Sheriff Joe's posse: 'Probable cause' Obama Birth Certificate a Fraud-now a Criminal Case!

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


OMG! After reading your reply I have come to the conclusion that you are so right on! I'm definitely convinced that these reports about Mr. Obama are false and unfounded. How could my gut feeling have been so wrong?Please forgive my ignorance.

reply to post by relocator


I'm sensing some pretty heavy sarcasm there, but if you do take the time to seriously engage this issue you'll hopefully realise that you can HATE OBAMA, but for reasons other than propaganda put out by his political enemies......

I know he's fairly crap, but not because he's in some conspiracy with multiple state governments, and the federal government, and the media, and all politicians, to hide his... what? Place of birth?

Because all of those people are desperate to get a ... Kenyan... into the White House?

Besides, if you hate him for HONEST reasons you'll be in a much better position to fight against him. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.

Hate is a strong word and I try not to hate anyone. I dislike alot of crap. And I think we can all agree we're tired of all the crap. I dislike how Mr. Obama has handled his presidency and runs for elections. I don't like his policies or his line of thinking even if I don't have all the info that he is privey to. I'm not the only one who feels this way and I will put the blame on him for making me feel this way since he's the one that has had the MSM praising him at every turn instead of making him answer the hard questions without a teleprompter. It's a no win situation IMO. I believe us worker bees are screwed and all we can do is sit back and watch it happen.

Thanks for your time and sharing your opinion.

reply to post by relocator


That's mostly all reasonable...

I would say there's a bit of "blah blah blah" in it though...

...for instance, all Presidents memorise speeches and use notes... his are just on a teleprompter... he doesn't answer questions off the teleprompter though... so that's conflating a few things...

As for the MSM... there's a whole news channel devoted to bashing him called Fox... it's also the most popular news channel going...

The majority of the MSM is owned by the right (do your research) and at this point it's pretty negative toward him...

...Or as negative as it is toward any President... the left thought the media was way o easy on Bush...

Speaking of perception... the left, count me in this, find Obama to be a centre-right politician (that's how Europe views him as well)... none of the left, especially the hard-left love the guy at all... but will vote for him as the least of the "evil" on offer...

I personally think Obama has been a huge disappointment, kind of... I wasn't expecting a lot, (based on his voting record, not his rhetoric), but even so.. he's been a pretty bleugh President. Too right-wing for me. By far.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

[Obama] Too right-wing for me. By far.

Are you trolling? You got to be kidding me.

Too Far Right?

To me, Obama is just to the left of Mao Se Tung

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by juveous
So from what I take from that response, you cannot explain to me how the Hawaiian health department with both the previous and current directors, whom vouched for the authenticity of both birth certificates, could be innocent in all this?

Correct. The posse's excuse is that they wanted to see the original in Hawaii to verify it, to make sure. So the Hawaiian Health department is either negligent or guilty of lying to admit that the document is good, if it is fraudulent.

Did the whitehouse slip the fraudulent birth certificate to trick them into authenticating it? Did they release the real birth certificate but it was secretly swapped with a fake one without any Hawaiian official noticing?

How should i know? I could have been fraudulent the entire time, the Whitehouse knew, but few other didn't.

The truth is, you know that your position on the long form birth certificate directly conflicts with that of Hawaii, you can't bring yourself to say it you know because it would stretch your position alittle too far for comfort. Tell me that I'm wrong now, come on, give me your theory on why Hawaii could be innocent in all this since you're not accusing them of anything.

I already did. You don't even know what my position is lol. You want me to be a die hard birther so bad you are putting words in my mouth! Why should I accuse Hawaii of anything when they could be right? Most of what I respond to you is from a non-personal perspective. I'm speaking on what one would assume, if Arpaio's investigation is legit. My personal view is that before jumping to conclusions, dismiss the evidence. That means before jumping as to what the ulterior motive is, and who's lying, can you just dismiss the evidence as false first. Which is most likely going to be the case, because the opposing view is saying this investigation isn't as thorough as it should be anyway.

I'm trying to see whether you find this logical. Since they without a doubt concluded the birth certificate was fraudulent, why would they want to examine the actual BC? These are the investigators you have put your complete trust on concerning this issue.

bah, come on. I've given the investigators the benefit of the doubt, pretty far away from having my complete trust, you seem to know exactly what i'm thinking . They wanted to examine the actual before the digital. Instead investigated what they could, and are again asking for the original, with their own probable cause.

