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: 51
182
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
So the current concensus is that this "attorney" is an absolute fruit loop of undetermined foreign origin who is trying to peddle a clearly forged document.

Sound about right?




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Is kinda kurious trolling again? That's why I am ignoring him.
He lies, he's never on topic,for some reason he's obsessed with my gender. Women are supposed to be girly-girl fluffheads or something ...


If looking for the truth and demanding factual accuracy is "trolling" then I am guilty as charged. There is a legacy of OP to change colors like a chameleon to whatever suits her bias on a thread.

OT:

The document was clearly forged.

Funny it is a crime to do the same with currency and academic (medical) degrees.

Since no one is stepping up as credible source, what does THAT tell ya?


[edit on 3-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by thegear
 


No one is denying that Obama is a citizen. My son was born here in Germany and he's an American citizen.

The issue is where Obama was born. If Obama was born outside the United States, he couldn't be a natural born citizen, which would make him ineligible to be president.

I just saw a video that said that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still wouldn't be natural born since we wasn't born to two American citizens. His dad was subject to the British crown.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 




Does Examiner.com count as reliable MSM media???


How about starting a thread with that title? The results should prove to be very enlightening and interesting. You could even bank some major points. No single source of information will suit everyone all the time. It really does not matter what your source is because the opposers will come along with their ingrained rhetoric to expose the reasons why your source is bunk and theirs is superior. When you stand back and watch, it is both frightening and funny.

I'm still waiting to hear whether the court hears and grants the motions or throws it out point blank.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Does Examiner.com count as reliable MSM media???

Now a days I'm thinking there is no such thing as 'reliable MSM'. Ya' know?


Originally posted by Ahabstar
despite a post countering much of the subjects mentioned the hoax

1/2 of the post that was the thread killer was speculation. Lavendar is a soap? So what? Dawn is a soap AND a persons name. The three issues left that had any merit were claimed by the poster but no source of information was given.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Nor was any source provided for the allegedly 'genuine' birth certificate at the centre of this thread, unless I'm mistaken ?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Fire up the BS shredder, this one is ready.


And now more than ever an old adage rings true, "Consider the source."
( And if THERE IS NO SOURCE, be skeptical.)

Hope OP is satisfied, according to OP this was supposed to be "fun."


Well, I'm having some fun now watching her moonwalk.


[edit on 3-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
The issue is where Obama was born.

I'm still thinking it was probably Hawaii. Probably. There is no evidence to support it and obviously Obama is trying desperately to keep the Hawaiian documentation hidden, so we may never know for sure.

If this Kenyan document is real ... it's a very serious situation.
If this Kenyan document is fake ... then it's a criminal act by someone.

As I've said from the start of this thread, either way, we aren't going to figure it out on an internet site. But we can have fun digging through everything.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


They called Hoax, with no proof?

[edit on 103131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
Nor was any source provided for the allegedly 'genuine' birth certificate at the centre of this thread,

I never said it was 'genuine'. Not once. Don't lie.

I was very clear that this was a verify/debunk thread. I also was very clear about the deal with the source. I posted what was given to me. That's it. You see what I was given. And I won't say who gave it to me unless that person says to.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



They called Hoax, with no proof?

They called hoax because one of the names on the paper is similar to a laundry detergent, I think.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
They called Hoax, with no proof?

Based upon one post that had no back up information.
And most of that one post has been debunked already.
Skeptic Overlord isn't on right now.
When he comes back he'll take a look and make a determination.

It may be a hoax. It may be real. We don't know.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Seems that way, one post that pointed out "curiosities" in the image got it bumped to hoax.

But what ISN'T a hoax is that this document HAS been submitted to the courts with a request for verification through the courts.

Someone would have to be either completely stupid or pretty confident to submit this to court as potential evidence in a pending hearing, even with a request to authenticate, if it is a hoax (and they knew it was)

Looking forward to seeing how the courts handle this one



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Im just as curious how one post can get a whole thread labeled a hoax...


Im also curious when it became ATS policy to place a thread under the HOAX category when it can neither be PROVEN or DISPROVEN....

Isnt that the basis of MANY MANY conspiracies? Under the premise this thread was moved then, shouldnt 90 percent of the subjects on this site be labeled under hoax?

Every point on this thread has been discussed at length and both found reasonable cause for the explanations.......IF some of the forum moderators or whoever is responsible for having this thread moved read through it they could see that...

I can go through a HUGE number of posts on this site, using the logic behind filing this post where it has been, and effectively consolidate the categories into less sizable listing......

ATS you guys really dropped the ball on this one....the bad part is, if this does turn out to be legit, youre gonna have egg on your face.

And now, im seriously debating staying apart of this site...not that it would bother a few people.....

I have never been a person thats really huge into the birther movement, other that reading the information and finding it very interesting....but this thread move is pretty blatant.....and it makes me wonder what else ATS is capable of.....ONE post to make the decision hmm?

Shame on you

edit for clarity

[edit on 3-8-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



They called Hoax, with no proof?

They called hoax because one of the names on the paper is similar to a laundry detergent, I think.


I thought that was a totally different document.

let’s wait and see what comes from the authentication process, before a rush to judgement from either side.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I think it is totally unfair, manbehindthemask.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I am glad this was found out for what it is and I hope the "Source" of this never darkens ATS's doorway with such spiteful drivel again.

One thing always bugs me on this site. Smoking Gun evidence with a hidden source that doesn't want to be disclosed. 9 times out of 10 it ends up being the OP themselves as the source.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Im also curious when it became ATS policy to place a thread under the HOAX category when it can neither be PROVEN or DISPROVEN....



It is my understanding this is going to be heard in a court of law, at least wait untill that process.

This is unfair to FF

Did they every label 9/11 topics as hoax?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
let’s wait and see what comes from the authentication process, before a rush to judgement from either side.


As I've said from the start ... there is no way that an internet site can verify something. It might be able to debunk. But it's impossible to verify. So this thread is supposed to be a fun verify/debunk of an alleged copy of a document.

If it's a hoax and if it's being used in a court case, then that's criminal and a big story.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 





But what ISN'T a hoax is that this document HAS been submitted to the courts with a request for verification through the courts.

Someone would have to be either completely stupid or pretty confident to submit this to court as potential evidence in a pending hearing, even with a request to authenticate, if it is a hoax (and they knew it was)


Exactly, we shall see what the courts say.

[edit on 103131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]



new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join