Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One More BC Thread, This Is Bizarre.

page: 3
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I agree that the signitures look like they were done by the same person.
Even the date "/" slashes
The first two especially.
Any handwriting experts here??




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee
Anyone can send the local paper news of a family birth or death to be added to the paper...If Grandma wanted a record for her grandson she would have sent it in.


Unfortunately those birth announcements were based on information supplied by the department of health and were not personaly placed announcements. A cursory glance indicates the difference but some birthers even use that argument to point out that the department of health did not check to see where he was born before passing the info on.

However, a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state.
source They even go so far as to make the case that Obama's birth would have been announced even had he been born in Kenya for some odd reason. Anyway, woulda shoulda coulda but didna.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by Signals
 


Considering that article was written March 18th 2010, and considering his birth certificate was only just now released, I think its painfully obvious that this is NOT his birth certificate. They needed an image for the story, so someone photoshoped up crappy version of the 'Holy Grail' that the birthers were looking for. Its like if you had a story about the Arc of the covenant, you might throw in a picture of such an arc....No one in their right mind would think it was actually the REAL arc, especially if they just read the story talking about how no one has ever found it. In this story it talks about how Hawaii might start ignoring people's request for Obama's Birth Certificate.....So why would you think it would include a PICTURE OF IT?!?!? LMAO!!!! The picture is meant as a satirical example...thats it. It's tantalizing eye candy of a mysterious object that would 'prove' the Birthers right.


Quoted for agreement and to make sure this solid reasoning and clarity is not lost amidst the insanity.

Well stated sir!


A lattice of coincidence..............


edit on 30-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
What happened to that whole "It's not a birth certificate, it is a COLB?" You guys do realize that conceding that argument is conceding the original objection to the short form no one wanted to accept because of the title. Then you all get your long form and declare it fake in less than an hour but this comes along and suddenly you document experts think this looks real? Why? Because it does not look tampered with? How about made from scratch? If I were going to fake one, I would just make a new one instead of editing an existing one 500 times, POORLY, and then releasing it with all past saves available for viewing.

This thread just completely proves that none of you have any clue what you are looking for or looking at, you just know what you want to see. Yes, I am stating that as a fact.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Which might also go a long way to explain why we are on page three of this thread without one single birther questioning the orignal source of this document and none being supplied in the OP. You would think if they had that telling image of a real document, where it came from would be part of the story.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EternalThought
In case you want to see evolution of Obama Mama's signature.

Any comments?

Source





Just a few comments. The signatures are not if the same person, consistent. Thats pretty classic with fakes? Sure, Also with cheap tampering. More to the point there is evidence of "selective erase and re-write". Great way to make the whole thing "bogus looking". Then you have distinct structural inconsistencies, though forms do change, official documents do follow a "standard". Some linguistic , or "presentation" will change, depending on state of mind, illness, dementia, drugs, a lot more. I want to get my hands on a physical original, even a copy will work as it will show, among IR, and density analysis and what you can call "scratch patterns" that also give's us a lot of data. A very high frequency acoustic analysis will show the image "topography, texture, geo-spacial reference" in relation to other "stuff"... A look at the original would answer this, I am sure of it, but I can still get a lot by looking at a copy of the image, but as with replicative fading in DNA cloning, the original "information" fades in effect "drifts". We call image drift among other things, "erosion". That's just what "Erosion" is. There is a number of aspects the "picture people" would be very pissed if I went much further, plus I would be breaking the law. That would be the least of what would concern me.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Which might also go a long way to explain why we are on page three of this thread without one single birther questioning the orignal source of this document and none being supplied in the OP. You would think if they had that telling image of a real document, where it came from would be part of the story.


The source is irrelevant, all that matters is THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE!!!!!!!!!




edit on 30-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Heres the unfortunate thing :
Even if it was proven without a doubt that Obama was born in Kenya, it does not matter. Far too much time, money and effort is being wasted on this.
He probably was born in Kenya, ever thought Obama might actually think he was born in Hawaai though? We are automatically assuming Obama knows everything about the way his life has been orchestrated.

I was in the school of thought that an American President must be born from two American citizens.... Which we all know he is not. So it doesn't matter if it turns out he wasn't born in America, we already know that he comes from an atheist mum who chased after Muslim men. We already know who his dad was, and who his stepdad was. We know that he has not rose to the challenge of president. We know it isn't because he is black, we know it is because of TPTB. Whether he was born here or outerspace,

Time to put our resources into finding a worthwhile president. We got a dud.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by moonpie86
 


You dont seem to understand the magnitude of this.
EVERY piece of paper he has ever signed as president would be null and void.

Do you understand what that means.?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock2009
 


That sums it up for me too


Thanks for all the replies everyone, this compound is on full alert status...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by moonpie86
 


You dont seem to understand the magnitude of this.
EVERY piece of paper he has ever signed as president would be null and void.

Do you understand what that means.?


Yes i understand what this means. I understand that it will mean the same thing as every other piece of BS that has come out of America. It is a Country built on lies, that continues to lie etc. etc.

