"I don’t like your tone." You'll like mine even less. The tin foil crowd hasn't proven Obama's BC is a fake, they've proven that an image posted on the Daily Kos is a forgery. That's all.
Posted on 07/21/2008 8:39:38 PM PDT by Red Steel
PM me.
"I don’t like your tone." "the resultant fallout could trigger a civil war."Couldn’t it be possible that somewhere they are holding his real birth certificate, ready to be whipped out, for two purposes; 1)to waste the time and resources of researchers who could possibly be uncovering even more damning information - and 2)to make conservatives look like paranoid ‘kooks’?
“Couldn’t it be possible that somewhere they are holding his real birth certificate, ready to be whipped out, for two purposes; 1)to waste the time and resources of researchers who could possibly be uncovering even more damning information - and 2)to make conservatives look like paranoid ‘kooks’?”
Counterfeit money was probably the first government document to be forged. Teenagers got forged IDs to go drinking. 9/11 perps got forged drivers licenses from 7/11 parking lots. Voter registrars like Acorn forge signatures, candidates (like Obama) challenged candidate application signatures as forged or unqualified to eliminate opposition.
The MSM has run altered photos, darkened photos, mis-reported photos, staged photos, Middle East fauxtography. Just a few weeks ago we had the altered photo of Iran's missile launch.
So now we have birth certificates. And now we're being asked to accept web facsimiles of parts of physical documents as if they were the real thing, with all the legal authority that comes with the real thing.
I'm concerned about the possible future precedent of reliance on web facsimiles of parts of documents, rather than the actual physical thing itself, especially for something as important as the presidency of the United States. Even with the forged Texas Air National Guard documents, CBS "experts" complained that they were only shown images of the documents, but never the actual documents themselves, and so were reluctant to authenticate them.
Have we learned nothing from the CBS fiasco? Show us the real thing already.
-PJ
But that's not all. KOS has claimed he received the Obama COLB from the Obama campaign, the same COLB that Obama's website "Fight the Smears" has displayed at a lower resolution. Furthermore, Obama's campaign spokesman Ben Labolt has claimed the disputed Obama's COLB is a genuine document.
Since Obama has not cooperated by producing his real birth certificate, he must be forced by a Court to produce the originals and swear under oath that they are the originals..
If he cannot, he should remove himself as a presidential candidate since the truth will eventually come out..If it is found he lied about his natural born citizenship, he could and should be impeached to preserve the integrity of the Presidency, that is if he were to be elected...we hope not..
"But that's not all. KOS has claimed he received the Obama COLB from the Obama campaign"Fixed.
That raises the question: to whom would he show "the real thing?" There's no federal law regarding documentary authentication of a presidential candidate's qualifications. The FEC (which is virtually non-existent right now, by congressional design), doesn't have this responsibility. Basically, it falls to individual states to create their own documentary requirements (if any) for a candidate to register for a federal primary, and frankly, since this issue has never been raised before in a presidential campaign, I doubt that anyone working in a state office would have scrutinized a birth certificate two years ago.
This really wasn't even an issue until the media began to question McCain's place of birth as a possible disqualification. His campaign posted a scanned image of his original Panamanian birth certificate, and no one has questioned the authenticity of it. After that, there was a significant drumbeat (accompanied by the usual wild speculation) for a copy of Obama's birth cert. The manner in which it was posted -- on KOS -- didn't help matters, nor did some early apples-to-oranges "analysis" of two COLB images issued years apart.
That brings us back to the first question: who would be trusted to verify an original COLB? The state of Hawaii is under no obligation to release it, and I can't imagine any employee wanting to put themselves in the line of fire by doing it without authorization. Normally, it's the media demanding documentation, but could anyone seriously believe the NY Times (which hounded McCain for months regarding his health records, then meekly accepted a one-page summary report of Obama's fitness from his personal physician) or any other major media outlet, busy strewing daily rose-petals in Obama's path, if they declared it authentic?
then why is the same forgery on obama’s official website?? you people that want to minimize the importance of this are highly suspect to me.
If you're so sure you're right, sue the man. You will become rich and famous. If you can't put your money where your mouth is, be quiet about it. TechDude did some nice work, but also did some nice lifting of my ideas. He, TexasDarlin, and myself agreed to collaborate on one joint report, but I guess that TechDude didn’t want to share the limelight with us, and went renegade on our asses.
His border comparison is a direct ripoff of mine, with
nary a mention of my name,
I wanted to add my 2 cents on the “How” the forgery was made. One of his two scenarios is the plausible one. Washing the toner off of a piece of paper is not it, and as is off-the-wall as it gets.
I defer to Occam’s Razor and the theory of Serendipity here.
There is no doubt that the forgery was done electronically (TechDude’s “other” scenario which is my scenario), and that the odd border could well have been made using dry transfer graphics, like LetraSet. That would explain the smeared patterns.
If you’ve never seen dry transfer letters and graphics, they come on a sheet of clear plastic, like a transparency, and you place it over your paper, and rub against the other side, thereby transferring the letters or border to the paper.
There’s no doubt that the image on FightTheSmears is the same image as what is posted on the Kos, but greatly reduced in size and JPG compression.
Did you know that the Smears site had a bigger and clearer image to begin with?
Yep. That’s right. I saved it to disk. The first image the Smears posted was a 1024 x 1000 image, directly scaled down from 2427 x 2369.
THEN, they replaced it with an illegible 585 x 575 image that is not even a proportional reduction.
Why, we ask, did they ditch the better-quality image?
Why, we ask, did they give the Kos one that is four times as big, yet they show us wshat is basically a thumnail?
EVERYBODY and his brother asks this question, without giving the timeline a second thought.
Hillary QUIT RUNNING FOR POTUS and starfted campaigning for Obama on JUNE 7th. The Kos and Smears images did not appear until JUNE 12th.
Once she threw her weight behind O-Bomb-out, the deal was done.
Prove it?
We did that, in spades.
The Obama camp could have given a birth certificate drawn with crayons, and every one of his supporters would hail it as genuine.
"Did you know that the Smears site had a bigger and clearer image to begin with?"You've just made the implication that I have some sort of ulterior motive in all this. That I set out from the start to discredit Obama. That I am not operating from a position of full disclosure, and total honesty.
I cannot speak for TechDude, but the sole reason I got into my analyses was because the alterations were so obvious, I'd have to be working for the Obama campaign NOT to notice them.
This COLB of his walked, talked, and looked like a duck, and if I said it was a chicken, then I'd be lying.
Probably because it ain't.....just a bunch of Buckhead wannabes getting hysterical.
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.