Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

page: 56
349
<< 53  54  55    57  58 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by rnaa
 


rnaa, do a search of the entire document, NOWHERE does the word "video" appear in it, so whatever you *think* you have found referencing "video conferencing" is a figment of your imagination.

But again, nice effort at debunking, a failed effort, but nice all the same.

Betting on folks not ever looking at links is a good play, but I will be more than glad to keep you on your toes

As to Hawaii's rules link, those were updated in 2005, but of course, you knew that right? You read it.



Page 3 the table of contents:



§11-1-10 Videoconferences


page 11 right at the top of the page


durable record of any facsimile, electronic, Internet
website notice or other communication between the
department and the public. The department shall
preserve, as needed, audio and video recordings taken
of public department proceedings, or a transcript of
such recordings.


Page 13 at the bottom


§11-1-10 Videoconferences. (a) The department
may conduct meetings and hearings by videoconference.
(b) Public meetings held by videoconference by
attached entities are subject to section 92-3.5, HRS.
(c) Before the videoconference of a contested
case hearing, the hearings officer shall arrange a


etc, etc, etc, on page 14, 16, 17, 34, and 37.

But you knew that, because you read it, right?

And you searched the entire document just so you could call me a liar, right?

And if it was updated in 2005, then you can tell us how many times has it been updated between 1961 and 2005? Or completely replaced?

Did you get your Ouiji Board out to determine which part was still intact since 1961 and it magically proved to be the part that you think supports your argument?



That link was specific to filings, not race identifiers, the document from 1961 was specific to race identifiers used in 1961.

Twisting & turning to debunk, good aerobic exercise


[edit on 10/31/09 by redhatty]


And that 1961 US Census Bureau document is still irrelevant to your argument. It proves nothing except that the hospital did not use the US Census Bureau standard description.

Actually, I'm wrong here. It also proves that the Hawai'ian State Government did not alter the information from what the Hospital wrote down, even though they had agree with the Feds that they would use the standard terminology to make data analysis easier.

It proves that the INFORMATION on the Birth Certificate that Obama has published is a true copy of the information on the hospital's document, even though it contains a non-standard field value.

Note: it is not an error, it is just a non-standard field value. It gives the data entry keypunch people at the Census Bureau the sh*ts because they would have to translate it for the computers, but it isn't an error.

It also proves that the Obama Senior had nothing to hide. Had he self-identified as 'black' that would have given no information about his non-American background. It proves that he was proud of his own identity as an African, and was aware that 'black' could be taken to refer to an American black man, and wanted to be sure that his son would always be aware of his ancestry.

It proves the extra affirmation that the Department gave was an honest one. It confirms that the INFORMATION displayed on the Obama Birth Certificate was a true transcription of the Hospital's information .

And you know what else? My Michigan Birth Certificate has an error on it too. The hospital misspelled my mother's name. And you know what else? It cannot be corrected on Birth Certificates. And you know why? Because with the Birth Certificate the State is certifying that the INFORMATION on the BC is a true copy of the information they were given by the hospital.

[edit on 31/10/2009 by rnaa]




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




It proves the extra affirmation that the Department gave was an honest one. It confirms that the INFORMATION displayed on the Obama Birth Certificate was a true transcription of the Hospital's information .


Not if the ridiculous certification shown online was forged, as is likely. And presented with information that is non standard on a form, most officials will bang their own heads to shreds trying to work out which box to fill, and will not add in something that is not ‘allowed’ on a form, regardless of protest.
It is also erroneous to state that the information on that certification is a true transcription of any hospital’s information as you have no idea whether he was born in a hospital or not.



It also proves that the Obama Senior had nothing to hide. Had he self-identified as 'black' that would have given no information about his non-American background. It proves that he was proud of his own identity as an African, and was aware that 'black' could be taken to refer to an American black man, and wanted to be sure that his son would always be aware of his ancestry.


