NightStar76
Thinker
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 230
I didn't know Barack Obama still considered Greenwood his primary residence. Huh.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion
- Thread starter boyntonstu
- Start date
- Status
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
And the human face rash, Jerome Corsi, is traveling with Mitt Romney
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/onboard-the-romney-plane-jerome-corsi-138800.html
This only supports that Mitt Romney will do nothing to curb any of his supporters from engaging in spouting long debunked birther claims. He had his chance with Arizona by putting his foot down with the Secretary of State there, but remained quiet. Now he has the King of Birthers along for a ride.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/onboard-the-romney-plane-jerome-corsi-138800.html
This only supports that Mitt Romney will do nothing to curb any of his supporters from engaging in spouting long debunked birther claims. He had his chance with Arizona by putting his foot down with the Secretary of State there, but remained quiet. Now he has the King of Birthers along for a ride.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Personally, I think this is all a way for generally minor people to feel important by trying to get the POTUS to jump through hoops at their command.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump's over-hyped "bombshell" announcement regarding President Obama turned out to be just more stale, self-serving Birther nonsense.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...ers-cash-obama/story?id=17553670#.UIhgJyOFIYY
Trump offers a $5 million donation to a charity of Obama's choice if the President will publish certain personal records that Trump has named, presumably because they would disclose details of his birthplace and citizenship. Far from being an election game-changer, as promised, this is just an embarrassing gaffe. It's just another Trump ploy to stay personally relevant at the GOP's expense.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...ers-cash-obama/story?id=17553670#.UIhgJyOFIYY
Trump offers a $5 million donation to a charity of Obama's choice if the President will publish certain personal records that Trump has named, presumably because they would disclose details of his birthplace and citizenship. Far from being an election game-changer, as promised, this is just an embarrassing gaffe. It's just another Trump ploy to stay personally relevant at the GOP's expense.
Straw Man
Flammable
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 8,184
I saw the announcement. More of a dud than a bombshell, and very much an embarrassment. Trump's net worth is $3.1 Billion, and he offers $5 million if Obama will become his performing monkey.
Hischump Trump change stunt comes across as a sign of Birther desperation to release documents that no other President has had to do.
His
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
How about this: I contribute $10,000 to the Hair Club for Men in Donald Trump's name if Mitt Romney releases his tax returns.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
This just in: Obama admits growing up in Kenya.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
There is another thread discussing the legal machinations of the Birthers. I posted a lengthy commentary there about the latest proceeding before Judge Reid in Indiana, where infamous Birther lawyer Orly Taitz was finally allowed some court time. The technical and factual discussions about the Birther claims have customarily occurred here under moderation, so I'll comment upon the allegations of fact that were raised there. There will necessarily be some legal discussion as well.
I'm using the Fogbow commentaries and summaries as a source, along with the transcript of the Sept. 26 hearing. I have not yet found any transcripts of the Oct. 22 trial before Judge Reid, however Fogbow's summaries have so far proven quite accurate.
Taitz called three witnesses: Christopher Strunk, Felicito Papa, and Paul Irey. Some of these are names we've heard before.
Strunk was to testify about a FOIA request he made for Barack Obama's passport application. That document and Strunk's testimony were ruled inadmissible as hearsay and struck from the record.
Felicito Papa attempted to testify about "layers" in the PDF file, but due to Taitz' incompetent examination of him in court, his findings and opinions were also ruled inadmissible as unfounded and were struck.
Taitz and her co-counsel were finally able to lay a legally acceptable foundation for Paul Irey and so withstand the defense objection. However the evidence he presented is no different than what he has presented out of court, and has been long debunked. The defense team did not complete their cross examination of Irey before Judge Reid's time limit on the whole trial expired. But we can examine the claims as they have been summarized to us.
