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.

 

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

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
Very confused.

Isn't this a dup of this thread?DNC


At ATS, we have a two thread rule that one thread can be in BAN, while another can be on another part of the board. I will rarely, if ever do this, but with this story being so important, I wanted to be sure and get max exposure for the subject. The other thread appears to have taken off more for some reason, and why that I have no clue. If you please, feel free to add any comments to either.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
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.


Wow. You sound like a real expert. Since you're an expert I guess you know that you can't fake a signature with just one sample right? And, I assume you know the reason why as well ... right?

[edit on 11-9-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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.



BUt was the RNC one sent to the states? I'd like to see both forms from the RNC to compare against this.

Either way it doesn't prove anything on it's own unless we can compare the two documents to the ones from previous DNC nominations.

You can't just say "OH THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CLAUSE IN ONE" and assume a conspiracy. You really have to look at the ones which came before from the DNC to determine if this is anomalous or not...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Helmkat
Very confused.

Isn't this a dup of this thread?DNC


At ATS, we have a two thread rule that one thread can be in BAN, while another can be on another part of the board. I will rarely, if ever do this, but with this story being so important, I wanted to be sure and get max exposure for the subject.


Translation: He wanted to make sure the propaganda was spread far and wide.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


"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?"

Sounds like you are ASSuming a lot - and you know the old saying about those who assume...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
Sounds like you are ASSuming a lot - and you know the old saying about those who assume...


B-b-b-b-b-but... it was on the internet/TV/MSM/newspaper/etc so it must be true, right?

While there may be precedent from other kinds of cases that will make whether or not he's eligible for office a moot point because hes been affirmed in, it can almost guarantee *if it is true* that there will not be a second term, and also if it is actually picked up by the right media outlets, it could be extremely damaging for the DNC and anyone associated with them or the current president.

My actual fear is if it is true, you see, to me, THAT will be the match that touches off this political powderkeg this country has been sitting on for years. I could see this being a bigger starter to a revolt or civil war than the whole healthcare thing.

Interesting thought #2... could something like this have been leaked to distract various segments of society from the healthcare issue?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
As a wise man once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Another piece of opinion writing from the right wing nut job gene pool.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
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]


Shadowflux,

Thank you for your post. That seals the deal for me. Another attempt at a bad forgery! Madam Speaker never signed the documents.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Here is a reason why they would sign basically the same document twice. They signed the first one and then realized that they made a mistake and had to make a new one. After the new document was signed they would then submit the correct one and the problem would be solved.

In order to prove your theory true do you realize how many legit reasons you would have to disprove?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
So where are the "facts", and proof? Anyone here ever study science beyond high school? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just really curious.

Why do so many seemingly intelligent people automatically believe that digital images garnered from the internet are "real", and use these images as proof?

I still haven't seen any proof that these images are real. Let's suppose they are real, untouched digital photos of US government documents, is anyone here an expert in government documents?

Also, how is it we, the members of a UFO/conspiracy web forum can easily uncover "real" gov. documents on the internet and from some guy's blog, and yet the people who have much more in resources/money and capabilities (i.e. the republicans, etc.) cannot find any of this evidence, or have no knowledge of it?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Theres only two questions that matter.
"Why did they take out the constitutional clause".
"Is the document actually signed by these individuals"
??????

Nothing else has to be disproved or proved.
We get the answer to those two questions, and we will have our answer.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


That's crazy. You are going to accept the analysis here in this form as proof?

Even if someone did forge the signature it was with her consent because she was not able to sign the form at the time.

When you forge a signature you do it in a low key manner so nobody will find out about it. Nobody is stupid enough to forge a signature on a document like this because at some point Nancy is going to notice.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


Styki,

Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I think that the entire document is fake, not just the signatures. Is that clear enough?

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Nichiren]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Hostile, aren't we? It's not about being an iron clad near perfect forgery. It's about being just barely good enough to fool people who already want to believe it, who have no formal training in identifying forgeries. We're all looking for things that agree with our current belief system. How many people here on ATS have fallen for hoaxes? The Alex Jones thing is a good example. Many people were raving about how great it was, believing it to be real. The only evidence they had that it was real was the article itself and its creator. How many times have religious people believed wholeheartedly a religious oriented prediction, only to have it be wrong?

Like I said, people can draw many conclusions from the same evidence. You've drawn yours, I've drawn mine. If you want to get hostile and try attacking me, go for it. I'm not going to return the sentiment, so it should be easy for you to lash out at me. Have fun and good luck!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
In my opinion, the real title of threads like this should be "How a black man becoming president can cause mass hysteria..."

Not only does it make people hysterical, but also delusional. There really should be rules on ATS about these sensationalized, tabloid-like thread titles. I've noticed these thread titles are becoming increasingly more ridiculous.

I particularly hate the thread titles that contain; "OMG!!!" and a dozen or so exclamation marks. When did just using one exclamation mark become obsolete?

