It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 112
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by kinda kurious

Quoted for agreement and because a single star just isn't enough. *************** I am wordless. (a rarity)

Why thankyou KK, Im speachless that your speachless....I am waiting for a reply...but I doubt an applause would be forthcoming

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Thanks BH
What Im this Office of the Registrar may have had its own seal. It is regular that GOVT department have their own symbol, so we'll see if it applies here also.
Not the coat of arms or emblem or seal of South Australia
Ill ring and ask on Monday...when they are open..Easy enough.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by zazzafrazz

The one pictured in the header is the same as the current SA coat of arms

As far as I know, there is no "separate" coat of arms

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

As i have shown you in their site they did change the coat of arms inthe 80's
WHich seal are you talking about so i can get clarity when i call
the top emblem or the raised seal of the registrar?
Thnks zazz

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by zazzafrazz

To clear things up on the coat of arms for South Australia:

This is the current coat of arms:

This is the previous coat of arms (1936 – 1984):

The Australian Birth Cert that everyone is talking about has the old coat of arms, BUT it’s a bit different, it has two men on each side of it, holding it like a shield. Whether or not they actually had a version of the coat of arms with two men on each side, I don’t know, can’t find one online, but they might have.

All other Birth Certs across Australia have the same coat of arms as that the state that is issuing the cert.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:14 PM
About the motivation and the semantics of the thread topic: If it was indeed intented to be a fraud why would the person even take the pics with the type writer and 'you got punk'd'? I'm leaning towards a hoax

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Knox, now you know better than that... You can't get the LONG form from Hawaii anymore. They stopped that many years back.

In Hawaii all you can get is the short form. No one can get a long form from hawaii, does that make every Hawaiian suspect?

Now why would you believe that? So you are saying that the long form exists in Hawaii but can never be released upon request and payment of fee, so as to prove absolute details of birth to the person whose birth is documented. That would seem illegal and ridiculous. The fact that the records are now computerised makes it even easier to produce the long form. They have not destroyed the paper originals. It has never been said that the ORIGINAL birth certificate does not exist or cannot be shown, just can’t be shown unless it is your own birth certificate and you are authorised to obtain one.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

Well, we now have Hawaiin State Senator Will Espero, a democrat, confirming plans to introduce legislation to force public disclosure of all long form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii.

Let's hope that goes through.

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by PsykoOps

About the motivation and the semantics of the thread topic: If it was indeed intented to be a fraud why would the person even take the pics with the type writer and 'you got punk'd'? I'm leaning towards a hoax

Oh the four photo's are a is the Aussie certificate....unless someone can prove otherwise.

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:35 PM
I don't think so. Someone who does a fraud won't take/publish pictures that expose it. That's just plain illogical. It has to be a hoax.

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by oneclickaway

No it's up to you to provide proof of YOUR claim they are fake....that's how debating works. I have seen no evidence to proof YOUR claim yet.

Dude....your lost, everything points that the KBC is a fraudulent document. Even the right wing sites and machine are calling so. What have you missed???

S-dog posted this much earlier in the thread and I fell it's poignant to post again.......

Why the stories about Obama's BC........

As for the revelation that the secret source of FF's initial post was Skeptic Overlord, I'm greatly disappointed. How many other threads have been started with info being passed from owner's/ admin's/mod's/ member's with a vested interest, etc. are out there?

SkepticOverlord, I do understand your reasoning for doing what you did and how you went about show no partisanship and also not influence the topic but, I'd say you hurt your credibility more then protected it.

About Orly Taitz:

This women is a shyster and worse, an idiot/stooge, being taken advantage of by someone or something(party/corp or both) and being PAID handsomely for it. To those who say "look how accomplished she is; a real estate agent, a dentist, a lawyer. No this says she's no good at what she does and just jumps around from the highest earning professions she can weasel her way into.

She's being dis-bard. Her submission to the court was turned down for several improper filing procedures. The pic she is currently using on her site( and the OP's original pic posted) , is from the series of "you've Been Punk'd" . This means she didn't even post a pic she or her staff took themselves. They simply used the digital pic the hoaxer provided. Very strange....

So, who or why would do this? I could make an argument for 4 scenarios:

1) left
2) right
3) both of the above with some corporation and NWO thown in

4) just some civilians out for kicks; a psych college experiment ...perhaps a Titor like copycat. Someone "testing" the responses.

Seems like ATS and Orly received the pics in a similar time frame, as some other sites...this was a coordinated viral EVENT.

This is were we are. That's why I think SkepticOverlord actually could have helped the investigation more by sharing his involvement much, much earlier. Lesson learned

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Connector]

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Knox, now you know better than that... You can't get the LONG form from Hawaii anymore. They stopped that many years back.

In Hawaii all you can get is the short form. No one can get a long form from hawaii, does that make every Hawaiian suspect?

Now why would you believe that?

Because that's the way it is

Question: What is the state's policy for issuing a "Certification of Live Birth" versus a "Certificate of Live Birth"? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier's name and title; attendant's name and title, etc. The certification has only the child's name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother's maiden name, mother's race, father's name and father's race. Why doesn't the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

Answer: No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it's only available in electronic form.

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:39 AM
reply to post by Connector

I offered Oneclickaway a life preserver yesterday when I told him he was drowning, but he refused.

Now, he's being very incoherent, like someone that sees an "island" when adrift at sea. Oneclick is clinging on dearly to his Kenya BC lifeboat, but can only see mirages of Obama Kenyan BC Islands all around him.

Can someone please save Oneclick before it's too late!!!??