Before I move on to Irey, I should mention that this was not a trial about the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the Indiana ballot. That question was already decided long ago by Reid. No, this was a suit against Indiana election officials for allegedly accepting a fraudulent candidate. In short, it's an attempt to litigate the same question under a different guise. Hence the pleadings and rulings in the case speak at length about jurisdictional and liability issues, not really whether there's any merit to that original question. Orly Taitz, however, desperately wanted to make this a trial of her evidence against Obama.
Taitz lays a foundation for Irey as a typesetting expert. However he is testifying about typewriters, which are fundamentally different animals than typesetters (e.g., of the Merganthaler variety). And the problem is that his only expertise in typewriters is having used them once -- as we all have, if we're over a certain age. There is no question associated with the birth certificate that touches typesetting. The defense lawyers were just warming up about whether he knew anything about typewriters Hawaii used in 1961 when the buzzer went off.
Irey's first observation is that the same letters from different portions of the PDF document appear different, although they were purportedly created on the same typewriter. He asserts that they should look the same.
That expectation fails immediately for reasons apparent to anyone who has ever used a manual typewriter: the weight of a character varies according to the vigor with which one strikes the key. Since Irey has no knowledge of what kinds of typewriters or methods were customarily in use in Hawaii in 1961 to create birth certificate records, he cannot assert that characters are suspicious because they appear non-uniform. A number of factors affect the uniformity of the characters in typewritten text, and his work accounts for none of them.
This line of reasoning further fails because Irey is looking at an optimized PDF in which two crucial image-processing operations have occurred. The first was to sharpen the image, which we'll discuss in greater detail below. The second was to extract some of the characters and render them as bitmasks. Because this requires downsampling the color depth, the edges of identical characters with pixels near the threshold will variously occur within the bitmask or not. Put more simply: the characters are converted to black and white -- no smoothing, grayscale, or anti-aliasing. These highly aliased characters are then what Irey ignorantly attempts to compare and declare to be so different as to have arisen from different sources.
There were other examples of similarly affirmed consequents all based on Irey's premise that any variation he observes in the optimized bitmasks must be due to importation from other sources and cannot have arisen, so he claims, in a legitimate paper document that is then xerographically or photographically copied. Irey's conclusion is that it is a forged document because it has been composed from several different sources that employed different typefaces.
We have to pause and laugh here because what forger is going to try to create a legitimate document from different typefaces? Irey argues even that the "R" in "BARACK" (which we've noted appears in a different PDF object than the rest of the word) has been introduced from a separate source. A forger of typewritten or typeset documents, unless he is unimaginably incompetent, is acutely aware of typefaces.
If I were compelled to create the typed word "BARACK" as a forgery, I'd simply type it on a period typewriter. There is actually a robust market in vintage typewriters and it would not be hard to find one. That's the easy way -- the easiest by far. But then some analysts realize that a typewriter manufactured in the late 1950s and used in 2011 will not type the same way today as it did back then. Worn type, loose tolerances, etc. So if I were compelled to create the word from existing type examples, I'd just find the word "BARRACKS" somewhere and excise one of the Rs and the S, then move the two ends closer together, paying careful attention to interletter spacing and baseline alignment.
In other words, I wouldn't be so stupid as to try to cobble up a word from different typefaces, using one letter from a different source.
Paul Irey shows no evidence of that alleged source or process; it's just his inference for why the data fails to match his expectation. In a trial setting that's ripe for objection due to lack of foundation, which was sustained, and Irey backpedaled into claiming only that the document was, in his opinion, not authentic. (The question of whether that alleged inauthenticity arose from an act for forgery would be a separate determination of fact and law.)
Again, a more sane interpretation is that the R in "BARACK" was struck more lightly on the typewriter. Then through scanning, quantization, and optimization it was not transferred to the object containing the darker letters around it. That's just how the segmentation and quantization process works. If the character doesn't present a sharp enough edge, even after sharpening, and does not match the color of nearby characters to a sufficient tolerance, it's not included as a part of the same bitmask.