Like I said, we already ignored the fact HE SHOULDNT BE PRESIDENT DUE TO THE FACT HIS FATHER IS KENYAN (sorry for shouting but I have already said it once). I don't have much faith in the truth setting us free. It hasn't yet.
Focusing on the solution and not the problem will set us free.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Don't you just love the flaptrappers that provide NOTHING but fluff in their arguments? Flaptards. Yeah, I like that. All flap. All TARD. No beef. FLAPTARDS. A new replacement term for Obama apologists, asskissers, paid shills, character assassins, and the like.

P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

And you DON'T want to ask me what those letters mean.


They accuse us of not questioning the source of this document, when the first darn thing I did was go searching all over the place to find that source. And so far, it seems I'm the only one who traced it back to a "posting on Taitz's site," and I provided a link to another larger image of the document.

"Birthers" are mentally ill. Yeah right. Just cause there are so many issues with OKenya that we want to find out the damn truth.

And get this now folks, more issues just surfaced:

Birth certificate conflicts with father's real birthday?
Newly released immigration documents indicate Obama Sr. was 2 years older


The applications, memos and other documents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service acquired in a Freedom of Information Act request by Heather Smathers of the Arizona Independent – which indicate Barack Obama Sr. would have been 27 at the time of his son's birth, not 25 – also suggest that the president's father did not leave the islands from the time of his August 1959 arrival until he departed for graduate studies at Harvard in June 1962


www.wnd.com...

And just so the flaptards get it, take a look at the age of Obama Sr. it says on Obama Junior's FAKE BC.

The flaptards explained away the "Kenyan-born Obama" article as a mistake. BS. How many more mistakes can one person have on their paperwork than O-SHAM-A? It's fricken absurd. But go right ahead and keep on flappin. Cause that's all you got is BS.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Wow...raising the dead in this post...huh???

This is about a year and a half old...and it's source...an anonymous email. There are many things that scream hoax about this document, the major one being that the 338.17.8 amendment referenced on the document didn't exist in 1961. 338.17.8 wasn't passed until 1982. So you can't really have a reference to an amendment that hasn't been passed yet stamped on a document. Come on...do your research...this took me all of 10 minutes to find.

www.thepostemail.com...

Sorry birthers...you fail again.


Seriously...how many times do you guys have to be wrong before you admit to yourselves that you just aren't very good at this investigation thingy???
edit on 1-5-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as "delayed" or "altered". [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]


www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

And read this very carefully:


§338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the "birth registrant":

(1) Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant's parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;

(2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;

(3) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;

(4) Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:

(A) The birth registrant's sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant's birth certificate; or

(B) The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant's birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or

(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant's original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

(b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]


Rules of Court

Adoption, new birth certificate, see HFCR rule 112.


www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

Therefore at any point those people could have changed his BC to reflect the changes that law enforcement, i.e., the CIA or other agency, wanted to be seen. Which means that the real original is probably indeed, locked away in that "special file" in a vault- as has been alleged before. And here are the underpinnings of the laws that allowed them to do it- legally.

So your assertion that this is fake based upon the amendment date holds no more water than any other accusations, period. Basically, if there is a higher interest, they can show whatever the hell they want to on a BC, or amend it in any way they see fit that suits their purpose- at ANY time. Vital records.
Yeah, vital alright. I can just as easily argue that they amended it as needed to get him into school, or whatever they needed to get him where they needed him to be.

[SNIP] fail, once again.
edit on 1-5-2011 by Gemwolf because: Mod Edit: Removed variation of naughty word.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Don't you just love the flaptrappers that provide NOTHING but fluff in their arguments? Flaptards. Yeah, I like that. All flap. All TARD. No beef. FLAPTARDS. A new replacement term for Obama apologists, asskissers, paid shills, character assassins, and the like.

P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.


Not nearly as much as I enjoy the people that keep posting rumors and lies in order to point out, "hey, there are all these rumors for a reason, huh?" and then come into a hoax thread like this and attempt to legitimize the OP by changing it completely "Sure, the OP is a hoax and a lie but what about this completely different other thing that seems odd?" and then use WND as a source after WND has been proven a liar in almost every birther thread on ATS including a thread where the editor or WND admits to putting out misinformation.

Those are way more entertaining.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


i was simply asking if it'd matter if the argument was relevant at all. i don't care if it's true or not, it won't change my opinion of him. if he was from kenya, and he was doing a good job, would it stop arguments or would everyone still say "HE'S FROM KENYA HE HAS NO CLAIM TO THE PRESIDENCY!"?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesmart
all 3 signatures look the same handwriting...


Well then explain why they would have 2 different style M's? Typically when someone signs, and the two words have the same first letter, they would look the same... but they don't.. needless to say though.. I don't know where this came from or what the ++++ is going on here anymore with these BC's



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Do you have to be American born to be eligible to be President? Or just a legal emigrant/citizen?

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger not an emigrant and a Governor?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Nice hack job OP. Nice.

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


It looks like someone added a line to this page and anything of significance is going to be above the signature lines. Do you think this might be a hoax? How could it be? I see it. It must be real. A duh. There was a story about a guy with a flute and all these mice. This is what we have here.





new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join