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

yes meshakhad! and anyone with common sense would realize this.....so diehards who think obama was not born here.....what reason would his mom have to hop on planes to travel 12,000 miles and have her baby in some foreign hospital in a foreign country.

travel was very expensive back then, mostly rich people and people taking business trips where their companies paid for it, went traveling. Alot of people went by boat because it was cheaper.

the cost for their 2 tickets about $1900.00 back then adjust for inflation that's $15,000.00 in 2005 they could not afford that kind of money.

it is totally illogical to think obama was born somewhere else

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
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:

Now the rules to becoming an expert are nothing more than a simple hour tally because you read some blog author say it. This thread is nothing but solid research.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


These stipulations apply to a Citizen born of 1 US Citizen and one non. Thanks for the input. It adds to my point

reply to post by Kitilani


1. I wasn't trying to prove anything, was making a mental exercise. You're showing paradigm issues. Not everyone who contradictis your viewpoint is arguing against your stance. Not everyone who brings up a subject that seems to contradict what you are saying is going to be doing it with "proof" to make you see that you are wrong--even when they are in the right. Not everyone who has proof for whatever is your oppositional viewpoint is willing to give it to you because although they view your particular stance as wrong, they probably agree with your overall conclusion, and sometimes even worry that you're not going to get that there is no opposition...as you have proven to do so in my case. If you had paid attention to any of my previous posts you would have noticed that I have point blank stated several times in this thread that I don't care, I'm only dealing with "if"--or some variant on that. You owe me an apology, in spite of the fact that I don't want one, for misrepresenting ME. Now, please pay attention is actually being said, and not the arguement you think you're having with the world at large. And no, I'm not indignant.

2. That was just the first thing that popped up about 10,000 = Mastery. The blog was about how much the guy still had to do to even consider having personally mastered anything. Not as proof that this is THE way to determine matery. I've heard for quite a while that mastery can be broken down to roughly 10,000 hours of work/study. Was information I picked up years ago.

This is closer to the information you'd want:
www.azcentral.com... ss/articles/2008/12/07/20081207biz-mackay1207.html

Neurologist Daniel Levitin has studied the formula for success extensively and shares this finding: "The emerging picture from such studies is that 10,000 hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert in anything. In study after study of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals and what have you, the number comes up again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others do. But no one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery."

Read more: www.azcentral.com...

While I posted an equation to show conservatively that it would take 6 years to obtain mastery, the experts are pushing it back to 10 years, in some cases. I can live with that.

3. It is good to note that mastery and experts is used interchangeably by both me and this Neurologist, but in my case, I don't think MASTERY is the sole decription of Expert. But it would be a minimum requirement. I would also like to see history report on what I'm buying from them. Give me data, or the courts data of cases that you have worked with in the past, and lead someone through it as proof that you can do your job, i.e. testing. (Which cops go through, btw.)

4. The difference in the blog and a papaerwork cop is that the blogger is required to prove that he's done all the things he has claimed. A cop has the minimum I used in the math equation DOCUMENTED by his department, by the schools he went through, by the certificates he's been awarded.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


Well I am only interested in why I should call these people experts and experts in relevant fields. If that is not the case you are trying to make as to how one becomes an expert then I fail to see the relevance at all. We do not need mental exercises. We have the people. We just need a reason to believe they are experts in anything relevant. So...thanks anyway?

Which means we're bakc to square one. You want proof of these guy's master, go look at how long thy've held the position to which they are proclaimed experts, as well as what schooling they have. If I can make it that simple, so can a judge, so if the judge will accept him as an expert, there ought to be a reason for it.

reply to post by Meshakhad

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.

So true, LOL. Something the birthers are asking us to believe, is that Obama's mother was here in the USA, then for some inexplicable reason, just as she's due to give birth, she boards a plane to Kenya, gives birth to baby Obama in some 3rd-world hospital, then immediately flies back to the USA with her weeks old baby. What a joke. The birther argument might be more plausible if Obama's mother was herself an immigrant but she wasn't, she was an American citizen.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Which means we're bakc to square one. You want proof of these guy's master, go look at how long thy've held the position to which they are proclaimed experts, as well as what schooling they have.