But the real problem is that Irey is simply speculatively attributing to "forgery" what he doesn't understand about digital documents, specifically optimized PDFs. Since Irey doesn't (at this point) refer to digital forgery, but only to his expectations about typewriters, we can point out that he is no more an expert in typewriters (i.e., having only used one decades ago) than a potential juror. Hence there is no foundation for expert opinion to this point.
He then moves on to his "white halo" theory. He argues that because the background object when viewed alone, and the composite image when viewed as intended, exhibit a certain phenomenon around the edges of some characters, the document cannot be authentic. The phenomenon is a lightening of the background image such that some of the safety-paper pattern is considerably fainter around the character edges.
Again Irey foists his ignorant expectation as the straw-man alternative. He says that photocopying an original document onto safety paper will not produce that effect. Of course it won't, and none of his critics or opponents claim it would.
He says further that this is the result of the Unsharp Mask filter in Adobe Photoshop, and that the presence of such a feature is evidence that the document was forged in Photoshop. This is old-school Birtherism. Birthers these days reject Irey's conclusion and admit that at least some features in the PDF file could have been the result of optimization or other non-malicious, non-altering manipulation.
And such is the case. Again Irey astounds us with his utter lack of understanding. Orly Taitz laid a further foundation for this testimony by showing that Irey has been a user of Adobe creative products since their inception. This does not, however, create expertise in the analysis of PDF files. It does not create expertise in digital imaging techniques in general, such as would be understood by a computer scientist. Indeed all the pseudo-experts on the Birther side come from the ranks of artists. They are likely adept at using the tools, but not expected to know in detail how they work under the hood.
Further, as we have belabored, these witnesses would be considered putative experts only in the tools Birthers theorize were used in their scenario, not the tools and techniques used to determine whether such a scenario occurred. Paul Irey could be considered a proficient user of Adobe creative tools, but the question at hand is whether a certain document was forged. The forensic detection of forgery is a separate set of skills, and Taitz did not lay any foundation for Irey's conclusions on that matter.
But surprisingly enough, I concur with Irey in concluding that the USM algorithm was applied to this image. That's because it's the preliminary step in segmentation and MRC feature extraction. It's an expected part of PDF optimization. Because Irey's experience is only with Adobe Photoshop, he makes the mistake of assuming that's the only way you could get the effects of unsharp masking. But because I am qualified in the overall field and have general knowledge of image processing techniques, I can say that this is a widely-used technique that isn't tied to any one particular tool or process.
It's like saying that because you've been a roofer and nothing but a roofer for 50 years, and you use knee pads and a hammer, that every subsequent sighting of a knee pad or a hammer has to be connected in some way to roofing. No, hammers and knee pads have other uses. So does USM. In this case it's used to see how sharp an edge can be created for shallower MRC objects without unacceptable changes in acutance. The shallower the resulting object, the smaller the overall file will be. But shallow objects require sharp edges, and USM creates those. Consequently PDF optimizers include USM filters under the hood.
Irey claims to have reproduced the "halo" effect using Adobe Photoshop. I'm sure he did, because Photoshop's implementation of the USM algorithm is just as robust as any other you'll find in the industry. But because you'll find it all over in the industry in a variety of applications, his demonstration doesn't prove Photoshop must have been used in any way to create a forged birth certificate. Photoshop provides the filter because it's a generally useful thing if you happen to be manipulating digital images.
And as before, Irey is pretty fuzzy on the details of how or why this would be done. The "halo" effect occurs when the boundary between light and dark regions is amplified by gently ramping up the brightness on the light side as you approach the boundary and gently ramping down the brightness on the dark side. That makes the boundary so much more distinct. If you remove the dark portion (as is done when the dark region is converted to a bitmask), you're left with the light-side ramp-up -- the "halo." And this is one of the most noticeable things about heavily optimized PDFs. The light-dark boundaries are sometimes comically distinct, and it admittedly gives the document an artificial appearance.
