Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Freeper rebuttal to AJ Strata's claim of debunking the Obama Birthgate doubters, part 1!
PA Times | 7/7/08 | Pissant

Posted on 07/07/2008 4:57:52 PM PDT by pissant

I will debunk the debunking in bold. AJStrata's text will be normal instead of italicized for easier reading.

AJStrata:

Days ago I looked into the forged Obama Birth Certificate Myth and realized it was all BS. Basically, we have a lot of people running around making mistakes and then trying to pretend revelations that destroyed their first claims are exposing other, new issues. All I see are people making wild claims, being proved wrong, and then moving onto new wild claims - to be proved wrong again. As proof of this pattern let me point to one of these ‘experts’ who did a poor job of examining the documents in the first place, a person called Polirak over at Town Hall.

Pissant: So far nothing but hyperbole, calling detailed analysis "wild claims". But he is setting himself up as a debunker extraordinaire (at least his source LJStrata as such) without telling us what makes their analysis so compelling. Is AJ or LJ a graphics expert? What training do they have? Townhall blogger Polirak (sic) has twenty years experience with electronic documents and graphics programs. And he is certainly not alone in the blogosphere of experts that have likewise concluded this to be a forgery.

AJSrata: Before we get into this I want to share what I discovered when I looked into these files, before I even began to look around the blogosphere.

1. First I noted the certificate was a recent production that is made by a laser printer and is on a form put in place in 2001 (look at the lower right hand corner of any version of the certificate for this information).

Pissant: Fluff point, as everyone who has looked at this understands this.

2. I also noted a stamped date from the back which bled through on the two version (one on the DailyKos and one on the Obama campaign site) which shows this modern version was produced around Jun 6 2007

Pissant: Another fluff point, as we all saw that as well.

3. I discovered 2 dots from the laser printer that can be found on all three files (some folks just recently discovered the large one next to the image of the state seal)

Pissant: More fluff. Dots were published on July 3rd by Polarik and No Quarter and noted by freepers as well.

4. I could detect the impression of the state seal stamp and signature area on two of the files.

Pissant: There is no way that the 'hidden seal' can be detected with the naked eye on any of the docs. Using specialty software did indeed illuminate a seal on the KOS version, but not on the Obama version (Fight the Smears) according to 3 independent attempts. The only one claiming a seal on the Obama version was actually using the version from the KOS site.

There are three electronic images of birth certificates at the center of this silly controversy: (1) a BHO certificate Daily Kos posted initially [image loaded here], which Kos says he obtained electronically from the Obama campaign [image here], (2) the version of the certificate on the Obama website, and (3) a clearly mocked up “blank” form produced by a blogger who goes by the name Opendna (aka John Mckinnon).

Pissant: yes, yes we all know this.

In my analysis I find the Kos version to be the highest quality image file of the original document, produced in Jun of 2007 by the state of Hawaii.

Pissant: yes, yes we all know this.

I find the Obama campaign site version to be a lower quality version of the original, probably because someone decided to shrink the file size to optimize download size for the web.

Pissant: According to multiple sources, the hacks at Fight the Smears posted the low quality version AFTER originally posting a high resolution version like KOS did.

The Opendna version to be a deliberately manipulated version of the original Kos image, because the Opendna version has no evidence of bleed through from the back side, no imprinted time stamp, no weak impression of the state seal and signature area.

Pissant: yes, we all know that the OpenDNA/John McKinnon version was missing the KOS stamp and the bleedthrough date, as well as BHO's data. But there is nothing that tells us which came first, the chicken or the egg.

This analysis took about 30-60 minutes, not days and days.

Solly chollie, but just reading through and properly analyzing Polarik's multiple posts would take more than 30-60 minutes. Not to mention the work done by bloggers on Atlas Shrugged, FreeRepublic, Texas Darlin and JimJ of No Quarter. I call BS.

I have been putting off this posting on this matter because there has never been anything ‘discovered’ that proved a forgery, but simply proved people were running wild with their imaginations. Polarik provides the best example of this.

Pissant: More nonsensical hyperbole. It was not wild imaginations that had bloggers downloading new software tools and spending hours analyzing the borders, etc. I think AJ didn't post because he has no clue what he is talking about. But that is just my 'wild' speculation.

