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.


The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:06 AM
We should look for previous "certificates of nomination" and compare the language in them to these documents.

It would be interesting to see if it's boilerplate or not.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:07 AM

Originally posted by space cadet
No answer yet for why the so called 'original' would have photocopy fingerprints all over it.

Also, no motive.

No motive?


theres your motive.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:15 AM
How do we know someone did not take a copy of the original and create a forged one to make it look like a cover up? The only way to prove this to be true is if other states have that same forged document on their files. If this is true and there are forged documents on file in every state then those who are behind it are now scrambling to get every one. Looks like the race is on if this story just broke.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:16 AM
reply to post by Common Good

Jesus Christ, the ole birth certificate again. That has been worn out. He is a citizen of the United States. His real birth certificate says so. The fake crap put on the internet to try to smear him is just that, fake. I didn't even vote for Obama. But I will not sit here and claim ignorance either, these will not be the first fake documents on Obama.

please have a look:

Looks just like mine. This is an original birth certificate. Do you REALLY think that the entire USA is so stupid, so easily duped, that a man could walk into the most integral and prestigious office of this country and fake his heritage to become president?

It would never happen. What would be the motive as well for such a stupid move, to bring in a mixed race person to be president?

There is no motive for either of these fake documents other than to smear Obama. That is unbelievably, painfully, embarrassingly obvious.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:10 AM
So who is JB Williams?

If you are looking for regurgitated Republican or Democrat rhetoric, you are in the wrong place. I write what I think, based on what I know, supported by facts I can prove, and stated in simple common sense terms anyone should be able to comprehend. I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a son and a brother, a conservative, an entrepreneur and a writer, in that order. I don’t vote for (R)’s or (D)’s, but instead for individuals. Not on the basis of what they promise to do for me, but on the basis of who I believe will protect real American values worth protecting.

Man, I like this guy already! Here's his site:

Also, I have been searching state election boards for any postings of this certificate they received, but can't come up with anything. Please someone post if you find an actual copy at a state site so we can help to cross reference this.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:22 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Good find.

And what a date for such a revelation!

Is this Obama's "9/11"? (I've always refused to use that nomenclature, preferring the date: September 11, but I understand how it has taken on its own significance.)

I've not really been involved in the 'birther' posts, but found the idea interesting. Seeing Allan Keyes involved added credibility to the efforts.

Obama's reluctance to share his educational and professional legacy have definitely concerned me. You'd think someone who claims to have accomplished so much would be proud to open his history to scrutiny.

There MUST be something to hide, no?

Don't sweat the other thread's criticisms. They 'protest too much.'

You can't protest around here at all based on sheer facts, lest you be acused of some agenda other than truth.

Hey, if you want to speculate on Mars faces, or nulling gravity, or astral projections to Venus, you are welcome and a valued member.

Bring unfavorable FACTS? You are pariah.

I've only been here a little over a year, and the dubing down has been obvious and atrocious.


Deny ignorance.


posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by TrueAmerican

"The RNC "Official Certification of Nomination " for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote:

"We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;"

This one at least states that McCain and Palin met the constitutional requirements. The DNC paperwork has OBVIOUSLY been changed to(like one poster earlier said)cover thier ass.
Man oh man this is baaaad news for Obama. I dont know what rabbit hes gunna pull out of the hat this time.

Everyone knows that RNC is completely RACIST and so is this post!!!

Obam is my man OMG how could you do this to such a weakly man?

Obam my man needs another pass! Just forget about this doc. And all the other docs.

He won OK?

Get over it. He needs us all or he may start crying.

/Sarcasm off/

You can never have too many nails for this proverbial coffin.

He may indeed be a nice guy, yet, he hasn't been performing as the elite would have him.

After seeing his speech to congress it's clear to me that the man cannot grow a spine (as I've noted must happen in previous posts.)

I'd give him about three weeks and if something (similar to OBiden's quote "mark my words" ... "we'll need to stand behind him") radically unprecedented AND in favor of this good old USA, like, Repealing the Federal Reserve Act and/or The Patriot Act; something to turn the country on it's ear, and AWAY from the elites... The Elites will see to it that he gets thrown out.

We have a downright 'war of wills' on our hands now that so many people have woken up.

Got off topic but, oh well, Obamba! Now's the time to put the elites in their place. You're a goner anyhow... What have you got to loose... Only one life to give for your country.

Oh yeah, Watch for public tears from Obama, that's our signal.

[edit on 9·11·09 by DrMattMaddix]

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:20 AM
I hate to say it but Space Cadet is right that first document, specifically the Nancy Pelosi signature, as well as the Secretary of the DNC's, is a forgery. A horrible one at that. I don't know what that portends but as far as I am concerned that first document is bunk.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:24 AM

[edit on 11-9-2009 by george_gaz]

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:33 AM
It seems that this would be an easy thing to confirm, if true. All you have to do is to go to your state election board and request copies of both the RNC and DNC submissions. If the DNC submission is absent the legal language and the RNC submission contains the legal language, then you could dispute the legality of the DNC candidate.