Which then raises the question why a competent forger would take an explicit step whose effect is to decrease the visual credibility of the document? Aggressive unsharp masking is necessary in MRC segmentation, but it's considered amateur in photographic processing.
It's likely that an effective cross examination would have undermined this, but the opportunity did not arise.
Overall Paul Irey's testimony fails for the same general reason most conspiracy theories fail: it attributes the "suspicion" born of ignorance to some vague nefarious plot. Irey can think of no legitimate reason why these features should appear in the optimized PDF, so he concludes it "must" be a forgery. He doesn't consider (and there was little cross examination to help him realize) that his inability to think of legitimate reasons is because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And this is not anything we haven't heard before. As I said, this is old-school Birther arguments. Irey hasn't updated his spiel to account for concessions made by the consensus of the Birther community. He's still pushing his same old discredited and debunked claims.
The plaintiff's team fails to understand a number of things, not the least being how to present expert testimony.
That should about cover it for now.
I'm using the Fogbow commentaries and summaries as a source, along with the transcript of the Sept. 26 hearing. I have not yet found any transcripts of the Oct. 22 trial before Judge Reid, however Fogbow's summaries have so far proven quite accurate.
Taitz called three witnesses: Christopher Strunk, Felicito Papa, and Paul Irey. Some of these are names we've heard before.
Strunk was to testify about a FOIA request he made for Barack Obama's passport application. That document and Strunk's testimony were ruled inadmissible as hearsay and struck from the record.
Felicito Papa attempted to testify about "layers" in the PDF file, but due to Taitz' incompetent examination of him in court, his findings and opinions were also ruled inadmissible as unfounded and were struck.
Taitz and her co-counsel were finally able to lay a legally acceptable foundation for Paul Irey and so withstand the defense objection. However the evidence he presented is no different than what he has presented out of court, and has been long debunked. The defense team did not complete their cross examination of Irey before Judge Reid's time limit on the whole trial expired. But we can examine the claims as they have been summarized to us.
Before I move on to Irey, I should mention that this was not a trial about the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the Indiana ballot. That question was already decided long ago by Reid. No, this was a suit against Indiana election officials for allegedly accepting a fraudulent candidate. In short, it's an attempt to litigate the same question under a different guise. Hence the pleadings and rulings in the case speak at length about jurisdictional and liability issues, not really whether there's any merit to that original question. Orly Taitz, however, desperately wanted to make this a trial of her evidence against Obama.
Taitz lays a foundation for Irey as a typesetting expert. However he is testifying about typewriters, which are fundamentally different animals than typesetters (e.g., of the Merganthaler variety). And the problem is that his only expertise in typewriters is having used them once -- as we all have, if we're over a certain age. There is no question associated with the birth certificate that touches typesetting. The defense lawyers were just warming up about whether he knew anything about typewriters Hawaii used in 1961 when the buzzer went off.
Irey's first observation is that the same letters from different portions of the PDF document appear different, although they were purportedly created on the same typewriter. He asserts that they should look the same.
That expectation fails immediately for reasons apparent to anyone who has ever used a manual typewriter: the weight of a character varies according to the vigor with which one strikes the key. Since Irey has no knowledge of what kinds of typewriters or methods were customarily in use in Hawaii in 1961 to create birth certificate records, he cannot assert that characters are suspicious because they appear non-uniform. A number of factors affect the uniformity of the characters in typewritten text, and his work accounts for none of them.
This line of reasoning further fails because Irey is looking at an optimized PDF in which two crucial image-processing operations have occurred. The first was to sharpen the image, which we'll discuss in greater detail below. The second was to extract some of the characters and render them as bitmasks. Because this requires downsampling the color depth, the edges of identical characters with pixels near the threshold will variously occur within the bitmask or not. Put more simply: the characters are converted to black and white -- no smoothing, grayscale, or anti-aliasing. These highly aliased characters are then what Irey ignorantly attempts to compare and declare to be so different as to have arisen from different sources.