" no I actually agree with you,"

No you don't. From this posse's investigation you have already concluded the long form was fraudulent.

When? These are your conclusions about me. I have put it in the realm of what the consequences are, or assumptions you can gather if the document is fraudulent. No where have I explicitly stated I agree with Arpaio's "without a doubt fraud". I only call for them to be challenged (which they apparently have, and will likely come out explaining why again). I even told you I agree with you on the control not being more specific in the test they used, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Who's more interested in the truth now?

reply to post by anon72


Only if you're so completely ignorant of the real world you think corporate written healthcare law is what Communism means.

Your head would EXPLODE if you ever went to the EU and saw social democracy in action.

but listen, you're obviously not one for learning much about the larger world... go back to believing Obama is essentially a Chinese communist dictator... we don't need your sort in reality... stay in fantasy land.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

[Obama] Too right-wing for me. By far.

Are you trolling? You got to be kidding me.

Too Far Right?

To me, Obama is just to the left of Mao Se Tung

So Obama is more left than a Chinese communist dictator?

Are you trolling?

Originally posted by juveous
Correct. The posse's excuse is that they wanted to see the original in Hawaii to verify it, to make sure.

Hold on, they already concluded that the birth certificate is fraudulent, why do they need to make sure? Are you sure the birth certificate is fraudulent? Are you confident of their findings?

So the Hawaiian Health department is either negligent or guilty of lying to admit that the document is good, if it is fraudulent.

But this investigation already concluded the birth certificate was fraudulent, you came to this conclusion yourself. Negligent? Define negligent in Hawaii's case since this birth certificate is fraudulent.

I could have been fraudulent the entire time, the Whitehouse knew, but few other didn't.

Just the whitehouse?

I already did. You don't even know what my position is lol.

I know what your position is. You have already concluded the Hawaiian long form birth certificate is fraudulent, Hawaiian authorities have time and time again vouched for the long form birth certificates authenticity.

Essentially it's your word against the Hawaiiah health department. Who is the one lying here? Niether?

You said Hawaiian authorities could be guilty of negligence, not of lying, I'm waiting for you to clarify this for me.

You want me to be a die hard birther

I do believe you are a birther, although I'm not sure what exactly a die hard birther is. Most birthers prefer not to be referred to as birthers.

bah, come on. I've given the investigators the benefit of the doubt,

Benefit of the doubt? It sounds to me as though you're softening your position on this investigation now. A while back you were solidly behind the conclusions of the investigation.

They wanted to examine the actual before the digital. Instead investigated what they could, and are again asking for the original, with their own probable cause.

Oh, so now the conclusions of the investigation are probable now, not conclusive?

I have put it in the realm of what the consequences are, or assumptions you can gather if the document is fraudulent. No where have I explicitly stated I agree with Arpaio's "without a doubt fraud". I only call for them to be challenged

So you have doubts about the conclusions of the investigation I take it? You weren't completed satisfied with the conclusions of the investigation?

Originally posted by Southern GuardianOriginally posted by juveousHold on, they already concluded that the birth certificate is fraudulent, why do they need to make sure? Are you sure the birth certificate is fraudulent? Are you confident of their findings?

They concluded the digital was. Why are you mixing them up? I'm actually more confident it will get debunked, because I believe the president was born here, as I've already stated. Beliefs are malleable, I have to rely on people who present their cases, so why am I not allowed to suspect otherwise?

But this investigation already concluded the birth certificate was fraudulent, you came to this conclusion yourself. Negligent? Define negligent in Hawaii's case since this birth certificate is fraudulent.

Which birth certificate? the digital? Negligent = didn't actually check. I was throwing it out as what one would assume. What difference does it make, this is speculation off of what ifs!

Just the whitehouse?

Honestly how am I supposed to know this? If it was fraudulent the entire, and the whitehouse found out before he got in office, that could have been reason to manipulate it so that a digital version looked authentic. Are you going to accuse me for hypothetical scenario now?

I know what your position is. You have already concluded the Hawaiian long form birth certificate is fraudulent, Hawaiian authorities have time and time again vouched for the long form birth certificates authenticity.
Essentially it's your word against the Hawaiiah health department. Who is the one lying here? Niether?

You said Hawaiian authorities could be guilty of negligence, not of lying, I'm waiting for you to clarify this for me.

