Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[R.A.F.]

Robert....what would convince you that you are wrong?...what would convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii??

See, if there is NOTHING that would convince you...no evidence that would change your mind, then this discussion is over, and this thread can be locked.

 

[JayUtah]

And so, your point is?????

His point should be obvious to you.

For weeks you've rejected the notion that either I or Abaddon have any knowledge or expertise that you are bound to respect, and have accused us each of blowing smoke. This, despite the demonstration of that expertise before your very face, acknowledged by everyone except you.

And for those same weeks you've baited us into a "battle of the experts," where you have tried to hold us responsible for the claims of people we've never invoked, but for which you have pre-written rebuttals. You cite them as "our experts" even though none of our arguments refer to them or their findings.

Now along comes a real expert who disputes your belief and who is the kind of external source you reserve your attention for. And when asked to account for it you clam up. No pre-planned Googled-up answer for it?

 

[Mojo]

Except for the fraudulent, digitally created COLB, among other things.

What evidence do you have that the COLB is fraudulent?

 

[JayUtah]

Robert....what would convince you that you are wrong?...what would convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii??

What evidence do you have that the COLB is fraudulent?

I'll add my voice to this chorus.

Robert has simply circled around and made the same arguments he did two months ago: the birth certificate is a forgery and the Hawaii government is in on it, records are missing, officials are supressing investigators, blah blah. This has all been covered at length in the past two months, and previously at length when other Birthers were posting in this thread. Before we have to endure another round of the same endlessly reposted and ignored refutations followed by and endless stream of Robert's characteristic denials and evasions of them, I think we need to compel Robert to plant his goalposts and leave them there. It is Robert's burden to demonstrate that his goal is not simply to spin this thread in circles for as long as it is tolerated.

However, "examination of the paper original" is not a reasonable standard unless some viable legal theory is proposed showing why Full Faith and Credit should not apply. Laws that must apply equally to everyone are not, contrary to Birther claims, smokescreens for some nefarious and unprecedented plot to deny access. An argument more viable than "Me wantee" is required.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What evidence do you have that the COLB is fraudulent?

I would ask what evidence there is the COLB was created digitally, but the meta data says none, so no point asking.

 

[JayUtah]

"After months of searching, investigators commissioned by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to examine Barack Obama’s eligibility for office found Immigration and Naturalization Service travel records for foreign flights into Hawaii in 1961, only to discover that records for the week of Obama’s birth were missing."

Misleading and irrelevant.

Irrelevant because Hawaii could not have been the port of entry for the Obama family, and has been explained multiple times in this thread. The "investigators" looked only at Hawaii records, either not knowing or not caring that they were looking in the wrong place.

Misleading because the "investigators" ominously state that records for the week were missing, letting the insinuation distill upon the reader that this is a suspiciously well-timed and well-defined period to be absent. In fact there are lots of gaps in the record from that period. Birthers have zero evidence that the records were removed, suppressed, or destroyed by any overt act. But they don't want you to know that. They want you to believe that record-keeping is otherwise perfect, otherwise you might draw the wrong conclusion.

Why a week? Why not just that day? Why not just that alleged record? If you believe in Birther pseudo-logic, you'd have to believe that those charged with sanitizing Obama's "real" record were so inept that they'd create a suspicious gap that would attract inept pseudo-detectives. In the wrong state's records, of course.

As usual, the Birthers tell you half the story -- and even that half doesn't make sense.

 

[Robert Prey]

His point should be obvious to you.

For weeks you've rejected the notion that either I or Abaddon have any knowledge or expertise that you are bound to respect, and have accused us each of blowing smoke. This, despite the demonstration of that expertise before your very face, acknowledged by everyone except you.

And for those same weeks you've baited us into a "battle of the experts," where you have tried to hold us responsible for the claims of people we've never invoked, but for which you have pre-written rebuttals. You cite them as "our experts" even though none of our arguments refer to them or their findings.

Now along comes a real expert who disputes your belief and who is the kind of external source you reserve your attention for. And when asked to account for it you clam up. No pre-planned Googled-up answer for it?

Oh yeah. I actually read the thing. Kinda different than your take. This "expert" talks about layers, and layers and layers. Perhaps you need to talk to him about that. He also admits he can prove nothing as to whether fake or real but only offers supposition, and absolutely no proof via replication.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert....what would convince you that you are wrong?...what would convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii??

See, if there is NOTHING that would convince you...no evidence that would change your mind, then this discussion is over, and this thread can be locked.

The original BC.

 

[Robert Prey]

FTFY

Your facsimile copy was produced in 1966. Obama's was produced in 2011.

Exactly so. That's kinda just what Birthers have been saying. Produced, created in 2011. Not a copy of a 1961 BC.

 

[Robert Prey]

The appropriate people have spoken, signed, stamped, and in general blessed the copies in every way they can as being copies of the actual, one and only, real life birth certificate that was filed 50 some-odd years ago. And that original certificate has all this time been sitting there completely unused and uncared for until some people who don't like the president needed some straws to grasp at in their attempt to do anything they can to discredit him.