And how exactly did you spin this little fantasy? It ‘proves’ nothing of the sort. In fact if it ‘proves’ anything, it is that the operative who forged the certification was as much a fantasist and had as little attention to detail as some here. As there is absolutely no evidence that this, oh so proud African, ever spent one single night with Dunham, as there is no evidence he was even present at ‘the birth’, or at the point of any registration, then at what point did he insist his son would be aware of his ancestry? One minute you have hospital staff superseding established racial identities on forms, and now you have the ‘father’ insisting that this is what is printed, with absolutely no evidence that he was anywhere near any hospital. Not that we know if junior was even born in a hospital, because that information is only shown on the long form - which renders your whole argument null and void.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Sure beats Y'all's water buffalo theory.


The fact is, the BC that is online has been certified. The fact remains that Obama was vetted by Nancy Pelosi. The fact remeins that Obama passed the confirmation hearings in congress. The fact remains that John Roberts swore Obama in on January 20th.

So, in light of all these actual facts, the Water Buffalo theory just doesn't hold much water.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Sure beats Y'all's water buffalo theory.


The fact is, the BC that is online has been certified. The fact remains that Obama was vetted by Nancy Pelosi. The fact remeins that Obama passed the confirmation hearings in congress. The fact remains that John Roberts swore Obama in on January 20th.

So, in light of all these actual facts, the Water Buffalo theory just doesn't hold much water.


Your statement right there shows some sort of strange bias.. Vetted by Pelosi.. That would be like saying my best friend vetted me for my job. There's nothing that we should be looking at strangely there no never.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


I never said don't question it. It's your right to question it. The answer is somewhere buried in one of these threads. Members here went and checked from state secretaries the forms that Pelosi sent them. I believe there was an oddity about constitutional wording in these, but as usual, instead of actually confirming with the state whether or not this was valid, birthers instead ran with it as if it were the be all end all.

But again, question. Just don't hate the answer. I mean who is supposed to do it? Orly Taitz?


[edit on 10/31/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



The fact is, the BC that is online has been certified. The fact remains that Obama was vetted by Nancy Pelosi. The fact remeins that Obama passed the confirmation hearings in congress. The fact remains that John Roberts swore Obama in on January 20th.


The fact is, the certification of live birth shown online has not been officially certified by anyone qualified to make an official verification.
You have no idea at all whether Nancy Pelosi vetted him, you are just making assumptions.
You have no idea if congress vetted him, you are just making assumptions.
John Roberts did not swear in Obama properly on January 20th as that was messed up.
He apparently swore him in properly with the correct wording, but interestingly, without a Bible as there wasn’t one available (I suppose it is perfectly reasonable for a purported Christian not to have a bible), on Jan 21st.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


In the new net English you have just posted an epic conspiracy FAIL.



The fact is, the certification of live birth shown online has not been officially certified by anyone qualified to make an official verification.


hawaii.gov...




You have no idea at all whether Nancy Pelosi vetted him, you are just making assumptions.


I'm not assuming anything, Nancy Pelosi was the DNC chairperson during the election, she was the person that was charged with telling each state that Obama/Biden was to be on the ballot.


You have no idea if congress vetted him, you are just making assumptions.


No your right, congress did not vet Obama, they did however confirm him. It's the congresses job to confirm the president.


The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.


whatukno.com...



John Roberts did not swear in Obama properly on January 20th as that was messed up.
He apparently swore him in properly with the correct wording, but interestingly, without a Bible as there wasn’t one available (I suppose it is perfectly reasonable for a purported Christian not to have a bible), on Jan 21st.


Quick! RUN TO THE SUPREME COURT! I would love to see how fast that got thrown out of court. That would be the most epic court fail in all of history. John Roberts would probably tell you to straight up STFU and GTFO.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by rnaa
 


... And presented with information that is non standard on a form, most officials will bang their own heads to shreds trying to work out which box to fill, and will not add in something that is not ‘allowed’ on a form, regardless of protest.