Also when thread titles, like this one make ridiculous statements of "proof" and use the word "real", way before any of those claims can be validated!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Hostile, aren't we? It's not about being an iron clad near perfect forgery. It's about being just barely good enough to fool people who already want to believe it, who have no formal training in identifying forgeries. We're all looking for things that agree with our current belief system. How many people here on ATS have fallen for hoaxes? The Alex Jones thing is a good example. Many people were raving about how great it was, believing it to be real. The only evidence they had that it was real was the article itself and its creator. How many times have religious people believed wholeheartedly a religious oriented prediction, only to have it be wrong?

Like I said, people can draw many conclusions from the same evidence. You've drawn yours, I've drawn mine. If you want to get hostile and try attacking me, go for it. I'm not going to return the sentiment, so it should be easy for you to lash out at me. Have fun and good luck!


So true. The problem is many people here aren't really seeking the truth, they only seek that which reaffirms or seems to validate their beliefs.

This is really much more about psychology and sociology than anything to do with politics/government or documents.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I'm not going to copy all my posts from the other thread, but I have added some interesting information to it that I think should be linked here:

I made my own fake.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, I talked to the Democratic Party Headquarters earlier today and they weren't aware of this Internet conspiracy and are certain that it's forged. He said that a master document without the Constitutional language on it doesn't exist. Of course, if it's really a conspiracy, then he WOULD say that, because he'd be in on it. ALL Democrats who ever answer the phone at the Democratic headquarters would have to be in on it.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
JB Williams will have a nice surprise visit from the FBI tomorrow morning. Forgery of Madam Speaker's signature is a serious crime.

I'm done with this sister BS thread.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
JB Williams will have a nice surprise visit from the FBI tomorrow morning. Forgery of Madam Speaker's signature is a serious crime.

I'm done with this sister BS thread.


Oh that guy is a tool. If he is the source, I wouldn't put much stock into it. I'm pretty sure he is some kind of GOP paid stooge.

During the election he attacked Ron Paul over and over.


Ron Paul: A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative

Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous

He quotes good ole "dondero" over and over. From the above link:



Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”

These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.

Where is all that money coming from?

Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.


And on and on. He use to spam the crap outta my email with this stuff during the election. I eventually blocked him as a spammer.

This guy isn't looking for truth or anything close to it. He attacks anything and everything in these manners if they don't tote the GOP line. He will tell a lie without thought.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I am compelled, against my natural inclination to avoid such arguments, to say that I find this thread and it's parent to be exemplary.

I feel the case presented is cogent and should generate some needed attention on a simple issue that has been glossed over since the beginning of the peculiar ascent of this relative newcomer to the political arena. Namely, that in order for such a fraud to be perpetrated there MUST be collusion on the part of others - that it can not be done by one man alone.

I can accept the presumption of evidence given. I am no professional in the field, so I do not reject the notion that this may be a partisan contrivance, or a hoax to perpetuate a state of anxiety in the community. But that does not mean that all things alarming must be shunned. The fact that the documents appear to fit within the overall pattern of concealment and deceit make it worthy of consideration.

If they are proven false, we can then evaluate the mechanisms and tools of the propagation of falsehood. It will serve to expand our understanding of the wretched undertakings of the politically addicted.


But we here are not going to prove or disprove anything. So why malign and belittle the one raising the question? Why can we not discuss the matter without sinking into the caustic partisan, and sometimes personal, recriminations and accusations?

I feel somewhat embarrassed for the knee-jerk reactionary responses from the perennial "He won, get over it already" crowd. Why not review the matter until it is resolved legally? Why behave in such a manner that raises offense? What is it that drives certain of our esteemed members to behave in such a manner? Fear? Racial fixation? Partisan brainwashing?

Listen, there is one thing I have been saying for quite some time - and I confess to presume that it bears repeating. IF such a fraud could be perpetuated on us, how could we resist it? By NOT examining and requesting every bit of information we can to do what the perpetrators refuse to do? Certainly not.

Someone IS responsible for protecting the nation from being subjected to this kind of alleged abuse. Who is that? My answer is the party itself. Therein lies the rub. They will not incriminate themselves. They will not participate in the exposure of the act or misdeeds. That leaves us as true victims and 'sheeple' if we continue down the path of 'let it go already' 'let's look forward' and 'you are all racists.'

Concealment, resistance, threats, denigration..., these are not the tools of exploration. Rabid protectionist attitudes do not further the cause of making it 'go away'.

Perhaps in short order we can get a reading on the document that we can all accept. As always, there will be those who will refuse to accept the analysis regardless of the outcome... this is a sad testimony to the confused state of the community, but it is not a reason to ridicule or insult someone.

I can admit that I for one, feel the truth has yet to be fully cooked and served here.... I have some difficulty accepting that anyone can be satisfied that it has. It seems somehow unreasonable. But I am neither vested in, nor dependent upon, any particular outcome of this question. Either way I think we are focusing on the lesser of evils with which we must contend...

But better that than nothing.

Respectfully,

MM



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join