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by truthtothemasses

Nope, it is too late for some of these folks. I tried to say earlier that they could not get a long form if there kid was born tomorrow but I was called a liar. The reason I was a liar? Because someone else in a different state got the long form for their kid 4 years ago. They do not even try, they just refuse to believe and for some reason, their followers believe they actually made a point.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:52 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I sought out those who were active in the "natural born" discussions, who were also long-time members. I'm not sure it ended up representing a balanced perspective.


You sent this to the OP?

So who did you contact that you felt was impartial on the subject because it is quite obvious that Flyersfan is not?

To clear up the point you were unsure about, NO it did not represent a balanced perspective at all. Apparently ATS fell silent while this piece of trash was paraded around this site as being authentic. Much longer still, after the rest of the world had already proven it to be false.

I can't decide whether I am more shocked or disappointed.
Perhaps a mixture of both.

Third, there is enough "rumor" and innuendo "in the wild" to speculate that these conspiracies (and even the document inspiring this thread) originated via covert operations of the ideological left to perpetuate unproductive distractions and continue the divisive left-v-right rhetoric that deflects real attention away from real issues.

Karl Rove didn't even have all the details and he knew this was a likely hoax.

If you want to speculate further and claim that the new angle on this documents origins should be that it may have come from the left to confuse the issue, then I don't even think debating ANY new birth certificate evidence is worth the time. In the end there is still an option to blame the group you are trying to smear so its win-win.

Whoever it was that pulled this sites pants down deserves some applause.
I thought it would be a bit harder to do.

The members claiming ATS hurt its credibility are right on the money.

In the midst of this and previous harsh threads regarding Obama, there's been a great deal of animosity expressed toward "ATS." It seems that a large segment of previously anti-Bush members assumed that "ATS" would be pro-Obama once he was in office.

No one expects ATS to be "pro-Obama" and you shouldn't hide behind such an excuse. I'm not pro-Obama and I didn't even vote for the man but I know manure when I see it. I think this particular piece of information and the way it was disseminated was an good example of mismanagement.

I think this was a big mistake on the part of ATS and as much as I understand that such mistakes happen I'm seriously considering an exit from this place all together.

That or just ignore the next Kenyan Obama certificate that this site receives anonymously and forwards to a hard right long time member to post up with no evidence that it is even real.

- Lee

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:58 AM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
And to the ATS brain trust ... congratulations on allowing this community to be one of the last in the world to declare this jackassery a hoax. To this moment the obvious "hedging" of our official position on this matter is not characteristic of the clear thinking, sound decision-making, and dignity I am either used to, or have come to expect from ATS hierarchy ... proud days indeed.

Well said and I absolutely agree.
This was a joke from start to...whenever they decide to finish.

- Lee

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:29 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You know, in matters like this, ATS is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't.

Had SO put that document out with an official ATS tag, this site would have been - literally - crawling with people claiming that ATS had taken an anti-Obama stance, that the site was endorsing the claims, and that ATS was smearing the POTUS.

And at the same time, ATS would have been innundated with the kind of crass, pointless - and frankly embarrasing to watch - viral partisan rabidity that seems to have taken hold in independant US political commentary these days, because sense and reason appear to have gone out of the window and people are so damn desperate to try and prove "something" that an ex dentist turned hack lawyer with all the apparent professional presentation skills of Animal from the muppet show brandishing a photoshopped document becomes mainstream news.

Putting it out there without the tag allowed the members to discuss the thing in the open, with no pre-judgement whatsoever. People went to work on it, and people have exposed it for what it is.

How it got on ATS is irrelevant. Who presented it is irrelevant. The authenticity of the document, and the motives of the people who developed it in the first place ARE relevant.

People are complaining that ATS let the members debate and decide the authenticity of the document themselves.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:07 AM
reply to post by neformore

Nice to see a Mod finally pop up.

Quick Question, I seem to have noticed an overall lack of Mod involvement on this thread.
(Save for OP claiming to be at the ready with ALERT button.)

Is it SAFE TO ASSUME that ALL OF THE MODS were in on this?

Seems like a fair question as we attempt to dissect the chain of events.

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

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:08 AM
reply to post by neformore

From what I can gather some members are objecting the length of time it took for the hoax or some other tag to be applied to the topic . Even after it became clear it was hoax SkepticOverlord allowed the discussion to go on based on the most illogical claims that I have ever encountered on the boards . The nature of ATS does make it susceptible hoaxes such as the guy who claimed to have plan 9-11 back in the 70's . Every time these hoaxes happen those who are desperate and gullible enough will hop on the band wagon .

IMO the person who sent SkepticOverlord knew how the forged document would linger for a while which suggests knowledge of the boards . So that leads me to a couple possible of avenues with the first being that a current or former disgruntled ATS member is behind the hoax . The second possibility is the one I have already mentioned some person is just laughing there ass off somewhere .

A bit of oversight in advance would have avoided all of this particularly since the Republic of Kenya didn't during the year of Obama birth . Before anyone brings up the beyond ludicrous counter arguments any legal document is going to have the legal name of the relevant place on it , not that of any possible future legal title .

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:24 AM
reply to post by kinda kurious

Really KK.....

my previous thread posts

A little research before you try and ramp up the drama eh?

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:28 AM
reply to post by xpert11

The thread has been moved twice, once into the hoax forum, had a hoax tag put on it previously, and finally ended up in the political conspiracies forum as the topic has evolved - eventually ending up with the political fraud tag.

Its here because - while the BC is, I think we all agree, a hoax - the motives behind someone trying to continually push the issue, and resorting to stooping to such depths most certainly is a political conspiracy.

[edit on 8/8/09 by neformore]

top topics

<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in