It's Official: Experts says Barrack Obama's Birth Certificate is a Forged Document

reply to post by Kitilani


I just quoted you calling me a retard.

Or wait, are you so immature that you think your clever use of saying "R word" instead of Retard basically releases you from all responsibility?

Grow up...you are obviously only here to start fights.

You have also done much much more then that here. You have been absolutely useless and out of line in your skirting around the matter and complete lack of knowledge on this issue.

I am done discussing anything with you, as far as I am concerned you are basically the main reason this thread devolved into such chaos.

You are baiting people, starting fires and laughing in people's faces for being genuinely curious or confused.

When the truth of the matter is my six year old son knows more about this issue's technical details then you. That's right little Miss Cat, a six year old uses Adobe programs, while you do not.

Meaning- even he has a bigger right then you to act high and mighty and informed on this issue.

Anyone else using the same tactics you are using, on BOTH sides of the argument, are out of line as well.

In fact, I believe a few times I mentioned the complete lack of on-topic-ness from the Pro-Obama squad and the No-Obama squad alike. In double fact, I am pretty sure not many folks here even spoke about the topic at all.

Now again...good day...your crass level of communication and harassing nature turns my stomach. As far as I am concerned, new people like you are damaging this site, and you are a very angry person who knows ZERO about this issue.

Good day.

MM

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I just quoted you calling me a retard.

Or wait, are you so immature that you think your clever use of saying "R word" instead of Retard basically releases you from all responsibility?

You did not quote me calling you anything. What you said was that I called you a retard twice. I never called you any such thing and you failed to provide a quote of me doing it as well. Meanwhile, the OP has called me tard and you have NO PROBLEM with that.

Whatever. You learn to read and tell the truth and you and I can have a really nice civil conversation about this. Of course, most of it would involve me just linking you, again, to the other two threads where all this was already covered.

Stop making crap up and see if you get a better quality response.

Click here for more information.

NOTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Members must stay on topic, and post with respect.
Violations can and will be warned, up to issuing temporary posting bans.

Food for thought:

MOD EDIT: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

MOD NOTE: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Trolling, And What To Do About It

Posting Jokes, Ridiculing, Making Fun of Others in Threads...

YOU are responsible for your own posts

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ontarff
I am very tired and disappointed to continuously read posts on this thread by the uncritical thinking, rude, Kool-aid drinking people like Katilani and aptness that continue to derail the thread topic with opiniated comments unsupported by the original BC as empirical evidence. Unless you have something to contribute to this thread on the technical expertise of the persons who have examined the forged .pdf, please spare us all the grief of your rhetoric. Your uncogent reasoning is a waste of my time.

You are the one saying that the numbers were out of sequence for no reason. It was just your uninformed opinion. The thread author keeps calling me a tard. Yeah, you know what you are talking about.

My response to you was based on your comment about the DH for the State of Hawaii. I will not be responding to any furthur off topic posts by you, aptness or anyone else who continues to use unkind names and adjectives for those who intelligently attempt to discuss facets of interest pertaining to the thread topic.

P.S. My response was NOT uninformed. Respectfully, I disagree with your opinion.

Originally posted by ontarff
My response to you was based on your comment about the DH for the State of Hawaii.

I know. You said there was an issue with the number sequence between Obama and the twins. I asked you to explain it and all I got was your uninformed opinion. I specifically asked you for the facts behind what you believed and you offered NONE.

##SNIPPED##

reply to post by Kitilani


And I referred you to Corsi's book and the numerous websites and threads on this ATS forum that will provide all of the detailed information.

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by Kitilani

 

And I referred you to Corsi's book and the numerous websites and threads on this ATS forum that will provide all of the detailed information.

I have Corsi's book.
Please do tell me what exactly it is you think I should be looking at in there. Page number? Reference? The book failed to prove anything other than paper can be printed on.

I posted something way back on page 10 of this thread. At least I think it was 10. I can't keep track anymore.

I would like all birthers to respond to this picture.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/712959cdbe05.jpg[/atsimg]

I would like to enter into evidence the smoking gun.

This right here should end all of these ridiculous discussions about Obama not being born in Hawaii.

If no one responds to this thread then I'll know that there is some sort of evil political agenda going on.
J/K. But really if no one responds...

