It's official. I found proof online that Obama was born in Hawaii just like he says he was. Newspap

I have asked in quite a few threads for discussion on the following image.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/712959cdbe05.jpg[/atsimg]





However I've yet to get a meaningful response about this by any of the people who believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii / is not a US Citizen etc etc etc.

Have we thrown common sense out the window? Ok fine if you think that the BC is a fake. But here we have supporting evidence that backs up the Birth Certificate. Now barring CIA time travel and all things being equal or Occams Razor friendly. We must come to the conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

I'm pretty sure that Birthers will avoid this thread like the plague. And this will be buried faster than a Catholic church sex scandall.

Thank you for your effort, sir. However, you've seen the mental gymnastics these people do to justify their...their...their whatever. I don't know what their problem is, but it has something to do with the man himself, and not his politics or party affiliation.

I do not see what the big deal is. It is the birth announcement that was listed in the newspaper. No one that I know of has disputed that the birth was announced in a newspaper, but that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. It proves his birth was announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper.

and before you go on the attack, you should probably know I am not a "birther".

Pretty soon they will be in here measuring the typeface and yelling "LAYERS!"

the topic of obama's birth certificate needs to die.. the "experts" keep analyzing the publicly released PDF which is NOT the document certified as legit.. the version we see was cleaned up enhanced for readability .. it's no secret they took it into illustrator, they had to do so to add the colored security backing ( it is a black and white document ) ...

Anyway.. good find..

I'm not a birther, I don't care at all whether or not he was born in the US, and I don't even think it should matter if a president was born here or not because frankly I don't think we should have presidents period, but an image you found on the internet is hardly proof. There is this little program called Photoshop, don't know if you've ever heard of it, but there are these things called people, and some of them know how to use that thing called photoshop to make these things called manipulated images.

Just saying you can't call "an image you found on the internet" proof of ANYTHING.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I do not see what the big deal is. It is the birth announcement that was listed in the newspaper. No one that I know of has disputed that the birth was announced in a newspaper, but that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. It proves his birth was announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper.

and before you go on the attack, you should probably know I am not a "birther".

So if I was born in Russia it would be normal for them to announce it in Ohio then? is that the suggestion here? =) because that doesn't make any sense..

Originally posted by MrWendal
I do not see what the big deal is. It is the birth announcement that was listed in the newspaper. No one that I know of has disputed that the birth was announced in a newspaper, but that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. It proves his birth was announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper.

and before you go on the attack, you should probably know I am not a "birther".

Announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper with an address of the parents that live in Hawaii?
Don't you find it a bit odd? Why would someone go through the trouble?

Did Barack Sr put the announcement in 2 papers on the off chance that his son would be POTUS one day and didn't want to ruin his chances?
Think about it. The flow of logic just doesn't go that way. And if it did then Barack Sr was one hell of a clairvoyant.

Originally posted by havenvideo
I'm not a birther, I don't care at all whether or not he was born in the US, and I don't even think it should matter if a president was born here or not because frankly I don't think we should have presidents period, but an image you found on the internet is hardly proof. There is this little program called Photoshop, don't know if you've ever heard of it, but there are these things called people, and some of them know how to use that thing called photoshop to make these things called manipulated images.

Just saying you can't call "an image you found on the internet" proof of ANYTHING.

Been using photoshop since 2000. Well familiar with it. Just used it today to create some banner advertising. 728x90, 300x250 and 300x600 banner ads. Familiar with Illustrator also.

But since you asked. Here's a pic of the box with microfilm that has the paper with the announcement.
www.knoxnews.com...

and here's the microfilm of the announcement.
www.knoxnews.com...

Granted you can't believe everything you see. But when 1+1=2. You should go with that answer unless proof comes along to make the answer suspect.

Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama give birth to baby Hussein in Kenya.

Make a phone call to relatives in Hawaii.

Relatives place an ad in the local Hawaiian newspaper.

Sorry, but a newspaper ad is not going to cut it.

Years later, Baby Hussein gets a Connecticut SSN, even though Daddy Hussein never lived there.

Try again.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I do not see what the big deal is. It is the birth announcement that was listed in the newspaper. No one that I know of has disputed that the birth was announced in a newspaper, but that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. It proves his birth was announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper.

The denials from birthers over the birth announcements have already been dealt with:

In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found the birth announcement for Obama. Actually, he found two of them, one in his Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13 , 1961, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day . They both said the same thing: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4."

But here's the thing. Newspaper officials he checked with confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health.

"That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, 'Hey, can you put this in?'" Hoover explained.

Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States.

www.politifact.com...

But yes, anything is possible you know? This could be a sophisticated conspiracy planned and structured right down to Obama's birth. Sure, it's possible.

If you want to make your case strong, you could find a foreign born child listed from the same newspapers in the same manner Obama and other announcements are listed. You would have a very strong case there.

you should probably know I am not a "birther".

So you believe that Obama has provided enough evidence for his eligibility to the presidency? because that's what a birther is, somebody who doesn't believe there is enough evidence to prove Obama's eligibility. Is this you?

That has been posted here one trillion zillion times.

Just use search and you shall find....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and many many many more threads that mention this newspaper announcement....It is very very very very very old news....Just an FYI

You're going to need a Youtube video and proof that he didn't spend 65 gazillion-illion dollars to seal his records. Birthers only respond to those two things.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
That has been posted here one trillion zillion times.

This thread officially makes it one trillion zillion and one times this old news has been hashed and rehashed and re-rehashed and re-re-rehashed.

I don't care if there's a video documentary of him being born on July 4th in Washington DC! He's still worthless as a person much less as POTUS!

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Yes it has. I've posted this to a few threads myself.
And you know what. It just gets swept under the rug.

You'll notice that this thread is being avoided by birthers. Normally by now a birther thread would be on page 10 to the 5th power and have like 1 Billion flags. And look at what's happening here. Barely a full page and no birther in sight.

They can't handle the truth.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by MrWendal
I do not see what the big deal is. It is the birth announcement that was listed in the newspaper. No one that I know of has disputed that the birth was announced in a newspaper, but that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. It proves his birth was announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper.

and before you go on the attack, you should probably know I am not a "birther".

So if I was born in Russia it would be normal for them to announce it in Ohio then? is that the suggestion here? =) because that doesn't make any sense..

I am not making any suggestions at all. I said what I said. It is not proof that he was born in Hawaii it is proof that his birth was announced in a Hawaiian Newspaper. I was born in Ancon Canal Zone, Panama. My birth was announced in a Winfield, Kansas newspaper. Why Winfield Kansas? Because that is where my father was from and where all his family is. His side of the family announced my birth. It's not rocket science.

thanks for posting. no amount of hard evidence will sway some people. even if a nurse or doctor who happened to be in the delivery room made a statement corroborating obama's birth, some would seek to discredit that as well. the nature of any and all proof is that no one can know to a scientific certainty (dna evidence excluded). if i was there, i saw it, it happened. but someone who wasn't there can always claim i was wrong. what is reasonable and rational is what most evidence is all about. is it reasonable and rational that around the time obama was born, there was a conspiracy to create a false birth announcement in hawaii for a birth that actually happened outside the us? i'm of the mind that this is a dead issue, and it does not do anyone credit to continue to bring this issue up. irrationality and unreasonableness are held up to mockery and scorn. in fact, one might argue that the sheer raising of this birther issue is a disinformation campaign produced by the obama campaign to discredit birthers in specificity and opponents in general.