Obama's Rabbit Hole Just Broke Through to China! SSN Tied To An Alias Harrison J Bounel and MORE

Originally posted by ontarff

I do not see the credentials of the unbiased experts from FactCheck that published this article. This article does not provide the empirical data for the scientific analysis in a report published in any journal that would be provided for scrutiny to any scientific community.

I see. So when you said "They could be examined by a committee of well known document experts not paid by any special interest groups." you didnt really mean that, since what I presented is EXACTLY that.

You are just moving the goal posts.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ontarff

I do not see the credentials of the unbiased experts from FactCheck that published this article. This article does not provide the empirical data for the scientific analysis in a report published in any journal that would be provided for scrutiny to any scientific community.

I see. So when you said "They could be examined by a committee of well known document experts not paid by any special interest groups." you didnt really mean that, since what I presented is EXACTLY that.

You are just moving the goal posts.

Please see my edited re-post. Henig and Miller did not provide empirical evidence of the original 1961 document.

Originally posted by ontarff


Please see my edited re-post. Henig and Miller did not provide empirical evidence of the original 1961 document.

Okay. Goal-post-mover.

So, can you describe what exactly this 'empirical evidence' would be and who specifically you would trust to verify it?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ontarff


Please see my edited re-post. Henig and Miller did not provide empirical evidence of the original 1961 document.

Okay. Goal-post-mover.

So, can you describe what exactly this 'empirical evidence' would be and who specifically you would trust to verify it?

I am going to dismiss your name calling and only state that the information provided in the FactCheck article was not sufficient to support any scientific argument for authenticity of the original 1961 birth certificate.

reply to post by ontarff


You asked for evidence confirmed by a third party. I showed it. You then changed the parameters. That is called moving the goal posts. Now you are continuing to do so.

So, I will dismiss your dismissal of my question and ask yet again :So, can you describe what exactly this 'empirical evidence' would be and who specifically you would trust to verify it?

It seems a simple question to answer. But, of course, the last time you defined parameters, and evidence was supplied which fit those parameters, you merely changed the parameters.

So, again, please define the parameters and stick to them.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by ontarff

 

You asked for evidence confirmed by a third party. I showed it. You then changed the parameters. That is called moving the goal posts. Now you are continuing to do so.

So, I will dismiss your dismissal of my question and ask yet again :So, can you describe what exactly this 'empirical evidence' would be and who specifically you would trust to verify it?

It seems a simple question to answer. But, of course, the last time you defined parameters, and evidence was supplied which fit those parameters, you merely changed the parameters.

So, again, please define the parameters and stick to them.

edit on 22-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

I have taken a class in forged documents but I do not consider myself an expert. Again, I will repeat, a committee of experts should be formed, that are unbiased, that are not paid for their analysis by any special interest group, to examine and analyze the original 1961 proof of live birth. The scientific analysis and procedures used to determine authenticity of the original birth certificate would be published for scrutiny by the scientific community and those educated to understand the scientific method used.

I could only surmise some of the scientific analytical tools used to verify authenticity. I am only trained to recognize some of the errors and inconsistencies common in forged documents.

An example of one professional who has identified himself and his credentials is here

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Lighterside
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

So the 'Debt Collector' err.. 'Al' doesn't wish to have his identity or location disclosed? And the only place his story is being told is on a program with an obvious anti Obama narrative?

Ya, shaping up to be the conspiracy of all conspiracies all right....

IMO there's no reason to take this program, or it's guest seriously.

Wrong. He has a blogsite and is putting all his discoveries on it:
theobamahustle.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by ontarff

Again, I will repeat, a committee of experts should be formed, that are unbiased, that are not paid for their analysis by any special interest group, to examine and analyze the original 1961 proof of live birth. The scientific analysis and procedures used to determine authenticity of the original birth certificate would be published for scrutiny by the scientific community and those educated to understand the scientific method used.

Noted.

Can you define 'unbiased'?

you would accept their findings if they dont align with your own pre-determined conclusions?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ontarff

Again, I will repeat, a committee of experts should be formed, that are unbiased, that are not paid for their analysis by any special interest group, to examine and analyze the original 1961 proof of live birth. The scientific analysis and procedures used to determine authenticity of the original birth certificate would be published for scrutiny by the scientific community and those educated to understand the scientific method used.

Noted.