There were other examples of similarly affirmed consequents all based on Irey's premise that any variation he observes in the optimized bitmasks must be due to importation from other sources and cannot have arisen, so he claims, in a legitimate paper document that is then xerographically or photographically copied. Irey's conclusion is that it is a forged document because it has been composed from several different sources that employed different typefaces.
We have to pause and laugh here because what forger is going to try to create a legitimate document from different typefaces? Irey argues even that the "R" in "BARACK" (which we've noted appears in a different PDF object than the rest of the word) has been introduced from a separate source. A forger of typewritten or typeset documents, unless he is unimaginably incompetent, is acutely aware of typefaces.
If I were compelled to create the typed word "BARACK" as a forgery, I'd simply type it on a period typewriter. There is actually a robust market in vintage typewriters and it would not be hard to find one. That's the easy way -- the easiest by far. But then some analysts realize that a typewriter manufactured in the late 1950s and used in 2011 will not type the same way today as it did back then. Worn type, loose tolerances, etc. So if I were compelled to create the word from existing type examples, I'd just find the word "BARRACKS" somewhere and excise one of the Rs and the S, then move the two ends closer together, paying careful attention to interletter spacing and baseline alignment.
In other words, I wouldn't be so stupid as to try to cobble up a word from different typefaces, using one letter from a different source.
Paul Irey shows no evidence of that alleged source or process; it's just his inference for why the data fails to match his expectation. In a trial setting that's ripe for objection due to lack of foundation, which was sustained, and Irey backpedaled into claiming only that the document was, in his opinion, not authentic. (The question of whether that alleged inauthenticity arose from an act for forgery would be a separate determination of fact and law.)
Again, a more sane interpretation is that the R in "BARACK" was struck more lightly on the typewriter. Then through scanning, quantization, and optimization it was not transferred to the object containing the darker letters around it. That's just how the segmentation and quantization process works. If the character doesn't present a sharp enough edge, even after sharpening, and does not match the color of nearby characters to a sufficient tolerance, it's not included as a part of the same bitmask.
But the real problem is that Irey is simply speculatively attributing to "forgery" what he doesn't understand about digital documents, specifically optimized PDFs. Since Irey doesn't (at this point) refer to digital forgery, but only to his expectations about typewriters, we can point out that he is no more an expert in typewriters (i.e., having only used one decades ago) than a potential juror. Hence there is no foundation for expert opinion to this point.
He then moves on to his "white halo" theory. He argues that because the background object when viewed alone, and the composite image when viewed as intended, exhibit a certain phenomenon around the edges of some characters, the document cannot be authentic. The phenomenon is a lightening of the background image such that some of the safety-paper pattern is considerably fainter around the character edges.
Again Irey foists his ignorant expectation as the straw-man alternative. He says that photocopying an original document onto safety paper will not produce that effect. Of course it won't, and none of his critics or opponents claim it would.
He says further that this is the result of the Unsharp Mask filter in Adobe Photoshop, and that the presence of such a feature is evidence that the document was forged in Photoshop. This is old-school Birtherism. Birthers these days reject Irey's conclusion and admit that at least some features in the PDF file could have been the result of optimization or other non-malicious, non-altering manipulation.
And such is the case. Again Irey astounds us with his utter lack of understanding. Orly Taitz laid a further foundation for this testimony by showing that Irey has been a user of Adobe creative products since their inception. This does not, however, create expertise in the analysis of PDF files. It does not create expertise in digital imaging techniques in general, such as would be understood by a computer scientist. Indeed all the pseudo-experts on the Birther side come from the ranks of artists. They are likely adept at using the tools, but not expected to know in detail how they work under the hood.