Originally posted by ontarff
OK, I do not want to spend more of my time quoting all of the facts presented in Corsi's book that is also referenced on many other websites and threads on this ATS site.

Let me explain why this sat here with no real consideration to it. When I linked to two other threads and said all these questions were answered there, I was accused of being a deflective troll. So when you are too lazy to even give a page number in a book or answer a direct question, how should I regard that?

Basically, the Obama BC number should have been in a lower sequence than the twins born after him.

I know this is your issue. I asked you specifically to explain why you think that is the case and support it with facts. I asked a few times. Just repeating what you think is not the same as explaining why you think it or why anyone should agree it is correct in any way.

I am sure you believe the excuse provided by the State of Hawaii.

You mean I might take the word of the people that know how they file their documents over say you who is just guessing? Yeah. I might just do that. Tell me why that would be anything other than sane.

The hospital name is also questionable.

Then it must be questionable on the Nordyke Twins certificates too, right? So all three are questionable but you believe two debunk the third? Explain.

I am not going to go around with you or Aptness on all of these details identified in Corsi's book again.

No one asked you to go around and around. I asked a direct question that only needed a direct answer. Yet here we are how many posts later and you have yet to supply any such thing?

I am already sorry I have wasted more of my life arguing with a closed minded person(s) that do not need empirical evidence (the original hardcopy BC) to support their argument.

I asked you for exactly that. Where is the empirical evidence to support your hypothesis?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by Kitilani

 

And I referred you to Corsi's book and the numerous websites and threads on this ATS forum that will provide all of the detailed information.

I have Corsi's book.
Please do tell me what exactly it is you think I should be looking at in there. Page number? Reference? The book failed to prove anything other than paper can be printed on.

I am at work right now. I will provide you with the page number when I get an opportunity. I am sure you can find it on another resource. I understand that since I made the comment, it is my responsibility to provide my reference.

The only reason this piques my interest is because I looked at the pdf myself, and it has obviously been altered one way or another. I've been using Adobe for over 10 years, 7 professionally.

I can understand why the skeptics dismiss this as "nutty birthers", but it being altered/forged doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't born in the US.. it could mean that there is some other information that they excluded, or something that doesn't match up with the official story of his life.

Personally, I don't think that the president we end up with every 4 years has no idea 5 or 10 years before that he is going to be president. Elections are not left up to chance, at all.. I think they are chosen, groomed & trained for the huge level of corruption they'll be dealing with. Palin was probably added to the ticket last election to secure Obama's win. It might sound crazy, but I don't think that the US Gov wants another JFK situation on their hands, you know?

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by ontarff

I see from Kitilani’s post that Corsi only compared Obama’s certificate number with the Nordykes’ to reach his conclusion. Fortunately we have more information than Corsi apparently, so let me run this information by you to see if you still endorse Corsi’s certificate number theory.

Stig Weidelich was born hours after Obama, on August 5, and his birth announcement appears on the same page as Obama’s on the newspaper. Back in April CNN did a piece on the birthers and went with Weidelich to the Department of Health to get his birth certificate.

As expected Weidelich got the same kind of birth certificate that Obama got and initially presented before the 2008 election. But the relevant information we get from that CNN piece is that Weidelich’s certificate number is 151-1961-010920, and the file date on his certificate is August 8.

So we have the following:

Obama: born on August 4, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-10641.
Nordykes: born on August 5, filed on August 11, certificates #151-1961-10637 and #10638.
Weidelich: born on August 5, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-010920.

With this third example, of Weidelich’s certificate, we can deduce the Department of Health probably did things alphabetically. Also, most likely they didn’t number or archive the certificates as soon as they were filed. Instead, they probably went through the process once a week, or some other period of time.

This would explain why Obama’s certificate number is higher than the Nordykes’, even though Obama was born one day earlier and his certificate was filed days earlier than the Nordykes’, and Weidelich’s certificate number is higher than the Nordykes’ even though Weidelich’s was filed before the Nordykes’ certificates.

What do you think of this theory? And how do you conciliate Stig Weidelich’s certificate number with Corsi’s theory?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ontarff
OK, I do not want to spend more of my time quoting all of the facts presented in Corsi's book that is also referenced on many other websites and threads on this ATS site.