Yeah so. I think I'm pretty much done with you man. You are just ignoring what i've said now. IF, the digital document is fraudulent. That is what i've said everytime, then someone is lying or negligent.

You want me to be a die hard birther

I do believe you are a birther, although I'm not sure what exactly a die hard birther is. Most birthers prefer not to be referred to as birthers.

Sure man whatever helps you sleep at night.

Benefit of the doubt? It sounds to me as though you're softening your position on this investigation now. A while back you were solidly behind the conclusions of the investigation.

You are just making things up now. Go a head, quote me in full, find where I appear to be "solid" behind the conclusions of the investigations. I've been sympathetic to the investigation at the most.

They wanted to examine the actual before the digital. Instead investigated what they could, and are again asking for the original, with their own probable cause.

Oh, so now the conclusions of the investigation are probable now, not conclusive?

See this is what I'm saying. You are as willfully ignorant as those you accuse. Probable cause is a legal term in law enforcement to give rule for searches. Has nothing to do with the how it was "concluded".

So you have doubts about the conclusions of the investigation I take it? You weren't completed satisfied with the conclusions of the investigation?

Yes, I have doubts. God I feel like i'm under oath with you. I question their findings, as anyone should. To me it is much more likely a technical error than anything, which is why I was waiting for a technical counter argument. As far as I can tell as of right now, it is going to be not much different than what was explained last year, but I'll wait to hear it.

Originally posted by juveous
They concluded the digital was. Why are you mixing them up?

I'm not mixing up anything, I think you're once again being deceptive of your own position, this investigation, and I believe that you're moving goal posts every time you debate. I also believe that Arpaio and his posse were being deceptive of their true positions on purpose through out the conference.

But hey, if you want to now tell me that you do not conclude that his actual Hawaiian long form birth certificate is fraudulent, it's pointless for me to debate on this further with you.

I'm actually more confident it will get debunked, because I believe the president was born here, as I've already stated.

A while back you seemed so confident about the findings of this investigation, and now it's a different story?

Which birth certificate? the digital? Negligent = didn't actually check.

So you'd be prepared to take on the theory that the Hawaiian government officials somehow missed that the image of the Hawaiian long form birth certificate, blasted through the media airwaves, was altered from the one they released? That's a tall order, but if you're willing to take this position, your choice.

I've been sympathetic to the investigation at the most.

You've been sympathetic of the investigation now? What happened to all the support behind the investigations conclusions? I guess you've lost much faith over this investigation after our long discussion.

So let me conclude what I take from you after our long drawn out debate.

You merely sympathize with the investigation (you have doubts about the investigation)
You believe Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is eligible to the presidency
You don't conclude that Obama's actual Hawaiian long form birth certificate is fraudulent.

Yep, we're definitely done here.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


aaaand I'm glad it's over. Because you are as deceptive as they come. Right up there with Outkast

You didn't bother quoting me when I asked. Anyone here can look back at everything i've said from the beginning of my part in this thread, and see what my views are. You are just upset, because I didn't fall into an easy to place category. I entered this thread out of showing the importance of addressing the evidence. In case you forgot my initial post -

Now whether the findings can be confirmed by an outside or governmental source is the question, to explain away user error/misinterpreted settings in the program etc.

All becaue I wanted some confirmation, instead of dimissing it right off the back, I am labeled a birther

reply to post by Southern Guardian


So this all just a bunch of proper procedure nowadays, right? The layers in the document means that this is the way it was supposed to be created at the Hawaii Dept. of Health, right? They just had to change schemes cause they don't store paper certificates anymore, nothing's wrong, yada yada. Right?

And not a single interesting thing about the records they discovered missing from Aug 1 to Aug 7? Or the SS registration? No smoke here. Nope. So quit looking for the fire?

Man am I glad Arpaio doesn't listen to people like you. Cause when they sort this all out and present more findings, are you really worth bailing out of the fire?

What is it you don't understand about probable cause established? That's where this is. So let it proceed and let the chips fall where they may. That's what the Posse is doing, so why aren't you?

I thought you were done here?

Originally posted by juveous
You didn't bother quoting me when I asked.

I think I quoted you rather well, I also quoted the many times you decided to move goal posts on your position throughout this discussion. Despite your attempts to be deceptive about your true positions, in the end I found you to be doubtful of Arpaio's investigation, and a reluctance to fully back his investigation conclusion. You even admitted that you believed Obama to be eligible and backed away from calling his actual long form birth certificate a fraud. What more can I ask from you? I got what I wanted from this discussion.