Can you define 'unbiased'?

you would accept their findings if they dont align with your own pre-determined conclusions?

edit on 22-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

unbiased or unbiassed (ʌnˈbaɪəst) — adj 1. having no bias or prejudice; fair or impartial 2. statistics a. (of a sample) not affected by any extraneous factors, conflated variables, or selectivity which influence its distribution; random b. (of an estimator) having an expected value equal to the parameter being estimated; having zero bias c. Also called: discriminatory (of a significance test). Having a power greater than the predetermined significance level

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

I would agree with unbiased empirical evidence. The scientific method would prevail. My opinion would not matter.

Well thats all fine and dandy guys, but this thread was started in reference to the NEW bull# of social security numbers, not the already six feet under issue of the birth certificate.

I just want to prepare myself for the next one, cuz this social security numbers issue im certain wont last the end of the month.

Im guessing the next one may be... ohh yea he will probably be accused of having multiple passports with different names or something along those lines. Ok everyone get ready to hear the passport fabrication soon, its the next step in this hilarious comedy.

Originally posted by DYepes
Well thats all fine and dandy guys, but this thread was started in reference to the NEW bull# of social security numbers, not the already six feet under issue of the birth certificate.

I just want to prepare myself for the next one, cuz this social security numbers issue im certain wont last the end of the month.

Im guessing the next one may be... ohh yea he will probably be accused of having multiple passports with different names or something along those lines. Ok everyone get ready to hear the passport fabrication soon, its the next step in this hilarious comedy.

I notice that you give no reasons for your vacuous dismissal of these issues as "hilarious comedy". The very fact that such anomalies exist that lots of highly intelligent people notice and point out to others on forums like ATS is of course of no significance to you. It's a case of "Don't bother me with the awkward facts, just let me show you how cleverer I am than all these birthers by not even disdaining to make a serious rebuttal of their findings".

Empty sarcasms and shows of pretending to be above it all does not cut it at ATS.

My birth certificate, social security number, military 201 file, education history,social history, hasn't got any errors and the world knows exactly who i am and where I've been for almost 50 years. how come we have a president that doesn't exist on paper???

Is it because hes an enemy agent????

He must be, because there is no other reason for it, and until he can legally legitimately prove otherwise he should be placed at Guantanamo until he can, along with the rest of the enemies

He does exist on paper. You just cannot access his private paper files due to privacy laws. I cannot access your private documentation either because of privacy laws. I dont know who you are and where you have been for the last fifty years? Can you prove to me you exist as who you say you are? Cuz you got me really worried now that you may be an enemy agent. No seriously...

Originally posted by DYepes
He does exist on paper. You just cannot access his private paper files due to privacy laws. I cannot access your private documentation either because of privacy laws. Can you prove to me you exist as who you say you are? Cuz you got me really worried now that you may be an enemy agent. No seriously...

Now I'm afraid you are an enemy agent...oh my god, we're all enemy agents..maybe the president can help us out of our dilemma and prove that he is not , so we may follow in his honest forthcoming footsteps and be allies

Originally posted by DYepes
He does exist on paper. You just cannot access his private paper files due to privacy laws. I cannot access your private documentation either because of privacy laws. I dont know who you are and where you have been for the last fifty years? Can you prove to me you exist as who you say you are? Cuz you got me really worried now that you may be an enemy agent. No seriously...

edit on 5/22/2011 by DYepes because: (no reason given)

Yes there are privacy laws to protect most of us on a very limited basis, but there are transparency requirements for all elected officials. Transparency is required to avoid these kinds of problems. If you think you are promised privacy from anyone like the FBI, CIA or even the IRS, you are mistaken. Even debt collectors and private investigators can attain any information about you. The Patriot Act assures this as well.

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ontarff


Please see my edited re-post. Henig and Miller did not provide empirical evidence of the original 1961 document.

Okay. Goal-post-mover.

So, can you describe what exactly this 'empirical evidence' would be and who specifically you would trust to verify it?

I am going to dismiss your name calling and only state that the information provided in the FactCheck article was not sufficient to support any scientific argument for authenticity of the original 1961 birth certificate.

Which means you're going to avoid the question, lol.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ontarff


Please see my edited re-post. Henig and Miller did not provide empirical evidence of the original 1961 document.

Okay. Goal-post-mover.

So, can you describe what exactly this 'empirical evidence' would be and who specifically you would trust to verify it?

I am going to dismiss your name calling and only state that the information provided in the FactCheck article was not sufficient to support any scientific argument for authenticity of the original 1961 birth certificate.