Let me explain why this sat here with no real consideration to it. When I linked to two other threads and said all these questions were answered there, I was accused of being a deflective troll. So when you are too lazy to even give a page number in a book or answer a direct question, how should I regard that?

Basically, the Obama BC number should have been in a lower sequence than the twins born after him.

I know this is your issue. I asked you specifically to explain why you think that is the case and support it with facts. I asked a few times. Just repeating what you think is not the same as explaining why you think it or why anyone should agree it is correct in any way.

I am sure you believe the excuse provided by the State of Hawaii.

You mean I might take the word of the people that know how they file their documents over say you who is just guessing? Yeah. I might just do that. Tell me why that would be anything other than sane.

The hospital name is also questionable.

Then it must be questionable on the Nordyke Twins certificates too, right? So all three are questionable but you believe two debunk the third? Explain.

I am not going to go around with you or Aptness on all of these details identified in Corsi's book again.

No one asked you to go around and around. I asked a direct question that only needed a direct answer. Yet here we are how many posts later and you have yet to supply any such thing?

I am already sorry I have wasted more of my life arguing with a closed minded person(s) that do not need empirical evidence (the original hardcopy BC) to support their argument.

I asked you for exactly that. Where is the empirical evidence to support your hypothesis?

The reference is in endnote #50 of Corsi's book. It is not empirical evidence, it simply supports my point. The empirical evidence has yet to be released by the DH of Hawaii. This is off topic as the thread was based on the fraudulent .pdf released by the Whitehouse and the experts examining it.

Originally posted by ontarff
The reference is in endnote #50 of Corsi's book. It is not empirical evidence, it simply supports my point.

It does not support your point in any way. It just says the same thing you did which is nothing more than an errant guess. Just because you repeated Corsi's guess does not mean Corsi's guess supports your guess. That is the craziest confirmation bias twist ever.

The empirical evidence has yet to be released by the DH of Hawaii. This is off topic as the thread was based on the fraudulent .pdf released by the Whitehouse and the experts examining it.

You brought it up.

Interesting how each time one of you makes a claim in one of these threads, is asked to prove it, you suddenly get all worried about how off topic your claim was and do not want to discuss it further.

Originally posted by aptness
reply to post by ontarff

 

I see from Kitilani’s post that Corsi only compared Obama’s certificate number with the Nordykes’ to reach his conclusion. Fortunately we have more information than Corsi apparently, so let me run this information by you to see if you still endorse Corsi’s certificate number theory.

Stig Weidelich was born hours after Obama, on August 5, and his birth announcement appears on the same page as Obama’s on the newspaper. Back in April CNN did a piece on the birthers and went with Weidelich to the Department of Health to get his birth certificate.

As expected Weidelich got the same kind of birth certificate that Obama got and initially presented before the 2008 election. But the relevant information we get from that CNN piece is that Weidelich’s certificate number is 151-1961-010920, and the file date on his certificate is August 8.

So we have the following:

Obama: born on August 4, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-10641.
Nordykes: born on August 5, filed on August 11, certificates #151-1961-10637 and #10638.
Weidelich: born on August 5, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-010920.

With this third example, of Weidelich’s certificate, we can deduce the Department of Health probably did things alphabetically. Also, most likely they didn’t number or archive the certificates as soon as they were filed. Instead, they probably went through the process once a week, or some other period of time.

This would explain why Obama’s certificate number is higher than the Nordykes’, even though Obama was born one day earlier and his certificate was filed days earlier than the Nordykes’, and Weidelich’s certificate number is higher than the Nordykes’ even though Weidelich’s was filed before the Nordykes’ certificates.

What do you think of this theory? And how do you conciliate Stig Weidelich’s certificate number with Corsi’s theory?

edit on 6-7-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

I appreciate your information but it is all very circumstantial to say the least. The newspaper articles are not based on proof of live birth. The only empirical evidence would be by witnesses and the original BC.

Originally posted by ontarff
I appreciate your information but it is all very circumstantial to say the least. The newspaper articles are not based on proof of live birth. The only empirical evidence would be by witnesses and the original BC.

The only relevant "empirical evidence" that could even begin to address your issue is the real knowledge of how files were handled at the DOH. For some reason your and Corsi are assuming the number of the form should be in chronological order when there is absolutely no good reason to assume that.