Skip to comments.Oblivious to the Obvious
Posted on 04/10/2012 2:05:39 AM PDT by matt1
click here to read article
You are first likely to hear, "I don't believe you." What your friends really mean is that they are confused because you have disturbed their belief system. Most anybody who has spatial perception and knows even a little bit about typewriters will understand what you have shown them -- even liberals. They can choose -- which are they going to believe, the president, whom they worship, or their own lying eyes? You can almost see the smoke curling out their ears as their brains begin to fry.
Indeed, this is quite an exact description of what happens when a victim of a Big Lie realizes that he has been gulled.
Here, in the originator's very words:
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.
(Quoted from the Big Lie wikipedia page.)
The differences he describes might be caused by the fact that the image used is a photo of the paper version. He SHOULD have used the digital copy, and not the photo. If the camera used to take the photo is not centered over the original, it must be tilted slightly to center the image. In this case it was likely tilted up.
What happens then is that words on the bottom of the doc appear larger. This explains some of the author’s points concerning change of pitch and size of characters.
But it still does NOT explain the one major flaw, which is the spacing between 6085 and Kalanianaole. No matter how you move things around (even on the digital version), that spacing in NOT equal to a whole number of characters.
Try it yourself on the digital version.
it’s about time for the “everybody lies” defense. Hope the whole story will come out some day.
‘Obama thugs history revealed in Michele Thomas Bettina Viviano interview, Obama stole 1996 Alice Palmer election and 2008 DNC primaries caucuses’
jbjd | April 9, 2012 at 9:50 am |
President Obamas ballot eligibility problem is about to blow wide open. When it does, you will need to understand how to explain to your public officials that while they might (genuinely) believe he has released a bona fide copy of his long form birth certificate evidencing he was born in HI; and the HI DoH confirmed, its real; neither claim is true. On the contrary, this was all part of a well orchestrated political ad campaign, carried out in full compliance with applicable state and federal law.
RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMAS 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT
I agree 100%.
It's time for Soda Crackers and Oreos to unite. . . . .
“voteThrow him out of office and into jail! ! ! !”
AMEN!! That’s where Obama belongs...Jail!!
Obama is destroying our Country!!
He is a “FRAUD”!!
I agree. It was well thought out.
The point is valid, but it has been repeated in a misleading manner. The rules governing the ability of the mother to transfer citizenship ONLY APPLY to a birth in a foreign country. They DO NOT APPLY if he was born in the United States. The 14th Amendment applies in this circumstance. (Under one interpretation of it) Even so, the 14th amendment would only make him a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen."
A law cannot make someone "natural born" who is not. Were it otherwise, the Founders would have simply declared themselves "natural born" rather than add an exception for themselves in Article II.
When a state produces a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child, they do not regard them as "forgeries" because they were produce in accordance with a normal legal process.
Do you also have a forged Selective Service registration, and are you currently using the Social Security # of someone who was born over a century ago?
He needed that.
Let us not conflate one thing with another. I make no claims or observations regarding his selective service registration. I will point out that Obama, as head of the FEDERAL government, can completely control that issue. I will also point out that it is the STATE of Hawaii which has issued his birth document, and while he may threaten and cajole them, he cannot control them to the same extent that he can control anyone in his direct chain of command in the FEDERAL government.
He can get away with covering up a forgery of his Selective Service registration as long as he is in power, but he cannot force Hawaii to go along with his narrative unless they chose to do so willingly. The best way to get them to go along willingly is to utilize their legal system in such a way as to achieve the result he wishes.
The same above points regarding his control of the FEDERAL government apply as well to his social security number. That rumor that he is using a Social Security # of someone who was born over a century ago is not well documented, and at this stage is still not clearly established. *I* myself have tried to verify this and at one time that number was producing multiple hits in various data bases.
And for what reason did you feel I "needed that"?
Because you keep peddling your ridiculous theory of a legal forgery.
RWA:”What happens then is that words on the bottom of the doc appear larger. This explains some of the authors points concerning change of pitch and size of characters.
But it still does NOT explain the one major flaw, which is the spacing between 6085 and Kalanianaole. No matter how you move things around (even on the digital version), that spacing in NOT equal to a whole number of characters.”
I agree with you here Right Wing. I did the same cut and paste with the PDF and all the characters align just as a typwritten document would expect. So I think this argument by the American Thinker author is bogus. But when I did the test on the 6085 spacing to Kalanianole, I did not get any discrepancies as you suggested. So I could not find any type spacing issues using the digital version.
I tend to think the author has made a mistake in his assessment. A suspect photograph of a document brings into account many potential imperfections and is not a good source document.
If you think the theory is ridiculous, you must have a reason for believing so. I would certainly like to hear of some fact or logic that disproves the theory. Why don't you tell me why it is you believe the theory is wrong?
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.