Ever heard of the FOIA process??

[edit on 11/9/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by space cadet

I can tell that the signatures on the first document have been superimposed onto the second document.

Nice try but it does not fly.

Look at the word Pelosi. She can not write in a straight line. in the first signature the e to l loop is below the rest of the word. it the second the l-o loop is below the rest of the word. Also the shape of the S are not the same.

And no I am not a Republican.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:01 AM
I promised myself I was not going to participate in this debate, but my curiosity has been drawn. However, I do stress that I am very much still on the fence with this issue.

To those who believe that the information in the OP is true, can you explain the presence of these "photocopy fingerprints" that do appear in abundance on the first document but not on the second?

This question will not just go away, so please try and answer it as soon as possible or it will appear you are trying to ignore that it exists.

Is it not very likely that certain individuals would go through great lengths in order to create an authentic looking document that contradicts Obama's eligibility just to make the claim seem more real? (I realise the same can be said for those who submitted his Certification of Live Birth, however the burden of proof is not on the defendant in this particular case.)

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:33 AM
If both documents are real, then the only reason to remove that clause would be to protect one's self from accusations of perjury, such a move would indicate prior knowledge of Obama's ineligibility.

EDIT: In my opinion the signatures are a very good match, if not identical in some places.

EDIT: Upon closer inspection, comparing Pelosi's signature to other known signatures, the construction of one of the principal letters is very different:

I would think that the basic construction of principal letters in a signature would be somewhat standard or uniform across multiple samples of the same person. In my opinion, the construction is very different, even the basic construction and direction of strokes on the "P" is different.

Document 1

Document 2

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Shadowflux]

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:01 PM
If you think about how long he has been in office, any evidence that could have incriminated him would be gone. Were only going to find phony documents now.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:23 PM
Why are people arguing over whether two different people signed the two different documents? Pretty silly if you ask me. Just get to the heart of it, were either of these really given as verification by the dnc that he is eligible and if so why is the clause taken out? There, end of argument. Who really signed them doesnt really matter, just if they were used for real or not. So can anybody verify if these were used for real or is this something that somebody made with a simple scanner n some photochop skills?

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:28 PM
I'm going to have to agree with SpaceCadet on this one.
The N in Nancy definitely shows a practice mark, and the names themselves do not flow as nicely in the first as they do in the second document. You can tell that the forger did his best to imitate the names exactly as they appeared.

This isn't a thumbs up for Obama - just my honest opinion.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:03 PM
Very confused.

Isn't this a dup of this thread?DNC

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
To those who believe that the information in the OP is true, can you explain the presence of these "photocopy fingerprints" that do appear in abundance on the first document but not on the second?

Since this question doesn't seem to want to go away ... I guess I'll answer it for those who don't understand.

The documents present are NOT originals. They are photocopied. Just like they had to be scanned in order to save a JPG that would be viewable online, they had to be photocopied before they were released to the public.

Anyone in the state or federal government who would hand out an original document doesn't deserve to have the job they hold. There's no telling how many times these documents have each been copied (hence more copy prints on one than the other) before they reached the internet.

But, it's going to take a lot more than a DNC conspiracy to prove that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

See my post on the previous thread (I'm not sure why a new one was started) to see my thoughts on what it means if this turns out to be true.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:05 PM
I'm siding with Space Cadet, as well. I'm no expert, but in just a few minutes of googling and some thinking, I think this is a forgery. When given the same evidence, many people can draw different conclusions. We paint our own realities. In order for you to consider this as a possible reality for more than a few moments, you must already question Obama's eligibility. For those who do not, these claims and very possible forgeries seem somewhat ridiculous. The Obama haters and the Obama lovers I've seen tend to act similarly to how some religious people call non-believers idiots for "being blind and not seeing what's in front of them". Some paint their reality so heavily with emotion, they can no longer make out what the underlying image was to begin with. There aren't enough people standing between these two groups, shooting down ALL the crap with logic and reason.

Besides, this is the internet. I can fake a few former teachers signatures (don't ask) and it was enough to fool my parents, the school counselor, AND the principal. I wasn't caught until the teachers heard about what was going on lol (nothing illegal or cruel). Given a little time, I can Fake Obama's signature (or Orly Taitz for that matter) well enough to fool people. No one signs their signature exactly the same way every time. That variation makes it easier to forge a signature and be believed. All you need is a sample. You can trace the signature normally or place dots along where the letters curves. There is no shortage of viable samples from most politicians. This is the digital age, try to keep up. It doesn't have to be good enough to fool an expert, only good enough to fool people that are most likely to believe it. Then, no matter how the evidence gets torn apart, there will always be SOME who refuse to let go.

Forged Signature+blank document+old USED document= "OMG, These are court papers that say Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990!"

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in