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: 113
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by neformore

Thanks I see you contributed 9 in total. Oddly, I am unable to deduce an answer to my question.

From your posts, it "appears" you were not. But things are not what they seem as of late. You could have been "in" on it.

No drama, I promise. I am being sincere.

In the spirit of truth and disclosure, I humbly ask again. A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Were the Mods aware of the image source?

I'm not trying to take a Swan Dive into the Ban Hammer, simply posing a legitimate question given yesterdays "bombshell."

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

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

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by kinda kurious


And I refer you to SO's post here, which I'm sure you read.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by neformore

So the Mods were unaware that FF received image from Skeptic Overlord.

Thanks for clearing that up. Good to know. Much appreciated.

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

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by neformore

What conspiracy ?

If I had to pick between the two possible motives I suggested in my last post I would go with the idea that some person put just enough effort into the hoax in order to string gullible people along for while . The person in question probably hasn't stopped laughing in days .

On the the most basic level why would any genuine conspiracy to use a forged document for any purpose other then a bad or rather illegal joke be made public before it went before legal avenues ?

The same would go for any real documents that were found . In the very least the documentation what be made public at the same time as legal proceedings not before .

[edit on 8-8-2009 by xpert11]

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by xpert11

Thats the interesting thing Xpert... there IS more to this whole subject than meets the eye, even if its something as shallow as a hack trying to make a quick buck - which does make it a conspiracy.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by truthtothemasses

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!!!??

If all you can do is offer insults then how is that particularly beneficial?
You see assumptions are made without evidence. You assume I am a 'he' I? Why would you assume so? The truth therefore is often veiled by assumptions.
As I have stated many times, I have no idea if the Kenyan is/was real, but even these 4 photo's do not prove it is or isn't. Everyone sees an Aussie one and instantly assumes it is real...assumption again. You are told that Hawaiian long forms are no longer available....and believe that is true merely because a government official told you so. Some see one argument on the net debunking the possibility of the Kenyan one being real and believes and cites every word without any research...and even when those points are debunked, there are some still citing them as absolute truth. When the government tells you to take the vaccine I suspect you will take it because the government told you it was safe. Good luck to you then. I find it odd that people on a conspiracy site find it reprehensible to talk about conspiracies.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:16 AM
I am giving you a star Flyersfan because you have the integrity to have changed this thread repeatedly to reflect developments which included admitting finally that it was a fraud...

Would that more on here be so honest.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by grover

SO changed the opening post to reflect the current situation.

You can tell by the edits at the bottom of the post.

[edit on 8/8/09 by Chadwickus]

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

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.

Regardless of what is happening since 2001 when they went 1961 they were not paperless. They have stated that they did not throw away any of the original paper birth certificates. It would probably be illegal to do so. Why would senator Will Espero be planning to legislate to make all long forms available to the public (let alone to the person of birth) if long forms did not exist? If, of course that is true, as WND do such sloppy reporting.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:46 AM
Was this a very clever Hoax ?

I mean the BC was dated at a time when it could have been used in conjunction for the divorce of his parents.

Which also put Kenya in that transition phase, Which meant all the other "Funny" info on the BC became at least Plausible ?

Or am i giving the Hoaxer too much credit ?

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by xpert11
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.

Some type of additional tag was on the thread title within the first 24 hours. I believe the chronology of tags was...
(potential hoax)
-- in the hoax forum --
(possible fraud)
(political fraud)

During the majority of the life-span of this thread, there was indeed some type of indication in the thread title that the integrity of the documents were in doubt.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Is it SAFE TO ASSUME that ALL OF THE MODS were in on this?

What are you implying?

What is there to be "in" on?

This is a document that was widely discussed all over the Internet and in mainstream media... and the majority of sources used were from Orly's website, not ATS.

If you're looking for reasons to cast aspersions on me and/or ATS management, you can project your unfounded doubt on any number of topics or actions that have been specific to ATS. To do so on a topic of national scale, that doesn't involve ATS, is beyond confounding.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by neformore

It is important how the document was presented to ATS.

Management could've been straight up from the very beginning ... here, someone has sent ATS an email, we've no idea who sent it to us and we've no idea if the attachment is genuine or otherwise ... can you, the members, help us out here ?

What's more transparent than that ?

That would've set my alarm bells ringing immediately about the documents validity ... why send such a vitally important document to ATS rather than simply take the case straight to the public via MSM ?