None of that means a hill of beans to me. Incompetent people get decent educations and manage to just barely hold their position for lifetimes. These are not people I consider experts. Futhermore, you completely ignore the fact that what they are supposedly experts in is completely irrelevant. A "scanner expert" testifies that a birth certificate he has never held in his hand looks fakes online. Some expert.

If I can make it that simple, so can a judge, so if the judge will accept him as an expert,

WITNESS

there ought to be a reason for it.

Note how you manage to include as well as drop key words when it serves a purpose to do so.

reply to post by Kitilani


1. Specifically, there's no consistency across the board. What makes you an expert musician, called so by other musicians, will not require the same amount of time it requires to be an expert basketball coach by accreditations and certificates. (This is why a music degree in a regular college is almost always a 5 year baccalaureates program, while with many other degrees can be done in less than 4.) The only consistency across the board is the 10,000 hours found in studies to be "The Holy Grail of Mastery". This is why this was brought up, so that way everyone could get on the same page, no matter their conclusions, and see that there is at least 1 consistent way to determine if someone has spent enough time to be merely competent enough for their accusations to mean anything.

2. Someone being an expert does not necessarily mean that they would be the best at their job, or that you couldn't come up with a better conclusion. It just means that they served their time and if there was testing involved, they passed it. Always has. "Experts with world renown or leading experts", that's generally the words they use to modify expert because there is a need to differentiate between the exceptionally phenomenal and those who have put in their time. As to whether or not these particular people are exceptional would not matter in a court of law. If they did their time; they can state their case, along with their credentials.

3. If forgery is a matter of law, and a Judge believes that they're good, then the judge can dictate their status as experts.

Now I'm actually ready to go look up these people.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Which means we're bakc to square one. You want proof of these guy's master, go look at how long thy've held the position to which they are proclaimed experts, as well as what schooling they have.

This was not a response to what you posted after the "rant". I logged off before I saw it.

Originally posted by Kitilani
None of that means a hill of beans to me. Incompetent people get decent educations and manage to just barely hold their position for lifetimes.

*sigh* I've said once already that I'm not exactly arguing against you--gave you various reasons. I happen to agree with this conclusion completely. There are experts in their field who are accredited as experts who are as useful as horse dung. You do the time, you pass the tests, you're a master or expert, but it does not make you right. It just means that more people will side with you when you're toe to toe with someone who has less backing him. This was covered way before you started cracking fun at my comments on this particular part. (As in: "90%")

These are not people I consider experts.

As far as law is concerned, it doesn't matter what/who you would consider changing your conclusion for. You can be right, and they're the ones whom a judge is going to be listening to, not you. We want THE BEST expert witnesses, but as long as they're an expert, it goes to the next level. Is there enough in these people's accusations, being who they are and what they do to take it to court? This is where everything is resting right now, not whether they are right or wrong. If there is never a hearing then this issue is just sidestepped, not settled, no matter if I come to a conclusion for myself or not.

Futhermore, you completely ignore the fact that what they are supposedly experts in is completely irrelevant.

Yes, because I was dealing with how people view the term expert, not who or what they were, right then and there. Now that I've looked up Ivan and Sandra, they both work with documents and forgeries, Sandra more specifically than Ivan. Sandra is exactly what I thought she would be. Ivan's got enough correlating fields of work that he's got enough standing to say what he wants, and to bring it to court, if he can convince a judge at a hearing. Jut remember, he's putting his reputation up against this one, so he better ber prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

A "scanner expert" testifies that a birth certificate he has never held in his hand looks fakes online.

Some expert.