You are wrong.

Please review the discussion at this link. The data field is specifically open enough for any parent to self identify the racial designation.




It is also erroneous to state that the information on that certification is a true transcription of any hospital’s information as you have no idea whether he was born in a hospital or not.



I'll grant you that slight uncertainty. If not hospital, then midwife, or other responsible party. But he was born in a hospital, so you are really grasping at straws.

Edit: a bit more information from here. There were exactly 14 of 8,268 births outside of a hospital in Honolulu in 1961. The odds that Obama was one of them? .00169%

[edit on 31/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by whatukno
 


The fact is, the certification of live birth shown online has not been officially certified by anyone qualified to make an official verification.


That is, simply put, a blatant lie.

The fact is, the certification of live birth shown online has been officially certified by the only one qualified (and authorized) to make an official verification: The Hawai'ian Department of Health.

It contains the embossed State seal and the inked signature of the authorized State officer to prove it.



You have no idea at all whether Nancy Pelosi vetted him, you are just making assumptions.


Untrue. She made 50 or more notarized affirmations to that effect. I don't know what her process was, but the fact that she did it is undeniable.



You have no idea if congress vetted him, you are just making assumptions.



Untrue. Congress was bombarded with information about the issue including a petition with a (reported) 200,000 signatures. That none of the 600 or so Congressmen and Senators, even rabid Obama opponents, found anything in the accusations to bother about raising a complaint at the confirmation indicates that they found he was eligible.



John Roberts did not swear in Obama properly on January 20th as that was messed up.

He apparently swore him in properly with the correct wording, but interestingly, without a Bible as there wasn’t one available (I suppose it is perfectly reasonable for a purported Christian not to have a bible), on Jan 21st.


Everyone knows that embarrassing story. He was sworn in twice. I find it odd that a Bible couldn't be found too, but it does not affect the efficacy of the oath. Jeb Bartlett had trouble finding an Bible too.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
But you knew that, because you read it, right?


You are good at the twist, first you say that something from 1961 had video conferencing in it then you twist and refer back to a 2005 document.

I did link to TWO different documents and I know clearly what they were. Quite playing games!



And that 1961 US Census Bureau document is still irrelevant to your argument. It proves nothing except that the hospital did not use the US Census Bureau standard description.


First assumption: That a US Hospital was involved in the birth in any way.

You see, that has never been verified. As all we have is a picture of a CoLB that states only "Filed" and not "Accepted" We do not know if a doctor or nurse or midwife was involved in the birth at all.

Second Assumption: That an unknown hospital and not an unknown person making a delayed report of birth used a non-standard descriptor.

Again, WE DO NOT KNOW where the information that the State of Hawaii used to created a computer printout that we have a digital image of via internet web pages.

What We DO KNOW is that the digital print out has "Filed by registrar" rather than "Accepted by registrar" on it, even though we have samples of earlier and later Hawaiian CoLBs that clearly show "Accepted."

There is clearly a difference between the Filed & Accepted CoLBs, what we are trying now to investigate is exactly what that difference is. The State of Hawaii is not being very cooperative even in answering such a question as, what's the difference between the 2 notations.


Actually, I'm wrong here. It also proves that the Hawai'ian State Government did not alter the information from what the Hospital wrote down, even though they had agree with the Feds that they would use the standard terminology to make data analysis easier.


Back to circular reasoning off your first assumption. What Hospital?? Which one?


It proves that the INFORMATION on the Birth Certificate that Obama has published is a true copy of the information on the hospital's document, even though it contains a non-standard field value.


No, it shows that Hawaii is working with the information given, whether that information came from a Hospital or not is a completely different argument.

Assumption #3: That Filed by registrar is a "non-standard field value"

It may very well be a standard value for notating that NONE OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE STATE OF HAWAII HAS BEEN CONFIRMED OR AUTHENTICATED.