On 6/20/08 the ‘expert’ Polarik claimed this certificate clearly produced a year ago was a forgery of an original from 1961, which Barack Obama claimed he had in one of his books from years ago. I have no idea if he has the original, but no ‘expert’ would jump to the initial conclusion this was a forgery, unless they did not understand how government document versions are controlled. He even noted the evidence that clearly indicates this is a modern document in his (Polarik's) post:

At the bottom of the JPG image, reading right from left, one can see following text:

OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) Laser This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

There are a lot of problems with this statement, foremost of which is that the text in this document were produced by a graphics program and not a laser print, or any other printer, for that matter.

Pissant: AJStrata does not grasp the argument that Polarik is making. AJ seems to think Polarik is claiming that the KOS document should have been a laser printed 'original' copy of his historic BC. Instead, Polarik is making the claim that I did when I saw the Kos document: That this was a computer generated, computer edited JPG as opposed to a scanned image of a hard copy from the Hawaiian authorities. I still contend that is the case of the Kos document, and it is hardly a stretch to think this such. It makes it hard to debunk the debunkers AJ when you don't understand the arguments being made. No one with any sense thinks this was intended to be a copy of his original BC!

Actually, all the text on the document is produced by a laser printer (via a graphics program). All the text on the two complete versions (which means they have the bleed through images from the back) have a ‘haze’ around the letters. Polarik assumed this was because the text was photo shopped. My view is this is simply standard anti-aliasing of the text, something many word processing programs do:

Polarik mistakes this anti-aliasing feature with forgery, which is completely ridiculous. Anti-aliasing would show up on all Hawaii certificates since they are now digitally produced (and later I note this is the case). The biggest mistake Polarik makes here is comparing a laser generated certificate to an older type from NY. Unless your comparing apples to apples there is no way to determine a forgery.

Pissant: No, Polarik does not mistake the anti-aliasing with evidence of forgery. He is instead arguing, once again, that comparing the Kos image to a legit scanned certificate produced by a laser or other high quality printer demonstrates the discrepancies we see on a computer created/manipulated jpeg: namely, the "shadowing" present on the legit scan but not on the Kos document, the pixilation surrounding the KOS letters, and the missing green backgroung below the Kos text.

Next he discovers, two days later, the image went through Photoshop, which is not really a revelation since someone could scan the original document and prepare if for email or web posting using photo shop. Somehow in his mind just using Photoshop is evidence of a forgery, which of course is ridiculous - as many have since noted. So I’ll just skip that mistaken jump to a conclusion for now.

Pissant: No AJ, it was not "just using" photoshop that Polarik claims as evidence of forgery. He is simply documenting additional circumstantial evidence. However, it is without doubt that photoshop or similar was used to black out the certification number. It is also a piece of evidence (originally noted by freeper Buckhead, BTW) that has made others continue to plug away on it, and examine the EXIF history of the KOS document as well as the openDNA versions. It is just another piece of evidence that reinforces all the other arguments.

Then 8 days after his original forgery claim, Polarik finally discovers the items that bleed through from the back, providing hard evidence the two version from Kos and the BHO campaign are actually digital images of an authentically produced birth certificate, created last year. But he was all confused because the Opendna version of the file did not have any bleed through section - thus forgery was at hand again. One day before Polarik’s post on the time stamp, Doug Ross did a great job of showing the time stamp, the stamp of the state seal and the signature area impressions coming in from the back of the Kos and BHO Campaign images, further proving their authenticity - not proving a forgery:

Pissant: The GIMP software was used by Polarik and by others. It showed ONLY the supposed stamp on the KOS document, not on the Obama website version, or the allegedly higher resolution openDNA's versions. AJ has not shown the stamp from the Obama site doc, and neither did Doug Ross. What AJ and Doug both show on their sites is something demonstrated by a reader on Atlas Shrugged who was the FIRST one to make the claim that there was a seal on the Obama version. However, its utter faintness, especially compared to the easily viewable date bleed through is more a sign of photoshop removal than a stamp actually being there. IOW, it is just as possible that the Decosta doc was partially used for creating a forgery but with the stamp edited out leaving only it's ghost on the Obama doc. As Doug Ross said about the Kos and Decosta documents: "When I overlaid the two certificates, the candidate's certificate matched up almost precisely with DeCosta's."