Further, as we have belabored, these witnesses would be considered putative experts only in the tools Birthers theorize were used in their scenario, not the tools and techniques used to determine whether such a scenario occurred. Paul Irey could be considered a proficient user of Adobe creative tools, but the question at hand is whether a certain document was forged. The forensic detection of forgery is a separate set of skills, and Taitz did not lay any foundation for Irey's conclusions on that matter.
But surprisingly enough, I concur with Irey in concluding that the USM algorithm was applied to this image. That's because it's the preliminary step in segmentation and MRC feature extraction. It's an expected part of PDF optimization. Because Irey's experience is only with Adobe Photoshop, he makes the mistake of assuming that's the only way you could get the effects of unsharp masking. But because I am qualified in the overall field and have general knowledge of image processing techniques, I can say that this is a widely-used technique that isn't tied to any one particular tool or process.
It's like saying that because you've been a roofer and nothing but a roofer for 50 years, and you use knee pads and a hammer, that every subsequent sighting of a knee pad or a hammer has to be connected in some way to roofing. No, hammers and knee pads have other uses. So does USM. In this case it's used to see how sharp an edge can be created for shallower MRC objects without unacceptable changes in acutance. The shallower the resulting object, the smaller the overall file will be. But shallow objects require sharp edges, and USM creates those. Consequently PDF optimizers include USM filters under the hood.
Irey claims to have reproduced the "halo" effect using Adobe Photoshop. I'm sure he did, because Photoshop's implementation of the USM algorithm is just as robust as any other you'll find in the industry. But because you'll find it all over in the industry in a variety of applications, his demonstration doesn't prove Photoshop must have been used in any way to create a forged birth certificate. Photoshop provides the filter because it's a generally useful thing if you happen to be manipulating digital images.
And as before, Irey is pretty fuzzy on the details of how or why this would be done. The "halo" effect occurs when the boundary between light and dark regions is amplified by gently ramping up the brightness on the light side as you approach the boundary and gently ramping down the brightness on the dark side. That makes the boundary so much more distinct. If you remove the dark portion (as is done when the dark region is converted to a bitmask), you're left with the light-side ramp-up -- the "halo." And this is one of the most noticeable things about heavily optimized PDFs. The light-dark boundaries are sometimes comically distinct, and it admittedly gives the document an artificial appearance.
Which then raises the question why a competent forger would take an explicit step whose effect is to decrease the visual credibility of the document? Aggressive unsharp masking is necessary in MRC segmentation, but it's considered amateur in photographic processing.
It's likely that an effective cross examination would have undermined this, but the opportunity did not arise.
Overall Paul Irey's testimony fails for the same general reason most conspiracy theories fail: it attributes the "suspicion" born of ignorance to some vague nefarious plot. Irey can think of no legitimate reason why these features should appear in the optimized PDF, so he concludes it "must" be a forgery. He doesn't consider (and there was little cross examination to help him realize) that his inability to think of legitimate reasons is because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And this is not anything we haven't heard before. As I said, this is old-school Birther arguments. Irey hasn't updated his spiel to account for concessions made by the consensus of the Birther community. He's still pushing his same old discredited and debunked claims.
The plaintiff's team fails to understand a number of things, not the least being how to present expert testimony.
- One's own affirmative pleading cannot be held up as the default. Affirmative claims of forgery have the burden of proof. "I can't imagine how this would have legitimately arisen," does not satisfy that burden.
- The expertise in question is not Photoshop or typewriters, but the forensic detection of forgery and the forensic analysis of documents, none of which is present in Birther experts.
- The specifics of the Birther forgery scenario are a contradictory and irrational agglomeration of ad hoc claims arising circularly out of their misinterpretation of the evidence. They have decided ahead of time that forgery is the explanation, and they're desperately trying to shoehorn the evidence into that predetermined conclusion.
- The hypothetical forger in their scenario would have to be an incompetent nincompoop, and so the story is implausible on its face.
- There have no actual evidence that forgery occurred; they infer it as a default from their interpretation of the evidence. This is just a clever attempt to shift the burden of proof.