This information is still being investigated

(you are still talking about Filed v Accepted, right? You are not trying to go tangentially to the race descriptor to deter the REAL subject that is controversial now are you?)


It also proves that the Obama Senior had nothing to hide. Had he self-identified as 'black' that would have given no information about his non-American background. It proves that he was proud of his own identity as an African, and was aware that 'black' could be taken to refer to an American black man, and wanted to be sure that his son would always be aware of his ancestry.


Assumption #4: that Obama Sr was even present whent he birth occurred

Assumption #5: That Obama Sr self identified on the (as yet non existent) long form birth certificate

Recall that even Michelle Obama has said that Stanley Ann Dunham was "Very Single" when she gave birth to Barack II. There are absolutely no 3rd party accounts of Stanley being in a relationship with Obama Sr, only one picture, taken at an airport but reported to be the marriage pic?

We have NO PROOF that Obama Sr was present at or even aware of the birth of his son. Without proof he was there, we cannot take the race descriptor of "African" as his self identification.

The only thing we can say is that it is information that Hawaii apparently has and that it appears on a filed but not accepted CoLB printed in 2007.

We do not know the origin of that information and to assume it came from teh father ot the hospital is delusional.


It proves the extra affirmation that the Department gave was an honest one. It confirms that the INFORMATION displayed on the Obama Birth Certificate was a true transcription of the Hospital's information .

And you know what else? My Michigan Birth Certificate has an error on it too. The hospital misspelled my mother's name. And you know what else? It cannot be corrected on Birth Certificates. And you know why? Because with the Birth Certificate the State is certifying that the INFORMATION on the BC is a true copy of the information they were given by the hospital.


And yet you could file for an amendment to the BC, and upon receipt of the request, Michigan would print you off a CoLB (certification, not certificate) which notated filed by registrar, not accepted by registrar, with the information you are amending corrected.

Did you know that???



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
The fact is, the BC that is online has been certified.



WHEN WHERE BY WHO?????


Surely your are not talking about the Hawaii DOH announcements? Even a child can read that and tell that they in no way shape or form referred to, acknowledged, or certified any online picture of a CoLB

The ONLY referred to what is in their own files, and even then the wording was done quite vaguely



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


They were linked to many times, if you choose to ignore them that is your problem not ours. Please pay attention. If you don't choose to pay attention and instead ignore what is presented. It's your problem not ours, please don't expect us to accommodate you for your failure to keep up on an issue.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
hawaii.gov...




“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.


And this says WHAT exactly about the online picture of a CoLB?


I'm not assuming anything, Nancy Pelosi was the DNC chairperson during the election, she was the person that was charged with telling each state that Obama/Biden was to be on the ballot. .


Again, another person coming into the controversy so late & missing so much....

This site has compiled the state ballot entry certifications/requests from most, if not all, of the states.

On each state's request entry, the reply, and the form can be found.

You really should read through it, you would be absolutely amazed at how everyone thought it was someone else's job to do the actual vetting.

and it's in black and white from actual offices


No your right, congress did not vet Obama, they did however confirm him. It's the congresses job to confirm the president.


Confirm as in count the electoral votes but never open the floor for any objections, as it should have been done by protocol? Okay......

Amazing how an improperly performed procedure is considered by so many to be a confirming.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by redhatty
 


They were linked to many times, if you choose to ignore them that is your problem not ours. Please pay attention. If you don't choose to pay attention and instead ignore what is presented. It's your problem not ours, please don't expect us to accommodate you for your failure to keep up on an issue.


Disingenuous!!!

I pay very close attention, I even pulled the money quote out above and I am still awaiting a reply as to what EXACTLY that says in regards to the online picture of a CoLB.

Maybe it is those of you who took that statement to be a confirmation of something it isn't that are the one's not paying attention



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




That is, simply put, a blatant lie.

The fact is, the certification of live birth shown online has been officially certified by the only one qualified (and authorized) to make an official verification: The Hawai'ian Department of Health.


