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.

 

Man claims PAN AM flight logs show baby Obama flew with parents from Kenya to Hawaii

page: 14
49
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kitilani
 

then read the previous posts in this thread. the info has been posted.
please, do your diligence before asking someone to provide it to you.


No it has never been posted. All that has been posted are who these people are and what they said. The only people that seem to believe they are experts seem to be birthers and the loons making the claims. Reality does not work that way. Otherwise I would be a world renowned birther expert just because I say I am.




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
So have they posted any documents yet?


Originally posted by My_Reality
It is hard for me to believe that Asia is a typo. If this man thinks that Kenya is in Asia his story is suspect. If his flight logs show Kenya in Asia his flight logs are suspect. Either way, if he can't get his facts straight it's hard for me to believe him. Also, if it happens to be a typo and his information is correct it would still harm his credibility.


Woh there Sherlock...

Do you seriously think you could get a direct flight from Kenya to Hawaii? You can't even do that today. Speaking of needing to look at a map, maybe you need to look at a globe and see how far apart they are. Airplanes run o this stuff called airplane fuel and they can only carry so much of it at a time, so they have to stop and refuel. You wouldn't even ride the same airplane the whole way.

Your last stop before Hawaii would probably be Japan, both then and now. If not Japan, than almost certainly somewhere in "Asia." The only way it wouldn't would be if you flew the other way around and then you'd be arriving from California probably.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bo12au
 


I can think of one good reason to let this happen: Sacrifical Lamb.

I've said from the begining, of his term in office, that since Bush passed 1 bailout plan, Obama's term was going to be a Lame Duck by default...unless he fixed that error. The problem is that Bush did something the Democrats wanted badly (after all, who signed this bill?!?). Obama's done nothing but dig a deeper hole, and already the Democratic party is starting to shift away from him. Since any president HAS to have congressional support to push their agenda, yet congress always blames the president for what happened on his watch, it's blatantly apparant that the Presidental position has beeen the SL for a long time.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bo12au
 


Thank you, bo12au. I got that feeling pretty quick. But it's okay. I understand the rules of engagement in these crazy times. The way I see it, bantering with such people gives me the opportunity to further refine and define my own position... and further serves to inform readers sincerely looking for the truth so sadly lacking in today's mainstream media.

Blessings.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Once again, actually, they are all experts not just by my standards, but by definition. From The Free Dictionary:

ex·pert (kspûrt) n. 1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
2.
a. The highest grade that can be achieved in marksmanship.
b. A person who has achieved this grade.

In a legal sense, they are not "experts" until the judge deems them experts, usually established thru voir dire.

Ivan Zatkovich, having testified as an expert witness for the last 10 years, has obviously been deemed an expert by at least one court; therefore, Mr Zatkovich is an expert by definition and court ruling.

Both Ms Ramsey and Mr Vogt have extensive knowledge, training, and experience in the field of document creation and management; therefore, experts by definition. Ms Ramsey has specific expertise in detecting forgeries; from Wikipedia: "Questioned document examination (QDE) is the forensic science discipline pertaining to documents that are (or may be) in dispute in a court of law." Therefore, Ms Ramsey has the knowledge, training and experience to also be an expert witness in court.

I do not know if Ms Ramsey or Mr Vogt have ever testified as expert witness in court, and therefore been ruled experts in their field in a court of law, but both have provided sworn affidavits to the court, and made themselves available as such... if/when a court actually has the integrity to hear the case on its merits, we'll find out. But Obama is doing everything he can to make sure that doesn't happen.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
this whole, fly from kenya to hawaii thing is ridiculous, does anyone know how expensive it was back then to fly and how long it took...we are talking about 12,000 miles either way, 2 different airlines and a cost of $1916. for 2 tickets back then..

If you adjust for inflation. that is equal to $13,000.00 in 2005. How the heck could they afford to do this?????

Claiming they came back, they had to get there right, here is the route back then

Honolulu Hawaii to Los Angeles California: 2558 miles
Los Angeles California to New York, New York: 2444 miles
New York, New York to Gander Bay Canada: 1116 miles
Gander Bay Canada to London England: 2344 miles
London England to Cairo Egypt: 2180 miles
Cairo Egypt to Nairobi Kenya: 2194 miles
Total Distance: 12,836 miles

here is a link with more complete info on this and other obama questions

www.calldrmatt.com...

common sense says this could not be, taking the whole vista stamp out of the equation. there's no way a very pregant woman can fly like that....






edit on 14-8-2011 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boadicea
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Once again, actually, they are all experts not just by my standards, but by definition. From The Free Dictionary:

ex·pert (kspûrt) n. 1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
2.
a. The highest grade that can be achieved in marksmanship.
b. A person who has achieved this grade.