- There are simpler and better supported explanations for all the Bithers' claimed anomalies. Birthers fail to consider them because they have no legitimate expertise.
- There are simpler and more effective ways to forge a document. Birthers fail to consider these because they do not fit the evidence.
- The PDF file is irrelevant to the candidate's eligibility. The certified paper copy was used, and none of the Birther claims in this suit address the paper copy in the least.
That should about cover it for now.
brazenlilraisin
...tart
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 661
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Barack Obama, the biggest damned newbie EVER!!!!!
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 4,066
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Man, was Obama a huge baby, or what? Was he born 6 months late, or something?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
The Fog of Conspiracy Thickens
Were those two "independent" newspaper accounts of Obama's birth faked???
From: The American Thinker
October 27, 2012
Are Obama's 1961 Birth Announcements Fake?
By Shawn Glasco
"Did someone from the Hawaii Newspaper Agency in the summer of 2008 intentionally cut and paste blocks in a random fashion in order to sow confusion into "phonied up" August 12, 13, 14, 1961 microfilms?"
"FOX news anchor Bill O'Reilly stated that although he is "very busy," he has in fact himself "looked into the birth certificate" and "found out there were two separate birth announcements made in Honolulu newspapers on the day Barack Obama was born."
"O'Reilly then estimated off the top of his head the "odds" that someone was "conspiritorializing" the birth of a "little mixed-race baby" and "planted" two newspaper birth announcements in 1961 are about "29 gazillion to one." Someday, when O'Reilly isn't too busy, he might try calculating the odds that, during the summer of 2008, a fake birth certificate was planted on a Saul Alinsky-inspired website, and two fake 1961 newspaper birth announcements were planted on the web by a complicit Hawaii Health Department, two "independent" newspapers, two anonymous bloggers, and by an unknown filmmaker who believed that more Americans were killed in the 1990s by right-wing terrorists than by foreign terrorists."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...r_birth_announcements_fake.html#ixzz2AXCjWO7u
Were those two "independent" newspaper accounts of Obama's birth faked???
From: The American Thinker
October 27, 2012
Are Obama's 1961 Birth Announcements Fake?
By Shawn Glasco
"Did someone from the Hawaii Newspaper Agency in the summer of 2008 intentionally cut and paste blocks in a random fashion in order to sow confusion into "phonied up" August 12, 13, 14, 1961 microfilms?"
"FOX news anchor Bill O'Reilly stated that although he is "very busy," he has in fact himself "looked into the birth certificate" and "found out there were two separate birth announcements made in Honolulu newspapers on the day Barack Obama was born."
"O'Reilly then estimated off the top of his head the "odds" that someone was "conspiritorializing" the birth of a "little mixed-race baby" and "planted" two newspaper birth announcements in 1961 are about "29 gazillion to one." Someday, when O'Reilly isn't too busy, he might try calculating the odds that, during the summer of 2008, a fake birth certificate was planted on a Saul Alinsky-inspired website, and two fake 1961 newspaper birth announcements were planted on the web by a complicit Hawaii Health Department, two "independent" newspapers, two anonymous bloggers, and by an unknown filmmaker who believed that more Americans were killed in the 1990s by right-wing terrorists than by foreign terrorists."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...r_birth_announcements_fake.html#ixzz2AXCjWO7u
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It is time for a fringe reset already?
Robert, before we discuss this new tabloid article, based largely on Internet blog posts, in support of a new claim, why don't you first answer the many open questions about your previous tabloid-based-on-blogs evidence.
Or you might even take notice of how poorly your "experts" performed in court.
Robert, before we discuss this new tabloid article, based largely on Internet blog posts, in support of a new claim, why don't you first answer the many open questions about your previous tabloid-based-on-blogs evidence.
Or you might even take notice of how poorly your "experts" performed in court.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
What an astonishing attempt to drum up something out of nothing.
- Status