Which means you're going to avoid the question, lol.

I did not "avoid the question". Did you not comprehend the post above at 11:27 and 12:03?

Originally posted by ontarff
Yes there are privacy laws to protect most of us on a very limited basis, but there are transparency requirements for all elected officials. Transparency is required to avoid these kinds of problems. If you think you are promised privacy from anyone like the FBI, CIA or even the IRS, you are mistaken. Even debt collectors and private investigators can attain any information about you. The Patriot Act assures this as well.

edit on 5/22/2011 by ontarff because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/22/2011 by ontarff because: correct term.

Yea everytime I hear this, Iike I did earlier in this thread, I typically reply in kind with:

you seem to believe that law does not exist in America? That there are not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of INDIVIDUALS involved and dedicated to their careers in law enforcement, forensics, intelligence gathering and national security, many of which themselves have their own negative opinions of Obama. That not a single one of them, surely thousands with the security clearance to gather any information they may need, would go right ahead and present the FACTUAL evidence required to present formal charges and prove these accusations?

Many of them would surely die in the line of duty (and many have, God bless their souls) fearless of their enemies because they believe in their duty to America. Why would they feel any less when presented with these supposed criminal actions?

Im sure the line that will be presented in response to this will be something along the lines of:
"Its a massive conspiracy by TPTB/Obama/Antichrist with orders that have been passed down to all agencies" or maybe
"Because Americans have become conditioned to not care" or
"Everyone's loyalty to the Commander in Chief supercedes the possibility of destabalizing the nation by prosecuting the POTUS"

When the simple answer really is just "none of it is true" .

I just wennt ahead and reposted what I typed earlier, because it really makes more sense than the validity to the various accusations.

Im sure you would happily believe one of the three lines I spelled out for you at the end of the post as to why none of the millions of individuals involved with national intelligence, law enforcement, and forensics many thousands who would easily have the clearance required choose not to pursue these matters. Dont tell me everyone individual involved in those agencies is a Obamaniac either.

reply to post by DYepes


I agree with your last comment. "None of it is true". In order to present the evidence to Congress, there must be a formal case filed for a hearing. I know of a formal case turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court that would argue what "natural born" means in our U.S. Constitution and that Obama is not a "natural born" citizen.

puzo1.blogspot.com...

I am not an attorney. I cannot begin to detail the process to bring all of the empirical evidence (if ever attained) to be presented to the U.S. Congress for a formal investigation. I must say that the information presented on this ATS site is not empirically proven, but yet it is very compelling to say the least. The information presented would have to be corroborated or "debunked" by a formal investigation. I am ignorant and uneducated as to what steps must be taken for the truth to ultimately prevail. I do know that we can write to our elected officials. However, some lies are never revealed to the public for political reasons. They will remain beliefs or opinions until proven to be factual beyond a doubt.

Some truths do leak out. Again, I would use the Wikileaks documents as an example. We can only guess why the information recently presented is not formally used in an investigation. Maybe it will be.

IMHO, generally speaking, people do not want to get hassled for raising a red flag. They do not want to be ridiculed by their peers. They do not want to be put on the DHS "watch list". Are we risking this by posting our concerns online? Some do not have the time or energy or interest to concern themselves in these kinds of matters. There are too many other issues to focus on today. Ultimately, I hope our freedom is not compromised by corruption and poor decisions by our elected representatives.

reply to post by MiloNickels

As a former police officer, with experience using computer networks (such as NCIC, Accurint, Lexus Nexus, NYSPIN, etc...) to search for information, I am very concerned about this person's safety (if his story is as legit as it appears to be). To use softwares like that, and do the searches that he's done, he would have to be registered to the systems and log into them. Every search is saved, searchable, and points directly back to the user that performed it. You better believe that "they" are figuring out who this guy is right now. The ABSOLUTE WORST thing this person can do is remain anonymous. The more attention he can garner for himself, the less likely he will have a mysterious, Clintonian-style accident.

I was just rolling thru these posts to see if this very point was mentioned. In addition to the law enforcement systems used, as you mentioned, the systems available to civilians are also monitored. Every key stroke. But what's worse for this guy is the query on that SSN - it's triggered! I'm surprised the feds weren't clinking the hardware on him before he was done printing.

I agree - if he's for real, he needs to go public and get on every talk show he can. At least then, when he drowns, ODs, or is in, say, a fatal car accident in tunnel, the rest of the world will want answers.