Are you serious? Because the word expert is in the dictionary, these people are experts?
Expert is in the dictionary. None of those people are listed there so what the hell is this supposed to prove to me?


In a legal sense, they are not "experts" until the judge deems them experts, usually established thru voir dire.



Right.

And um....which judge is qualified to deem anyone a "scanner expert?" I need names and qualifications. Judges cannot just say you are an expert in something without finding out if you really are. I need to see this process you just made up in action.


Ivan Zatkovich, having testified as an expert witness for the last 10 years, has obviously been deemed an expert by at least one court; therefore, Mr Zatkovich is an expert by definition and court ruling.


Deemed an expert by at least one court. Oh, ok. That makes him an expert.
And an expert in what again?


Both Ms Ramsey and Mr Vogt have extensive knowledge, training, and experience in the field of document creation and management; therefore, experts by definition. Ms Ramsey has specific expertise in detecting forgeries; from Wikipedia: "Questioned document examination (QDE) is the forensic science discipline pertaining to documents that are (or may be) in dispute in a court of law." Therefore, Ms Ramsey has the knowledge, training and experience to also be an expert witness in court.

I do not know if Ms Ramsey or Mr Vogt have ever testified as expert witness in court, and therefore been ruled experts in their field in a court of law, but both have provided sworn affidavits to the court, and made themselves available as such... if/when a court actually has the integrity to hear the case on its merits, we'll find out. But Obama is doing everything he can to make sure that doesn't happen.




Keep calling them experts for no reason and I am going to keep asking you to prove their qualifications. If you just want to go in circles, do that alone. Just provide the proof and be done with it.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 11andrew34
 




Woh there Sherlock...

Do you seriously think you could get a direct flight from Kenya to Hawaii? You can't even do that today. Speaking of needing to look at a map, maybe you need to look at a globe and see how far apart they are. Airplanes run o this stuff called airplane fuel and they can only carry so much of it at a time, so they have to stop and refuel. You wouldn't even ride the same airplane the whole way.

Your last stop before Hawaii would probably be Japan, both then and now. If not Japan, than almost certainly somewhere in "Asia." The only way it wouldn't would be if you flew the other way around and then you'd be arriving from California probably.



Of course I thought about that situation. He never mentioned any evidence of flight records from Africa to where ever in Asia the original plane landed. It is not my responsibility to be thorough with this so called evidence. Remember, I did not provide this information. I can only go with the evidence that this "miller4000" presented and it is very thin due to it's vague nature. Take up your complaints with Mr. "miller4000"; I never claimed to have any information relating to the birther issue. An issue that will never get settled either way - until it is too late to remedy the situation. A pity that you wish to debate this relatively minor issue instead of the possible, although very unlikely, "conspiracy" that I put forth. This is a site related to these matters after all.

I was attempting to point out a discrepancy in his story. A valid discrepancy I might add. If he cannot provide flight records from Kenya to A to B to C to the Aloha State than I cannot take his information seriously.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



You know TA, interesting how this subject has to go to great lengths to prove his citizenship LOL.. that in itself is suspicious..since it was NEVER a issue any other president in the US history ..

he was put in because they wanted him in .. and the American people wanted change so the TPTB created a vacumme with bush and BAM, lies and deception work hand in hand..



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Thank you, Kitilani, for a very refreshing belly laugh. I've seen alot of crazy stuff in court, but I had to laugh at the thought of you (or anyone) telling a judge they don't have the authority to deem someone an expert witness. Unfortunately, Obama does know better; hence his nonstop efforts to keep the issue of his eligibility and the question of forged birth docs out of the courts.

>

It's okay, go ahead and untwist your knickers. I already gave you the reasons they are in fact experts, and you just don't like them. Our words will have to stand on their own merits. If you want to play dumb for Obama, that's your prerogative. Go for it



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Miller4000 is obviously having himself a serious laugh on all these birthers who took his little lie and ran with it. Of course Corsi will no doubt turn it into another $30 book that these same morons will rush out and buy.

I would have thought ATSers would have been a little more resourceful in exposing this lie by comparing it to other known facts of Obama Sr. and thus be able to say it doesn't jibe.

Obama Sr.'s INS papers show he was here in the United States at the time Miller4000 claims they were flying from Kenya to Hawaii. (Strange, though, that Miller4000 would write the flight logs show Obama flying to Hawaii when he was 5 months old - instead of writing "January 1962" - and removing any ambiguity as to when these alleged flight logs were written).