TOPICS: Agriculture
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; larrysinclairslover; obama; obamatruthfile; whokilleddonaldyoung
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last
So far, we have AJStrata making fluff points to pad the size of his analysis and making points that are his opinion as opposed to technical refutations of Polarik's and others' analysis.

Part two coming soon.

1 posted on 07/07/2008 4:57:52 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Polarik; SE Mom; Grampa Dave; Red Steel

Ping


2 posted on 07/07/2008 4:58:43 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Is it really that hard for Obama campaign to produce a hard copy???? Instead we have people fighting over an image which could easily be forged. I for one however am more interested in the real Birth Certificate and not some Certificate of Live Birth.


3 posted on 07/07/2008 5:07:40 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Polarik; SE Mom; Red Steel

Thanks, I will leave the technical stuff to the experts like Polarik and you.


4 posted on 07/07/2008 5:08:02 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (America's Mugabe, the Obamination.will bring Mugabe Change to America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Talk to Hawaii about what they call these documents and what you mean by "original". Not quite sure "original" notes taken down by a records nurse are an "original" anything ~ holographic Fur Shur, but not "original" in the sense that they turn into an official government record (now in a database recorded on aluminum foil), or earlier, as a photograph (microfiche) of a typed copy of a standard "fill in the blanks" for.

Give us a recording of your conversation with the people in Hawaii will ya.

5 posted on 07/07/2008 5:16:55 PM PDT by muawiyah (We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Strata BC doc "analysis" is unconvincing.

It appears some prominent conservative bloggers want this to go away. I'll hazard to guess why. Since these bloggers have a large following, and see themselves as reputable, they are afraid of ridicule for being perceived as "kooks on the fringes" if Obama brings out a real BC to show... Even if they believe that this Obama birth certificate is bogus.

6 posted on 07/07/2008 5:30:03 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

No, not hard, but likely some embarrassing elements to it. My guess, he’s a bastard child. But that is just speculation.


7 posted on 07/07/2008 5:32:18 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant; David

ping.


8 posted on 07/07/2008 5:32:47 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Good job. AJStrata’s “debunk” was a really lightweight effort.


9 posted on 07/07/2008 5:36:19 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin '36 Olympics for murdering regimes Beijing '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Yep, they are busy making a better deal for a better forged copy.


10 posted on 07/07/2008 5:39:39 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Thank you pissant. I love you.


11 posted on 07/07/2008 5:40:12 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

It was very unconvincing. And his claim of 30-60 minutes spent on it is evidence it cannot be convincing.

Here is what another has concluded:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/03/update-daily-kos-an-obama-activist-and-forged-birth-certificates/#more-3417


12 posted on 07/07/2008 5:40:47 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Actually, the embosser marks are/were visible on the Kos one with the naked eye. It was confirmed when I enhanced the image.
13 posted on 07/07/2008 5:41:57 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
My guess, he’s a bastard child.

Reports are that the divorce filing lists a marriage date of Feb 2, 1961, but I don't know how closely that documentation was examined.

14 posted on 07/07/2008 5:44:01 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pissant

BTTT


15 posted on 07/07/2008 5:49:18 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

“My guess, he’s a bastard child.”

Well that goes without saying. How could the marriage possibly be legal? Obama Sr. already had a wife in Kenya.


16 posted on 07/07/2008 5:49:25 PM PDT by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

So you’re saying that Sen. Obama is a US Citizen under 8USC1409(c)? Well, then, he’d qualify for Pres, even if born overseas.


17 posted on 07/07/2008 5:55:41 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Yes, that was shown weeks ago on a lib’s website. You can see some marks, but you cannot see the stamp itself. Only with enhanced tools can you make out the an actual stamp, and only on the KOS version.


18 posted on 07/07/2008 6:02:46 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Yes, that was shown weeks ago on a lib’s website.

True. FR is becoming quite lib.

You can see some marks, but you cannot see the stamp itself.

You can see the general form of it. The GIMP or Photoshop confirm the position as being right where the naked eye puts it.

And of course, that is from the Kos version.

19 posted on 07/07/2008 6:05:48 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

FR is becoming quite lib? You mean all those Rudy supporters leaving reduced the conservatism of the website?


20 posted on 07/07/2008 6:08:46 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I’ve never seen divorce or marriage documents. A link would be helpful.


21 posted on 07/07/2008 6:10:17 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pissant
From Time. You'll notice that Time mag does not tell who inspected the divorce record and they do not mention any marriage certificate/license.