I don’t know where you get off calling everyone liars because they pull you up on inaccuracies. It is rude and shows you to be ignorant.
The Hawaiian dept of health did not ever say that the online colb image was real. The only unconfirmed thing they are quoted as saying was that they could not say what it was. They have NEVER issued an official statement about that online image of a colb.



Untrue. She made 50 or more notarized affirmations to that effect. I don't know what her process was, but the fact that she did it is undeniable.


So what if Nancy Pelosi paraded naked through the streets of Washington with 50 damn eligibility notarised affirmations about her body. That still would not prove that she ever vetted Obama and saw his full, long form birth certificate, or even asked where he was from. She sent out statements to 50 states stating he was eligible. She sent only one, to Hawaii stating he was ‘constitutionally' eligible. Probably enough to have her locked up when the truth comes out.



Untrue. Congress was bombarded with information about the issue including a petition with a (reported) 200,000 signatures. That none of the 600 or so Congressmen and Senators, even rabid Obama opponents, found anything in the accusations to bother about raising a complaint at the confirmation indicates that they found he was eligible.


Probably just as well you are not a judge, although after Land and Carter’s farces you may be suitably illogical and dismissive enough of any need for evidence to qualify.
Because nobody raised an objection does not mean there was no objection to raise.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by rnaa
 



I don’t know where you get off calling everyone liars because they pull you up on inaccuracies. It is rude and shows you to be ignorant.
The Hawaiian dept of health did not ever say that the online colb image was real. The only unconfirmed thing they are quoted as saying was that they could not say what it was. They have NEVER issued an official statement about that online image of a colb.


They have issued an official statement the document that the image is taken from it accurate and true. There is no issue about the whether or not the image is a Birth Certificate or not, it isn't. Trying to prove the image is not a Birth Certificate is like trying to prove a road map is not Wisconsin, and that because it isn't wet there couldn't be lakes in Wisconsin.

The image is an image of the Birth Certificate, to demonstrate to everyone who wants to see it that the document exists and has all the security features. It was specifically and only published to answer your questions.

Get it? The Birth Certificate is NOT the image. The image is OF the Birth Certificate.

And Hawaii has confirmed that they have verified the information contained on the Birth Certificate that is imaged.

And you know this because it has been pointed out to you many, many times. Your only refutation of is that you don't want to believe it because you want the attention given to squeaky wheels.

The links to the affirmations are posted several times in this thread. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for possessing a little bit of intelligence, but maybe I'm wrong. I guess that the two possibilities are that you are lying and you think your readers are as ignorant as a fence post, or you are as ignorant as a fence post. I suspect the former, but I accept that there is a chance that it may be the latter.




So what if Nancy Pelosi paraded naked through the streets of Washington with 50 damn eligibility notarised affirmations about her body. That still would not prove that she ever vetted Obama and saw his full, long form birth certificate, or even asked where he was from. She sent out statements to 50 states stating he was eligible. She sent only one, to Hawaii stating he was ‘constitutionally' eligible. Probably enough to have her locked up when the truth comes out.


Kinky aren't you? I'm more of a Megan Fox man, myself. Do you go to bed at night wondering if the sun is going to rise in the morning?



Probably just as well you are not a judge, although after Land and Carter’s farces you may be suitably illogical and dismissive enough of any need for evidence to qualify.

Because nobody raised an objection does not mean there was no objection to raise.


First of all, you don't know that I'm not a judge, and second of all the issue is never going to come before a judge, except to be thrown out of court, or to fine the sorry excuse for a lawyer who keeps bringing vexatious suits and wasting taxpayer money.

Have you asked every Congressman and every Senator about it? No, neither have I, but they had more than enough chance to make their mark on history. Do you really think that at least one of them wouldn't want to do that if there is any chance in hell that they wouldn't be left looking like a complete and utter fool?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




They have issued an official statement the document that the image is taken from it accurate and true.


No they have not.