Here is Obama Sr.'s INS timeline:

1959, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics that offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students. Obama Sr. left Kenya in 1959 to study abroad at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in Honolulu. In 1962, Obama Sr. graduated with a B.A. in economics.

In 1962, Obama Sr. began a graduate fellowship in economics at Harvard University. Left his Ph.D. program at Harvard University in May 1964 (the INS did not renew his Visa) and so received an A.M. in Economics from Harvard that was awarded in 1965.

In 1964, Obama Sr. returned to Kenya.

In addition, Obama's mother started classes weeks after Obama was born. The class transcript has already been posted online.

---------------------------

The coup de grâce that should put the nail in this latest birther fabrication is that Pan Am did not fly out of Kenya in 1961.It started service in Nairobi in 1965.

Pan Am Firsts - 1965: Service Started: Nairobi

Now maybe (but I rather doubt it) Miller4000 will claim that his flight logs show connecting flights, but if so, why then doesn't he post the flight number, and the airline that they connected from? What was the flight number of the Pan Am flight that flew into Hawaii?

Obviously we'll have to wait until the next birther book comes out to find out, so get your wallets out birthers, some huckster is looking to cash in!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boadicea
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Thank you, Kitilani, for a very refreshing belly laugh.


I hope you enjoyed it as much as the laugh I got.


I've seen alot of crazy stuff in court, but I had to laugh at the thought of you (or anyone) telling a judge they don't have the authority to deem someone an expert witness.


That is pretty funny especially since I never said it. How funny is that?

A judge can deem anyone an expert WITNESS a judge wants to. That is not the case here. These people are calling themselves experts OUTSIDE OF COURT. Unless you found that judge that is qualified to decide who is and who is not a "scanner expert" in his daily life, you fail and fail and fail. Why do you think you are a judge and we are in court?


Unfortunately, Obama does know better; hence his nonstop efforts to keep the issue of his eligibility and the question of forged birth docs out of the courts.




Back to making up lies to win this case?



>

It's okay, go ahead and untwist your knickers. I already gave you the reasons they are in fact experts, and you just don't like them.


Actually you have not even tried to do that. Not even a little. Your whole argument is that they have been expert witnesses in court. That does not make one an expert in their field.


Our words will have to stand on their own merits. If you want to play dumb for Obama, that's your prerogative. Go for it


Obama is president and you believe you have proof he should not be. Who is playing dumb?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
shikow.blogspot.com...

Most people would agree that to become an expert, you have to have mastered the subject. For simply mastery, you have to have spent 10,000 hours of your life doing/studying it. If you deal with forgeries for 6 years, in a 9-5 job, where 80% of your day has to do something with this field of study, you have:

52.14 weeks in a year x 5 days x (17-9) x 4/5 (or 80%) x 6 years > 10,000 hours.

This is a conservative estimate, since most really obsessed cops take their work home, and to be in the more trained positions in the force, you've got to go through training outside your job time.

So, if any of these people have been doing the job in their field for 6 years, it is credble that they may be experts, with or without Legal approval.

As it is, if you spend 1 hour a day doing it for a hobby, you will know more than 80% of the population on this subject.

Now, to put this in perspective, a layman could reasonably trust the conclusions of someone with only 5,000 hours on the subject, since this is more than is required to get a degree in the criminal studies field--usually an associates degree. (2 years of college for an associates degree, where not all the classes have a thing to do with your field of study and the ammount of hours you study depends on how quickly you grasp information. That could be as little as 500 hours to be given a certificate that should mean you are at least competent in your main field.)

www.bls.gov...


edit on 15-8-2011 by CynicalDrivel because: Crud, posted the dang > sign the wrong direction. Silly me.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
B: Unfortunately, Obama does know better; hence his nonstop efforts to keep the issue of his eligibility and the question of forged birth docs out of the courts.
K: Back to making up lies to win this case?

Lies? School me: Just give me ONE case challenging Obama's eligibility and birth docs that Obama has not fought in court... Just one... One little case that Obama has allowed to go to trial... I'm waiting...

>

Nope. To state the obvious, one must be an expert in their field before one can be an expert witness in court. Never said all experts are expert witnesses in court. One can be an expert in their field and not be an expert witness in court. In fact, I specifically pointed out that only one has testified as an expert witness in court, and that another was qualified by education, training, and experience, but I did not know if the other two had been witnesses in court. Nor was it my "whole argument," as I offered the definition of an expert, which does not require one to testify in court in order to be an expert... but you pretended not to know the purpose of a dictionary, and you chose to ignore the definition provided therein. Okay.