If the same experts merely said: "This looks fake, but we won't know anything until we can get a judge to subpoena the original into our hands to verify our suspicions," it would be more accurate, but it is less sensational. When there is no original document on hand to scrutinize, you examine what you have--this is a duh statement. These people think something is fishy, so let an expert have at it, and if a judge has to step in to ensure this, then so be it. It was called into question; let someone see the dang thing. My thing is that if he had to post a 2nd one after the 1st one without having let someone examine them and publically disclose what had been found, then Obama is practicing suspicious behavior, whether or not there is any truth to the accusations being bandied about.

If I can make it that simple, so can a judge, so if the judge will accept him as an expert,

WITNESS

there ought to be a reason for it.

Note how you manage to include as well as drop key words when it serves a purpose to do so.

edit on 15-8-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

I dropped witness because it was irrelevant. What is the man called an "expert witness" FOR?

trial.laws.com...

In contrast, an expert witness is an individual who holds a specialized knowledge in a particular educational field concerning the case. For example, an expert witness can be a doctor who is well-versed in a particular field of medicine. As an expert witness the individual will use his or her advanced knowledge of a particular subject to elucidate on a piece of information regarding the trial to facilitate an appropriate verdict.

I.e., an expert witness is an expert whom the court recognizes. Why this is not accepted is just plain silly.

Originally posted by bo12au
Please AtS Just start ignoring kitillian. He is a troll. He will not discuss any topics in a respectful manner and just keep on with the same ol she said he said game. I would really like to hear some of his ideas. but he wont because thats just what trolls do

You seem confused. You want me ignored or do you want to hear what I think? What do you want me to say? This is yet another birther thread with no facts in it. What else am I supposed to say? What other thoughts am I supposed to have? This thread, like most birther threads, was over before it even began. It was a post by a username on a forum that never went anywhere. Fun watching some of you get excited about it though. BTW, I am a she.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
I.e., an expert witness is an expert whom the court recognizes. Why this is not accepted is just plain silly.

edit on 15-8-2011 by CynicalDrivel because: Replaced a missing word.

I am not a judge in court hearing testimony. There are no expert witnesses here. Anyone that claims to be an expert in anything relevant better be able to both back that up and explain why it is relevant. So far no one has been able to do that for any of the so called "experts" listed. You just keep saying they have been expert witnesses in court. Sure. What for? Using their expertise in what?

Please show me one time where the "scanner expert" was used in court to determine the validity of a state issued document.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Now I'm actually ready to go look up these people.

Your entire argument seems to lay in a place just outside the facts of the situation. Let's make it simple. These are real people with real names. Look them up. See what qualifies them as "experts" and what in. Then explain how it has any relevance.
I am still waiting for that scanner "expert" to explain how he determined the validity of a document he has no expertise with while never getting to look at either it, or the um, scanner.

reply to post by Kitilani


>

And your entire argument seems to lay in a place just outside of not-yet-proven facts of the situation... not because the facts are un-provable... but because Obama refuses to do so voluntarily and fights tooth and nail every court challenge to his eligibility... so no experts have YET testified in a court of law to establish their credentials... and ruled experts by a judge.... and given their sworn testimony in court. They're ready, willing and able -- it's Obama who keeps fighting the truth.

>

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me that one -- just one -- case challenging Obama's eligibility that he has allowed to be heard on its merits... which would include the sworn testimony of doc experts, properly voir dired and court approved... Really the only way to know what expertise this scanner expert does or does not have with which scanners.

Everyone deserves their day in court, including Obama, where he has a right to bring his own court-approved experts. I'm quite happy to let the evidence on both sides be presented in a court of law, and let the chips fall where they may.

If test-tube Barry was legit in the first place,why didn't he come out with a REAL birth certificate and show the people?
Its not hard.

Why should he prove it you say? because hes been asked to and its one of the conditions of being the POTUS.

But instead,hes fought proving himself instead of coming out with the truth from the start.

Its the same deal with the pentagon "plane crash" on 911.Show us the frames of video that show a plane crashing into the building and we will see that it happened.
Its the same with the recent helicopter crash with the SEAL team members as well,show us a picture of a helicopter crash where and when they said it was,then we can see that it really happened.
Again,its not hard.