Instead, we've got Flyers Fan presenting the document ... and claiming that some person known only to them had sent it. And in my head at least that someone could've been intimately connected to Orly for all I knew, someone important in the Birther movement ... perhaps even Orly herself.

And that's why I and some other members didn't push Flyers Fan too hard on the source of the document, for to push too hard and the door might get slammed shut. And given the source might still yet have more revelations to divulge, better keep that door open, huh ?

It's not a case of "ATS can't ever win, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't."

There was a way to present it correctly to the members ... and that was just to be honest & upfront. We can take that

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Ulala
It is important how the document was presented to ATS.

I'm genuinely confused as to why this matters... other than for those who do little more than look for reasons to cast aspersions on ATS.

This document became an Internet phenomenon separate from the discussions on ATS and would have been posted sooner or later. I fail to see how the origin, only here on ATS, is an issue.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I am asking if the Mods were aware YOU sent the anonymously provided document to "select" members and if THEY (mods) were aware YOU provided the OP with the fake document.

In all due respect, it would seem reasonable that we determine all aspects of how widespread this goes. It is my opinion that certain integrity was besmirched. I'd just like to know how deeply.

Perhaps how it applies to this little thing:

Terms And Conditions Of Use

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

Key Word: misleading

Respectfully. . . KK

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

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am asking if the Mods were aware YOU sent the anonymously provided document to "select" members and if THEY (mods) were aware YOU provided the OP with the fake document.

Before presenting it to the public, we discussed it in the mod-only forum. I didn't have the time, nor did the staff, to fully vet the document (which was considered probably fake at the time), so it made sense to offer it up to a few members. Plain and simple.

It is my opinion that the certain integrity was besmirched.

It seems as though you're looking for reasons to have than opinion.

Key Word: misleading

So it appears you would rather a site like ATS not entertain discussion of a fraudulent document intended to cast doubt on the President. You'd rather not discuss the origins and motivation of the document author? You'd rather not discuss the origins and motivations of the underlying conspiracy that inspired the document?

It would seem, if that is the case, you will be frustrated in ATS by any number of topics.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:36 AM
Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents
Hawaii senator: 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?'

State Sen. Will Espero (D),

Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state's lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama's birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.

Espero told WND his bill is aimed at "giving citizens access to birth records" under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii.

"My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions," Espero said.

Espero told WND that he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.

That would be nice to lay this thing to rest, it would be very wise if Obama steps up to the plate.

I hope this never happens again, there is a reason people who run for office get vetted.

"My motivation is strictly to promote transparency," he said. "When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?'

"As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain," he said.

Asked specifically about Obama's birth records, including the original long-form birth certificate, Espero said, "Whatever birth records regarding President Obama that the Hawaii Department has on file should be made public."

[edit on 083131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:44 AM

with post image that has scrubbed from the net, from Obama's own fight the smears page,

At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“ Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.

As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

Neither Obama nor dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth. As you can see, it has been admitted. All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Fact. Checked. Established. The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject. (And that’s the topic of my next post.)

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Thank you for clearing that up.

FTR, I love ATS. It has always seemed like the last bastion of truth. I can only offer sincere praise and accolades for it's concept, high-standards and continual enhancements. Anyone would be proud to be a part of it's inception and continued innovation.

As a somewhat technical person myself, I can appreciate the untold hours of R&D, coding and hardware infrastructure required to maintain from both a monetary and manpower perspective. I am in constant awe of that and feel fortunate to be a member.

It is that keen appreciation and respect that leaves me troubled. Not like a kid who finally realizes there is no Santa, but more like an adult watching the shuttle explode.
I'm truly saddened and in disbelief. Chagrined.

I'm sure I'll survive, just shocked and reeling right now.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:03 AM

Originally posted by kinda kurious
FTR, I love ATS. It has always seemed like the last bastion of truth.

As this thread has shown, and which unfortunately reflects the public at large, one's perception of "truth" is colored by whichever shade of ideological glasses they're wearing.

Your concern, and multiple complaints, over a member using "Ovomit" instead of "Obama" has certainly made it clear that your indignation is tempered by your political mindset.

I'm considering a rather lengthy thread/post if I have the time. But recently, a somewhat well-connected Washington insider once told me; "The only thing that ever changes in Washington are the nameplates on the doors of the Executive, Senate and Congressional offices. We (lobbyists) and our money control everything."

In this era, it seems rather antiquated to have an exceptionally strong preference for one flavor or another of the American political madness.

new topics

top topics

<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in