Welcome to FR. You may find that some don’t take kindly to vanity posts by newbies, but you will find a home with the conspiracy buffs.
Occam’s razor isn’t a law. But it’s a pretty good way of analyzing competing theories.
How do you explain why Barack Obama would have to do a substitution on the letter “R” in his name as part of a forgery/modification of other birth certificates.
How do you explain what word ended in “enya” on other birth certificates, that the Obama team felt they had to change the first letter to a “K”?
In other words, you are looking a scanned, possibly multiply-scanned, document, pointing out random anomalies, and arguing that these random anomalies are evidence of a well-planned but poorly-executed conspiracy. But with no explanation as to WHY someone would generate these particular anomalies, or how they play a part in the conspiracy, you have nothing.
Which isn’t surprising for conspiracy theories. You don’t try to disprove conspiracies, because those you can convince never fell for it, and those who fell for it are unlikely to be persuaded by any evidence.
For extra credit, list the facts that, if they were presented, would change your opinion of the consipiracy:
1. A video of Obama being born? Could be faked, they didn’t have videos, “we know he was born, the question is where”.
2. A signed affidavit by a hospital employee? It was years ago, they might have been bought off, or Obama has something on them, or they are an Obama syncophant, or they are mis-remembering. Why didn’t they come out before? Too convenient.
3. Birth announcement in the paper — already been conspiricized away.
4. Sworn oaths by HI officials — they don’t know what they are talking about, my grandmother says that’s not how it works, they are Obama enablers, you can parse their words to say they didn’t actually claim what they said they claimed.
5. Released documents — forgeries, determined by examining copies of copies of copies produced through unknown means using various computer programs.
6. Statements of people who have seen the original — the original doesn’t exist, they can’t be trusted, journalists are in the bag for Obama.
Seriously, I can’t think of any possible evidence that could be shown that wouldn’t be dismissed by the conspiracy crowd. That is what makes a good conspiracy.
People keep comparing this to the Rathergate forgeries. But there was a reason for those forgeries, and they were revealed almost immediately, and were obvious based on the nature of what the original documents would have looked like, and comparison with other documents.
The argument wasn’t over how an OCR program tried to make sense out of a copy of a document scanned on security paper; the Rathergate papers were supposed to be scans of originals from actual files, not officially provided copies per current computer storage and transmission rules.
We knew the chain of evidence in that case, knew the source was someone with a motive, opportunity, and a proven propensity to lie about papers; it made sense they might have tried to forge papers. It wasn’t a claim that official government workers and major public officials and politicians were PART of the conspiracy.
In fact, Rathergate wasn’t much of a conspiracy. It was about one or two people hatching a plan, pulling it off, and fooling others who wanted to believe. That’s why it was believable.
You’re funny. You should go on tour.
One of the things I notice about libs is that they love to write and write and write and write.
It’s almost like you’re trying to convince yourself.
7 people by my count. Three of them were part of the old Doonesbury political chat room ~ one of the first big ones. Then the guy who showed up with the documents, Dan Rather, his daughter and her “friend”.
What I'm more interested in is the data submitted as coming from the records on file in HI the actual data? I'm not interested how it got here be via a photocopy, scanned doc, hand written on a scratch piece of paper, microfilche or whatever. Is it the data that is on file in HI? If so then all these anomalies are just that anomalies but don't impact the data as being legit if it is what's on file.
After all this has a stamp certifying it as being legit and Loretta Fuddy, the Director of Health in her letter stated she personally witnessed the copying and attested to its authenticity.
*******
Do you have any theory why Obama ordered a copy of his long form birth certificate in the first place?
Did he never have one, and this one was the first one he ever had?
If he had one, did he simply lose it? People lose birth certificates all the time, but it just seems strange to me that the President of the United States lost his. Was he just careless, or did another family member accidentally throw it away?
If he lost his copy, when did he lose it?
June 2007: Date stamped on back of Obama's short form we see at the FactCheck site.
Does the FactCheck short form mean that Obama lost his long form copy in 2007 or earlier, because most people don't go to the trouble of ordering a new copy of their birth certificate unless they lost theirs.
At the April 27, 2011 press conference where Obama showed us his long form birth certificate, I wish reporters would have asked Obama (1) why he needed to order a copy of his long form birth certificate, and (2) did he lose the one he used to have.
How many people do you think using Pshop requires?
Look. This guy has proven that this doc is a composite of two vastly different types of type.
We want to know from either Obama or the Hawaii Dept of Health, WHY?? If there was one file in the archives from 1961, why wasn’t everything on it, typed in 1961?
We simply want to know why.