All becaue I wanted some confirmation, instead of dimissing it right off the back,

This was and still is the problem with your position, the fact that you are seeking anything that will confirm your belief, you aren't seeking the truth. I'm really not sure what you are trying to achieve here in the end especially if you are going to work so hard to hide your true position on bitherism but if you see this as productive to debate, who's going to change your mind?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I thought you were done here?
I think I quoted you rather well, I also quoted the many times you decided to move goal posts on your position throughout this discussion. Despite your attempts to be deceptive about your true positions, in the end I found you to be doubtful of Arpaio's investigation, and a reluctance to fully back his investigation conclusion. You even admitted that you believed Obama to be eligible and backed away from calling his actual long form birth certificate a fraud. What more can I ask from you? I got what I wanted from this discussion.

Nope. You did not my friend. Although you did try, I will say that. I stated exactly why I was in the thread, and you still pretend that I had a different motive. Says more about you than anything.

This was and still is the problem with your position, the fact that you are seeking anything that will confirm your belief, you aren't seeking the truth. I'm really not sure what you are trying to achieve here in the end especially if you are going to work so hard to hide your true position on bitherism but if you see this as productive to debate, who's going to change your mind?

WHAT BELIEF!!!!! you are the one not seeking the truth. You are painting a picture that does not EXIST!!! Where? quote me right now!! Have I personally stated a belief of birtherism lol. There is nothing, I will repeat, nothing wrong with questioning the authenticity of anything, as long as the case is presented. You dismiss the case, because it does not conform to YOUR belief. You have only provided the case that you are bias, and I am not. I hear any opposing position, no matter how ludicrous it may seem, because the evidence, should speak for itself. The evidence should make the case for how ridiculous the claims are, not the other way around. Anyone here that is paying attention could see that you are being deceptive.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

So this all just a bunch of proper procedure nowadays, right? The layers in the document means that this is the way it was supposed to be created at the Hawaii Dept. of Health, right? They just had to change schemes cause they don't store paper certificates anymore, nothing's wrong, yada yada. Right?

The layers on the image of the Hawaiian long form birth certificate have already been explained;

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

www.nationalreview.com...

National review actually carried out a test on a digital image of their own magazine and found layers appearing similar to the birth certificate.

Just to confirm, do you believe Obama's actual long form birth certificate is fraudulent, or do you just believe the image is fruadulent like the other member?

And not a single interesting thing about the records they discovered missing from Aug 1 to Aug 7? Or the SS registration? No smoke here. Nope. So quit looking for the fire?

I'm not sure about his social security number, but I don't know what they have to do with his birth certificate? Do you have a source to this?

Man am I glad Arpaio doesn't listen to people like you. Cause when they sort this all out and present more findings, are you really worth bailing out of the fire?

After 4 years of bitherism, more than 100 lawsuits down the goober, more than 13 birther bills shot down, after two fake kenyan birth certificates, after the trump fiasco (I've still waiting for his investigators), do you really think Arpaio's circus is going to go anywhere?

There has to be an actual fire first before I have to bail.

What is it you don't understand about probable cause established?

What does it mean to you? To me it's just a safe pair of words used by Arpaio and Corsi to cover their backs over their true positions.

Originally posted by juveous
I will repeat, nothing wrong with questioning the authenticity of anything, as long as the case is presented.

I agree there is nothing wrong with questioning authenticity, there is nothing wrong with questioning the eligibility of your representitives. However, when those questions have been answered, and the case carries no substance and little truth, people are naturally going to start questioning the case and the people behind it.

It goes both ways.

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Skewed

 

He should be removed from office and anything he has done should be null and void.

I really hope your job doesn't rely on General Motors or Chrysler being open.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I have no problem with questioning the case itself. But when you say it has no substance and little truth, it's nice to know why ya know. Just saying it means nothing. Present the counter-argument. Even if you think its old, present what counters the investigation's findings. That's my only problem, people just dismiss it before explaining why their findings are not sound.

I would challenge ANYONE questioning this copy of the birth certificate to scan their own certificate and make available to the public in the same manner.

Sherrif Joe, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and any birther questioning the legitimacy of the scanned certificate should all produce their birth certificates in the same type of scan and put them forward for public scrutiny under the exact same circumstances.

I would think that similar "flaws" in their birth certificate scans would be found, as well.