>

Nope. Again. Never said I have proof that Obama should not be president. Never expressed an opinion as to where he was born. I have stated that experts (yup! there's that word again
) have declared Obama's proffered birth docs to be forgeries... and I have stated that Obama has fought every legal challenge to prove his eligibility and the legitimacy of his birth docs. Period. Perhaps you believe a Kenya birth is the only possible explanation for Obama's alleged forged birth docs, but not me.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Thank you, Cynical Drivel. That's good to know -- not just for the topic at hand, since this will end one way or another sooner or later. But it's a good rule of thumb to apply in many life situations.

Blessings.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 


It does get more complicated.

For instance, if you have 10,000 hours on Jung, you're not a master on Freud, but since Jung was taught by Freud, unless you're directly up against Freud experts, you're the authority for the moment. This is why most psychology teachers can teach both methodologies, although you can be pretty certain that they only majored in 1 or the other school of thought. You have already mastered the basic therapy/how people tick methodology to get to that point, and you can go outside your area of expertise, to some degree. This would be what, and expert by proxy? The only problem is that when you are immersed in Jung, you're preconditioned to think of Freud as a bit immature, and lacked understanding. You often don't have the control to teach about him as a fully qualified therapist, but start pointing out all the cracks in his model, and ultimately his viewpoint. This is a paradigm conflict--i.e. you and Freud are not on the same page... or even book, for that matter. Since I'm quite sure there's more than one methodology to forgerires, there's likely to be something similar in this case, as well. So, while it's even up to 90% reasonable to trust the experts, there's a chance that even they are wrong, without knowing that they are. And unless you're one of the 1-hour-a-day types, you're not going to have the basic knowledge to tell when it is time to question the authority on the matter. And if you have the same paradigm problem, you're not going to catch their mistakes anway. So, could even the experts be wrong? Sure, but that makes them not one whit less of an expert, nor does it mean that your suspicions of wrongness ever make it to the table.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Thank you again for expanding on this. I like the way you process the info. I was thinking along these same lines as I ran a couple errands, and I see exactly what you're saying.

In terms of the birth docs, for example, it's perhaps further complicated by the fact that we're dealing with different technologies -- the typewriter from 50 years ago and the computer software of today. So altho someone may be an expert in typewriters and typesetters of the early 1960s, and the docs those technologies produced, that would not qualify them as an expert on today's computer software and printers. And vice versa -- an expert in today's technology would not necessarily be an expert in the technology of 50 years ago. (It should also be pointed out that none of those alleging forgery have examined an actual paper document -- they can only speak to anomalies they find in a digital image on the internet.)

Likewise, someone trained in doc creation and management could notice anomalies that raise questions of validity, but would not have the training required to detect/prove a true forgery... hence the need for a specialized field for forged docs ("questioned" docs), which would then require knowledge of both old and new technologies, depending on the age of the doc in question.

You've given me much to ponder -- thanks


Edited to add: So even if someone trained and experienced in doc creation and management found an anomaly which raised suspicion, the Questioned Doc Examiner (with more specialized training) might find that it doesn't indicate a forgery, but something else...
edit on 15-8-2011 by Boadicea because: Just to clarify a thought.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boadicea
Edited to add: So even if someone trained and experienced in doc creation and management found an anomaly which raised suspicion, the Questioned Doc Examiner (with more specialized training) might find that it doesn't indicate a forgery, but something else...
edit on 15-8-2011 by Boadicea because: Just to clarify a thought.


Yes. And the statistical likelihood of being right rests on the QDE, no matter who is actually right. So, in a court of law, if one side brings the person who found the anomoly, and the other side brings the QDE, aside from ability to explain it so a layman can undestand it (trial by peers, or even decison by judges), the QDE wins, exept in cases where you can get the QDE to agree to a chance that the other is right. It's a reasonably sound way to determine cases with the tools we have at hand. But it is not 100% guaranteed to be foolproof. This is why we often have cases where more than 1 expert is called in on retainer, although more often than not only 1 testifies--generally the one with the most seniority, or the most charisma if the difference is negligible.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
You do realize that a semi-competent conspiracy would ensure that their chosen future president was born on US soil. Way easier than faking birth certificates and planting birth announcements after the fact.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Meshakhad
 


Those who would do this are the same people in congress already or those who backed them. They've proven to be incompetent on everything else, so why not 1 more incompetence?




top topics



 
49
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join