by King Edward VIII in 1936.The State Coat of Arms is for official use by the Government of South Australia only. Under the Unauthorised Documents Act 1916 no person can print, publish or manufacture the symbol without permission. The symbol cannot be used for commercial purposes.

It says on the seal, Officeof the registrar, not the offical seal of SA.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


I have done my research on the coat of arms, thanks.

It does not match any S. Australian coat of arms.


The original Coat of Arms was granted by King Edward VIII on the 100th anniversary of its foundation on 20 Nov 1936.

The present coat of arms was conferred by Queen Elizabeth II on 19 April 1984. It consists of the State badge resting on a grassy mount with ripening wheat and barley, fresh fruit, metal cogs of industry and a miner's pick, objects representing all aspects of industry in South Australia.
The crest above the shield has four sprigs of the State's floral emblem, Sturt's Desert Pea, on a collar of the State's colours of red, blue and gold.
The motto is simply "South Australia".]

Link


Neither of those two (the only two coat of arms of South Australia) is used on the Oz BC.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Why post the video and do a ATS disclaimer and not the Kenyan Birth certifiate with a disclaimer?
Why different protocals on information sharing?

I'm not sure why one wouldnt have just admitted that? Why the cloak and dagger?
The source was pertanant to discussions and information was deliberatly kept from members specifically asking.
Why the gag order?
It was fun thread. But all information should have been revealed, why play the same tactics that the members feel that get all the time from government ?

Wasn't cool to keep source gagged, though I can see how the intirgue kept interest going, and hey Im ok with peeps making money, Im a capitalist pig myself at times. But info supression...not cool.
Information sharing protocols should be standardized and not designed to keep your members ignorant of facts pertaining to a specific line of enquiry.
It was asked plenty throughout the thread, they should have been answered then, not when the thread was dying out....


Quoted for agreement and because a single star just isn't enough. ***************

I am wordless. (a rarity)

[edit on 7-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Its the stamp of the office of the principle registar of SOuth Asutralia
www.ocba.sa.gov.au...
this is their site and they have a different coat of arms to the official Sth Australian one

IM trying to find the emblem used for that office back then
Not for South Australia.




[edit on 7-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Both of them are pictured here:
www.ngw.nl...



new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join