"On Feb. 2, 1961, several months after they met, Obama's parents got married in Maui, according to divorce records. It was a Thursday. At that point, Ann was three months pregnant with Barack Obama II. Friends did not learn of the wedding until afterward. "Nobody was invited," says Abercrombie. The motivations behind the marriage remain a mystery, even to Obama. "I never probed my mother about the details. Did they decide to get married because she was already pregnant? Or did he propose to her in the traditional, formal way?" Obama wonders. "I suppose, had she not passed away, I would have asked more.""

-snip-

..."Ann filed for divorce in Honolulu in January 1964, citing "grievous mental suffering"—the reason given in most divorces at the time. Obama Sr. signed for the papers in Cambridge, Mass., and did not contest the divorce."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1729524,00.html

22 posted on 07/07/2008 6:20:30 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

And no friends witnessed the Obama/Dunham marriage according to the friend reported by Time mag above.


23 posted on 07/07/2008 6:23:36 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks.


24 posted on 07/07/2008 6:33:50 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“My guess, he’s a bastard child. But that is just speculation.”

I agree. Back then, even if the father was identifiable, if the child was out of wedlock, the birth certificate would state that the father was ‘unknown.’ I think this is the real issue, and would explain why he was able to get a passport, etc.

So now the issue is why he lets a lie float out there for so long.


25 posted on 07/07/2008 7:28:23 PM PDT by esquirette (If we do not have our own world view, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
I think the real issue is the rats decided to contest McCain's eligibility, resulting in Claire McCaskill's Senate Resolution declaring McCain a natural-born citizen, which Obama supported.

Unfortunately for Barack Obama, who tried to slip some language into the resolution which would cover his case, one of the analysts on the resolution turned out to be Ted Olson, Solicitor General, widower of FReeper Barbara Olson (BKO) who was murdered as her plane exploded on 9/11.

26 posted on 07/07/2008 7:52:03 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Haven’t seen them. As I said, it was reports, but the documentation would be interesting.


27 posted on 07/07/2008 9:02:06 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Polarik

Bambi writes in his book that the details of the marriage are “murky” and that he never had the “courage” to track them down. I took that to mean there was nothing murky and he didnt have the courage to admit what he knew.

I’ll believe the parents were legally married when I see the documents, not when TIME magazine or some other member of the treason media tells me they were.

I am still bothered by the blacking out of the cert number. This full-of-himself blogger owes us an an explanation as to why someone would do this given that it would invalidate a document were it actually legit.


28 posted on 07/07/2008 9:26:09 PM PDT by freespirited (Never vote for a man who gets his nails done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

No.

To be eligible for the Presidency you cannot be just a citizen, but born within the United States or on its territory overseas, such as in a U.S. military hospital or embassy.


29 posted on 07/07/2008 9:40:56 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: txflake

WHAT kind of language did Senator Obama try to slip into that resolution?


30 posted on 07/07/2008 9:42:21 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2042198/posts?page=29

Read it and do cartwheels.


31 posted on 07/07/2008 9:53:16 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: txflake

I’ve read it already.

On July 3rd, right after reviewing articles on Senator Obama linked through FR, someone hacked into my computer, mapped all three of my hardrives and then transferred the information to Washington, D.C.

My genius kid, studying to be a computer server administrator, notified McAFee that he’d discovered a shadow server behind FR’s server(s) that was positing Trojan horses and viral nasties on member’s computers. McAfee contacted FreeRepublic and I contacted the FBI.

Our hard drives were all 128 bit encrypted. No one has threatened me yet but I don’t have young children. I do have a real junk yard dog of a lawyer, though, and I will sue the bejesus out of Senator Obama if one of his homies shows up and we track this crap back to him!


32 posted on 07/07/2008 10:07:17 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

What user IP address # did your son find when he identified the info as having gone to DC?

Can he identify who gathered the info?

I guess this would have to be a first rate hacker to set up the scenario you describe.

Can the rest of us find out if we have had a similar mapping of our drives? How would we do that?

Glad you called the FBI.


33 posted on 07/07/2008 10:25:29 PM PDT by exit82 (It's not Obama's acceptance speech--it is his Nuremburg Speech. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: exit82

I also contacted the Webmaster here at Free Republic. They have not given me the courtesy of a reply. Yet. I’ll see what I can do about getting out the information on how to fix any problems.