The image is an image of the Birth Certificate, to demonstrate to everyone who wants to see it that the document exists and has all the security features.


No, it is not. Totally wrong.



It was specifically and only published to answer your questions.


Not by Hawaii it wasn’t.



Get it? The Birth Certificate is NOT the image. The image is OF the Birth Certificate.


No it is not. Get it?



And Hawaii has confirmed that they have verified the information contained on the Birth Certificate that is imaged.


No they have not. There has been no birth certificate imaged. Hawaii has made no statement about the imaged COLB.



And you know this because it has been pointed out to you many, many times. Your only refutation of is that you don't want to believe it because you want the attention given to squeaky wheels.


You can erroneously state something a million times. That repetition does not make your point truthful or accurate.



The links to the affirmations are posted several times in this thread. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for possessing a little bit of intelligence, but maybe I'm wrong. I guess that the two possibilities are that you are lying and you think your readers are as ignorant as a fence post, or you are as ignorant as a fence post. I suspect the former, but I accept that there is a chance that it may be the latter.


What ‘affirmations’? Are you speaking of the official Hawaiian statements regarding holding the vital records? If so, you need to read them again.

Here you are..…some nice simple words and an example of a long form certificate for you.



www.wnd.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
They have issued an official statement the document that the image is taken from it accurate and true. There is no issue about the whether or not the image is a Birth Certificate or not, it isn't.


What statement referred to the online CoLB in any way shape or form?

I have seen 2 official statements from Hawaii, and while both of them clearly refer to the records held in Hawaqii, neither of them mention or even acknowledge the online pic of Obama's CoLB.The motto of ATS is to DENY IGNORANCE. You need to seriously look at what was actually said by Hawaii DOH and look very closely at what it actually says or does not say.

You may WANT the statements by HI DOH to say what you have written here, but the truth of the matter is that they do not, nor have they ever said what you purport here.

The image is an image of the Birth Certificate, to demonstrate to everyone who wants to see it that the document exists and has all the security features. It was specifically and only published to answer your questions.


The image is OF the Birth Certificate.


Actually, the image is of a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth, not a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth, once again, you cannot make something become what you want it to be, just because you want it to be.


And Hawaii has confirmed that they have verified the information contained on the Birth Certificate that is imaged.


Please, show me the statement from Hawaii that mentions, acknowledges, or refers to the online pic of Obama's CoLB. If it is already in this thread, please link it again here, I have NEVER seen a statement from Hawaii that mentions any online image.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

Edit: a bit more information from here. There were exactly 14 of 8,268 births outside of a hospital in Honolulu in 1961. The odds that Obama was one of them? .00169%


You don't check your sources very well, the very same guy who wrote that apologized later in that link for that:


John Rainey says: July 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm (Quote) Sorry, all, I saw the math mistake to late. Oh well….


And the number is NOT 14 either as explained in your link so it's more than a math problem.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by rnaa

Edit: a bit more information from here. There were exactly 14 of 8,268 births outside of a hospital in Honolulu in 1961. The odds that Obama was one of them? .00169%


You don't check your sources very well, the very same guy who wrote that apologized later in that link for that:


John Rainey says: July 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm (Quote) Sorry, all, I saw the math mistake to late. Oh well….


And the number is NOT 14 either as explained in your link so it's more than a math problem.


Not quite right there, bucko. The numbers quoted in the article are for the CITY OF HONOLULU, not the entire State of Hawaii (and my post repeats that point, so its isn't like it was hidden in the article). The number 42 is apparently for the entire State of Hawaii. It you had actually followed the discussion in the comments section, you would see that the guy who wrote it, "Dr. Conspriracy", defends the numbers.

John Rainey is the guy challenging Dr. Conspiracy's figures. So it is not the author admitting a mistake, but a challenger admitting his mistake.

But no, I didn't check the math either.





new topics

top topics



 
349
<< 53  54  55    57  58 >>

log in

join