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.

 

Obama's LFBC has CIA-61 handwritten on it - ATS Exclusive

page: 24
123
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Thanks I appreciate it. That means a lot coming from the creator of the most useless thread =)

But seriously do you see where I am coming from? I know I sounded like a total dick and was offensive and gave you no reason to respond let alone do so politely so don't get it twisted I'm not butt hurt you don't like me or my opinion. I just really want to know if really feel like people should always believe you every time you make a statement like this then recant? Or do you think it is valid that after a couple years we start to question your vision (literally) and profound epiphanies?

What would you do in our shoes? How would you respond to a poster like yourself with a long history of creating threads like this?

**edit** I did actually answer your question as to why we are ignoring your new argument of "Void" being present. Did you just not like my answer or waiting for a better one? Or by default my opinion and posts are worthless so are not even considered or what?
edit on 4/29/2011 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Yes your credibility is under question. I didn't attack it I don't believe but it is under question no doubt about it. I am not trying to cram anything down any ones throat though. You asked a question, I answered it and commented on how you are know for posting threads claiming things that you later have to apologize for being wrong about.

I don't have any agenda either my man. As a matter of fact I think there is something seriously wrong with this BC and this president so I am not on the "other" side or whatever you think I am. I just happen to think you frequently look foolish on this forum and I believe I have just as much right to point it out as you do to make things up and then later say never mind but what about.....

So just relax a little bit and don't act like you have to run me off or something or have some proprietary right to a thread you authored. Its not like I am going to stalk you or continue all night I just wanted to answer your question to begin with.

Sawatdee Krub Khun Boon



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I would love this thread between two slices of bread.lmao



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

and what you seem to miss is

in any investigation, a detective may be
pursuing a certain set of leads provided
from the evidence. During the course of
that investigation, new evidence comes
available which renders the first evidence
obsolete or not valid. So the investigator
pursues the new evidence and makes
an arrest based upon the new evidence.
Should the DA discount and discredit the
detective entirely because his first evidence
was wrong? NO. But this is what you are
insinuating here. I should be discredited
because my initial findings proved to be
wrong. So because this detective makes
an error in judgment he should be the
baby thrown out with the bath water?
This is your mentality and the basis for
your attack on me. Because I was wrong
once or twice doesn't mean I am always wrong.
But in your opinion I am. Thus u still get
my assessment of where you can put your
biased judgmental posts.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I wish you the best Boondock Saint. I think you might find a blog a more useful tool during your investigative phase and then posting your fully researched and confirmed and verified results here but that is only my suggestion. Take care.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Why is this thread still going.. it was solved pages ago.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Because Boons eagle eye spotted the word "void" in there somewhere so now he has to figure out why a version of his BC was now "voided" at one point. WHY? Don't you get it?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Firstly....the image in contention is not the original copy, it is a MSM photocopy, the text visible underneath is the result of a SFBC being photocopied under the LFBC. Picture of the original doesn't show any text under.

Secondly, the supposed 'void' is actually 'AFRICAN' as seen on SFBC.

Thirdly, even if it said 'void', which it doesn't, it would be irrelevant as it is an MSM photocopied document, it could say anything whoever photocopied it wanted it to say!.

Perhaps trying to save some dignity and just admitting this thread should be closed and join the plenty of other threads about the supposed anomalies.




edit on 29-4-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking

Originally posted by WestWood

Originally posted by Hijaqd

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


It looks like they had the short form birth certificate behind the long form when they made photo copies. It all lines up, so you're just seeing bleed-through.

Click through to view the whole thing if the forum is cutting off the left edge:


All I did was open this image of the long-form certificate in Photoshop, then invert the colors and apply a curve to it to increase the contrast. I then took this image of the short-form certificate, resized, moved, and very slightly rotated it and laid it on top.

It all lines up. the supposed "CIA-61" is "OAHU." You can see other bits line up, like "Island of Birth," "Sex," and the black box at the bottom of the short form that says "ANY ALTERATION INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE."








Sorry this needs a bump since we aren't reading the thread anymore.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Hey SkepticOverlord ! Hey Springer ! Hey Simon Gray ! Hey Modz !


Time for a good HOAX BIN or still worthy the traffic generated $$$ ?





ATS really is sinking itself under such... things.





Bump anyone?


Solved



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Still wondering why this isn't in the hoax bin



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Its been moved to "General Chitchat" so that is as good as burying it in the back yard. I kind of think Grey area might be better? I'm not sure what you would classify this as honestly.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
I'm not sure what you would classify this as honestly.


Hoax.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Firstly....the image in contention is not the original copy, it is a MSM photocopy, the text visible underneath is the result of a SFBC being photocopied under the LFBC. Picture of the original doesn't show any text under.

Secondly, the supposed 'void' is actually 'AFRICAN' as seen on SFBC.

Thirdly, even if it said 'void', which it doesn't, it would be irrelevant as it is an MSM photocopied document, it could say anything whoever photocopied it wanted it to say!.

Perhaps trying to save some dignity and just admitting this thread should be closed and join the plenty of other threads about the supposed anomalies.


first of all, NO it is NOT the same location on the document.
You have an image of Barack's name from his father's line.
The VOID is printed over BARACK, the child's name. So
you are NOT comparing the same spot as I am.

Where I pointed out the VOID is located,
there is not a typed line on the short form.




edit on 4/29/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Why is this thread still going.. it was solved pages ago.

part of it was solved yes


but the VOID hand written on it has not.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I don't know if anybody has posted this anywhere in here I didn't look and if they did it doesn't matter. The more times the better.
Obama'a long form forgery by Outlivesheep

www.video.me...


outlivesheep.com...
edit on 29-4-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 

and I am utterly shocked that you have already got 4 stars
for posting an image of the wrong part of the document
as compared to mine. lol



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
Solved

where?? can u point me to it?
I am eager to hear how the word
"VOID" was accounted for in this
thread. thanks



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking
Still wondering why this isn't in the hoax bin

cuz it's not a hoax.
the text is there

and so is the "VOID" as it
appears to me and I have shown
in my posted image.



new topics

top topics



 
123
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join