34 posted on 07/07/2008 10:27:14 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Obama’s toast as of today, but my machine is acting up big-time, too.

May have to call the FBI as well.


35 posted on 07/07/2008 10:27:27 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Many thanks in advance.


36 posted on 07/07/2008 10:28:55 PM PDT by exit82 (It's not Obama's acceptance speech--it is his Nuremburg Speech. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: txflake; exit82

I’m posting what my nephew wrote for someone else who was experiencing hard drive difficulties. Pleae excuse his text messaging lingo.

“hi im the genius kid and wat you have is a trojan that is not detectable by antivirus. Now before i say anything this program from what I have looked at it can install it self under several process names that run on ur computer. The two it uses are svchost.exe and explorer.exe. But they look like this, svchost..exe, or explorer..exe (notice the double periods). Now to get rid of it follow this file path WINDOWS/system32/ it should be in that folder. DO NOT DELETE A FILE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS - svchost.exe or explorer.exe. Look for the file that has the double period. Oh and by the way I am seeing if it runs under anything else, so if u cant find it then it is installed under something else.

if u need more help just ask for
Kid Genius”

As his aunt I’m torn between gratitude and horror!


37 posted on 07/07/2008 10:31:56 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
You can either be naturalized or natural born. The claim here is that to be president, one must be natural born.

In US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III (NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION), there are four parts. The first covers nationality at birth, and the second covers nationality through naturalization. (The other two are "Loss of Nationality" and "Miscellaneous.")

There's no "naturalized at birth for being born outside the US. Note that the SCOTUS seems to concur...Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

Also note, in the Constitution itself, we find: "Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

IANAL.

38 posted on 07/07/2008 10:44:29 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Very Interesting. Looking forward to further reports.


39 posted on 07/07/2008 10:44:30 PM PDT by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Wow—the double period was quite a catch on Kid Genius’s part.

You would not “see” that, because the program names are similar to known program names.

“Kid Genius” is a screen name that is not taken yet, according to the search function.

Maybe said nephew should join FR.


40 posted on 07/07/2008 10:49:51 PM PDT by exit82 (It's not Obama's acceptance speech--it is his Nuremburg Speech. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll; devolve; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; MeekOneGOP; Grampa Dave; dixiechick2000; All

Thank you for posting this.


41 posted on 07/08/2008 8:50:33 AM PDT by potlatch (MICHELLE OBAMA - The gift that just keeps on giving....!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; SatinDoll; devolve; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; Grampa Dave; dixiechick2000; gonzo; pissant; ...

42 posted on 07/08/2008 9:56:05 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Jeff Head; Travis McGee; abb; Milhous; PhilDragoo; potlatch; ...

Wow, if this is true, it may explain some problems I had late last week and this week.

My ISP provides Norton and I think/hope that it stopped and deleted the potential problems.

I was wondering what was the probable cause as I don’t go to known bad sites that transfer something to my computer.


43 posted on 07/08/2008 9:56:28 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (America's Mugabe, the Obamination.will bring Mugabe Change to America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Excellent!


44 posted on 07/08/2008 9:59:19 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (America's Mugabe, the Obamination.will bring Mugabe Change to America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ..

Thanks.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2042120/posts?page=32#32
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2042120/posts?page=37#37


45 posted on 07/08/2008 10:01:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo; Conspiracy Guy; potlatch; SatinDoll; devolve; ntnychik; Grampa Dave; dixiechick2000; ...


46 posted on 07/08/2008 10:02:19 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Free Lazamataz! Free Lazamataz! Free Lazamataz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Yes, everyone needs to know about this.


47 posted on 07/08/2008 10:07:47 AM PDT by potlatch (MICHELLE OBAMA - The gift that just keeps on giving....!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: All

God will you people give this up. There are so many other important issues in this election other than this.


48 posted on 07/08/2008 10:09:40 AM PDT by McGruff (This is not the [insert name here] I knew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
A few questions, if you don't mind. :-)

How do you know someone hacked into your computer? How did you identify when that happened? What does "mapped all three of my hardrives" mean? How did you identify Wash DC as the location of where the info was sent to?

49 posted on 07/08/2008 10:12:38 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I don’t who you are. That’s funny right there.


50 posted on 07/08/2008 10:19:55 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson