You’ve got to be kidding. Have you even looked at those articles? Your own links once again prove my point.
The best was the BBC article, which said that the posse had compared Obama’s BC to an original BC (which is not correct but at least it had the idea that they did some forensic comparison...). One of them said the posse was most concerned about parts of the BC which they believed had been imported from a different source.
The Fox one was an excerpt from the CBS report, with a link directing people to the full CBS report. When you go to the full CBS report pretty much all that is added to the little blurb (including calling Arpaio “publicity-hungry”) is stuff about Arpaio needing to get re-elected, being investigated by the DOJ for bad stuff, and denying that the investigation is politically-motivated.
Not one of those reports mentioned the date stamp for Obama’s draft registration missing the digits every other registration from that office had.
Not one of them mentioned the layers that specifically allow the content on the document to be changed using the same font as in the original.
Not one of them mentioned the immigration records missing for only the week of August 1-7, 1961.
Not one of them mentioned that they tested the hypotheses that the layers came from either scanning or optimization techniques and found that neither explanation holds water.
None of them mentioned what Zullo said in the Q/A period either - that the newspaper birth announcements include names for one-year-olds and foreign-born children.
None of the EVIDENCE was presented. Since ZERO evidence was actually described in these articles, these articles were actually more about Obama linking to a site showing coffee mugs with the (fake, but of course they didn’t say that) BC on them. Or about the “publicity-hungry” Sheriff Joe needing to be re-elected and being investigated by the DOJ (though nobody bothered to mention that the DOJ brought up the accusations AFTER Sheriff Joe agreed to have his posse investigate Obama’s BC).
I rest my case. You just proved my point for me: The media refuses to report the EVIDENCE. What they call “reports” are more like boilerplate drivel to try to say that Arpaio is a crooked guy who needs reelection and is just out to get Obama.
Why don’t you talk to Zullo and find out what percentage his “take” is. I think you’d be surprised. The only reason his name is even included with the thing is so people know Corsi isn’t just making stuff up. Zullo was basically the chaperone, to say that what Corsi put in there is accurate.
And you still won’t tell me what is in the book that wasn’t in public interviews - which is critical to your point that people are paying for Zullo’s information, and not just for Corsi’s transcription and/or format.
You’re trying to shoot the messenger in whatever way you can, but if you even bothered to read your own links you know that Corsi is the only conventional “media” that is getting the actual evidence out there so people can analyze it. (Blogs have the evidence as well, but they’re not conventional “news media”. Which is why they haven’t been threatened, and why they are the only ones actually reporting and analyzing the actual evidence). You want us to disbelieve Zullo’s statements that the media were threatened because he has been retired from police work for a while and because he had to agree to Corsi’s terms in order to get the evidence out in a form that most people could receive it (because nobody else would report the evidence, as documented by yourself...)
It’s pointless to talk to you. Your own content makes my case for me every time, and yet you refuse to see it. That’s willful rejection of the truth, and nothing I say can cure you of that.
I think Zullo should definitely tell the world how much he’s making on the side. It’s extraordinary to think that a LEO would be supplementing his income by selling the partial results of an investigation via Amazon. I’ve already explained that it’s irrelevant whether what he’s selling is already in the public arena, the fact that he’s SELLING it is the issue. LEO’s don’t sell their investigations for personal gain. EVER. Doesn’t it concern you that he could be prejudicing a prosecution for a few bucks?
Not kidding about those links in the slightest. You said they didn’t report it. They did, you just didn’t like the way they did it.
It’s part of a pattern of exaggeration that you use when it comes to this topic. I can give you a couple of examples from this very thread.
You said “and now the coroner’s tech who probably took the photos that alone would tell us whether it was a natural heart attack or an assassination is dead..”.
You don’t have the faintest idea whether he worked on the Breitbart case or not but suddenly he’s ‘probably’ the guy who knew the inside track. How did you reach that conclusion?
You said “...AND a bomb scare for Rush Limbaugh”.
What? Rush was threatened? Errr....no. The reality here is that the guys in his post room scanned a parcel, saw something they didn’t like (wires) so they called the bomb squad. It was a false alarm, an innocent package. It’s very easy to find out the truth so I wonder why you’d peddle a falsehood.
Deliberately exaggerating is a form of lying. You should consider stopping.