Yet they keep on fighting subjects like these and wonder why we don't believe them.
Its very suspicious and always has been.

There are plenty of people like myself that don't just believe what the government or MSM says,so you better get used to it.

Originally posted by BillyBoBBizWorth
If Barry was legit in the first place,why didn't he come out with a REAL birth certificate and show the people?

He has, but the Obama haters refuse to accept reality

Why should he prove it you say? because hes been asked to and its one of the conditions of being the POTUS.

Where is it stated that the president must show his birth certificate to anyone who wants to see it?

But instead,hes fought proving himself instead of coming out with the truth from the start.

He has proved himself, but the Obama haters refuse to accept that proof - in fact, there is no proof at all that they would accept.

There are plenty of people like myself that don't just believe what the government or MSM says,so you better get used to it.

True, just like there are people who believe in fairies, or that the earth is flat etc!

Originally posted by KitilaniI am not a judge in court hearing testimony.

Nothing new.

There are no expert witnesses here.

Questionable, but is a decent assumption, since no one here has put anything forward as their credentials.

Anyone that claims to be an expert in anything relevant better be able to both back that up and explain why it is relevant.

Was my whole point for stating it pretty much the same way.

So far no one has been able to do that for any of the so called "experts" listed.

They post what they do on their sites, they post how long they've done it, and all you have to do is email them if you're so worried about it. I'm not saying trust everything that's posted on the web, but when they claim to have worked for this or that place for x years, doing this or that work, then it is enough to start the process long enough to check them.

You just keep saying they have been expert witnesses in court. Sure. What for? Using their expertise in what?

1 has, for his website. He deals with contracts, for one. As I said, a related field, not direct.

Please show me one time where the "scanner expert" was used in court to determine the validity of a state issued document.

1. I'm not going through 50 states and a surpeme court's countless years of cases if I can help it. 2. Show me 1 case where we have only a scanned birth cirtificate to bring to court that required a scanner expert because there was no other choice, and then we have the recipee for needing this situation.

What I've always wondered was where were the experts that say that these "experts" are 1. Incompetent, 2. willing to put their reputation on the line for the birth certificate being real, or 3 at the very least state that there's no way in hell you could tell such things from the scanned document. (That, by the way, is giving you the ammunition, if you can find them. But the 3rd does not win the argument, just causes us to question the expert's reasoning...i.e. bring it to a judge) That's the thing I don't remember was the parade of witnesses for Obama's birth certific being an authentic document.

If only 3 people with ANY history in the field step forward against him an NONE step forward for him, it's a bit awkward.

He has, but the Obama haters refuse to accept reality

A copy of a copy of a certification of live birth in PDF file format isn't a real birth certificate...

When your certificate of live birth isn't available,they print you a certification of live birth.

They are to different things.

Where is it stated that the president must show his birth certificate to anyone who wants to see it?

That isnt stated,but being a citizen of the country is a condition of being POTUS,which providing a real birth certificate is the only way to prove it.

He has proved himself, but the Obama haters refuse to accept that proof - in fact, there is no proof at all that they would accept.

How has he proved himself to you or anyone else exactly?

Releasing a PDF file and seeing a glimpse of his supposed "birth certificate" on the T.V. by people that lie all the time? hardly seems like hes proved himself...

True, just like there are people who believe in fairies, or that the earth is flat etc!

What has fairies or the earth being flat got to do with what we are talking about?

Your one liner responses don't work on me,or affect me in any way,but if you aren't going to discuss this without resorting to childish replies,then don't bother replying to me,because im done talking to you already.

Originally posted by BillyBoBBizWorth
When your certificate of live birth isn't available,they print you a certification of live birth.

Only two sentences in until you repeat an old and far debunked fallacy.
You might be wrong. You might be lying.

You can prove if anyone should care about the rest of it.