Do you have any evidence at all, any evidence of any kind, anything, really, that shows the original certificate held by Hawaii is not real? I know you want it badly, but do you have any actual evidence other than your want?

Other than about 20 other anomalies, the background layer revealed behind the white dots.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Excerpt for the proof of the COLB digital forgery, here is what a real copy of an Hawaiian 50 year old birth certificate (one of the Nordyke Twins) looks like copied from the original microfilm. Compare that with the pristine Obama COLB.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6682[/qimg]

Wait, I don't want to get this wrong. I want to make sure I understand your argument before I respond.

It's your contention that the copy sent by Hawaii to the president may be fake because the photocopiers today are better than the photocopiers were in 1966? And also because a copy that has been sitting around for 46 years after it was made on one of those 50 year old copiers doesn't look as good as a copy made a year ago on modern equipment?

You're actually saying that this is your evidence that the PAPER copies that have been sent out by Hawaii and seen by many people may not be copies of an actual document on file in Hawaii?

 

[JayUtah]

Oh yeah. I actually read the thing. Kinda different than your take. This "expert" talks about layers, and layers and layers. Perhaps you need to talk to him about that. He also admits he can prove nothing as to whether fake or real but only offers supposition, and absolutely no proof via replication.

All asked and answered previously. Quit going around in circles.

 

[JayUtah]

Other than about 20 other anomalies, the background layer revealed behind the white dots.

No anomalies, just the ignorant misconceptions of farmers and salesmen. All asked and answered repeatedly.

 

[JayUtah]

Exactly so. That's kinda just what Birthers have been saying. Produced, created in 2011. Not a copy of a 1961 BC.

In your haste to take a cheap shot, you forgot to address the point. When you're finished playing games, please answer the question.

 

[JayUtah]

The original BC.

Since it's ludicrous to propose that you, Robert Prey, need to examine the original in order to settle this question once and for all for the entire universe, we have to ask the following questions:

1. Who (give a name) would you say would be the proper person to inspect the original certificate?

2. Why should this person you name be considered more credible and authoritative than those who have already inspected the original and confirmed the contents of the certified copies?

3. Under what legal authority would such an inspection be made?

4. Under what legal theory would such an inspection be required in lieu of Full Faith and Credit?

5. What assurances do the Birthers give that this is not simply another incremental step in their time-wasting escalations?

See, Robert, what you're asking for is what has been asked for in more than 150 cases at law. None of them has received any traction because arbitrary requests according to made-up Birther rules and requirements have no basis either in fact or law. Even without Full Faith and Credit, the Birthers have failed to make any sort of evidentiary case for forgery. All they have is a high amusing parade of stupid.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh yeah. I actually read the thing. Kinda different than your take. This "expert" talks about layers, and layers and layers. Perhaps you need to talk to him about that.

Why don't you talk to him? He posts all over the Internet on this question. I'd love to see how far your "everything you say is techno-babble" denials go over with him.

He also admits he can prove nothing as to whether fake or real...

Misleading and irrelevant. What does he say about the Birther forgery claims? As has been painstakingly explained to you, proof that something is genuine is impossible. And he is not out to prove it's false; he's out to examine the claims of those who already say it's false.

Amazing how you can claim to have read something, yet have missed the author's conclusion entirely.

...absolutely no proof via replication.

Straw man. Asked and answered.

 

[Mudcat]

Exactly so. That's kinda just what Birthers have been saying. Produced, created in 2011. Not a copy of a 1961 BC.

Yeah, it is a copy of an original 1961 document. It was produced in 2011. Is it really that hard for you to wrap your mind around?

 

[Arus808]

Exactly so. That's kinda just what Birthers have been saying. Produced, created in 2011. Not a copy of a 1961 BC.

Fail on your part. The image you posted was not the original version of the Nordyke Twins BCs. It was a manipulated image (reversed) so that the black parts were turned white.

Mrs. Nordyke provide her twins birth certificates that she obtained in 1966 (not in 1961) and they were photostat copies.

Hawaii stopped providing photostat copies in the late 60's and moved to copying the records to security paper (a change in law required that security paper be used).

So any certified copy created today will be printed on Security paper.

Doesn't matter when the certified copy was created. The fact that Hawaii has stipulated the information matches their record destroys your ludicrous argument.

 

[Arus808]

Notice in the 50+ posts that Robert has provided to this thread, that he has done nothing to verify his claims by simply taking his own Certified copy of his Birth Certificate, scanned it and created a PDF from the scan?

Or in fact, just scan a page from a magazine.

Oh wait, we know exactly why.

 

[Robrob]

Other than about 20 other anomalies, the background layer revealed behind the white dots.

All of which has been explained to you, repeatedly. Why do you continue to make the same claims, over and over again when they have been carefully and clearly refuted?