Yepp, Trump is still a birther!!

[Syriusly]

No

Just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

That's not a refutation....just so you know. Funny how Grandma was knocked off JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION. You have to be willingly blind not to connect the dots.

I am just pointing out the facts.

Just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

Those aren't facts, they are opinions in response to a post full of facts. You really suck at this, don't you?

No my post is factual.

Your post is innuendo- and as I point out- just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

And that is a fact.

So you can't refute it. Got it.

Refute innuendo?

Why would I even try to refute your passive aggressive typical Birther innuendo?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's not a refutation....just so you know. Funny how Grandma was knocked off JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION. You have to be willingly blind not to connect the dots.

I am just pointing out the facts.

Just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

Those aren't facts, they are opinions in response to a post full of facts. You really suck at this, don't you?

No my post is factual.

Your post is innuendo- and as I point out- just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

And that is a fact.

So you can't refute it. Got it.

Refute innuendo?

Why would I even try to refute your passive aggressive typical Birther innuendo?

My post was chock full of facts. Calling it innuendo is just a veiled admission that you can't contend with them.

 

[Syriusly]

I am just pointing out the facts.

Just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

Those aren't facts, they are opinions in response to a post full of facts. You really suck at this, don't you?

No my post is factual.

Your post is innuendo- and as I point out- just more Birther lies, speculation and innuendo.

And that is a fact.

So you can't refute it. Got it.

Refute innuendo?

Why would I even try to refute your passive aggressive typical Birther innuendo?

My post was chock full of facts. Calling it innuendo is just a veiled admission that you can't contend with them.

Your post had facts- and was entirely innuendo.

You do know what innuendo is- don't you?

Like if I asked:

"Does Saintmichaeldefendthem torture puppies and then sacrifice them to Jesus?"

That is innuendo.

That is what you are doing.

 

[RKMBrown]

At least by the adobe software that was used to scan the printed copy to make the version that was handed around. Whether manually edited as well could only be determined by reviewing the version of adobe they used and diffing the high res image of the original to the version that was passed around. What I would do is highlight the edits made by one of software and some user(s) and see if any hanky panky occured in the process of getting the image to us.

And again- how has the copy I posted been edited?

Which part of my answer confused you?

Your response didn't confuse me- your response didn't address the question- why do you think that photo has been edited?

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document. Basically the document they gave us is at best a mess. I'd like to see an un-retouched high resolution image of the original document please. And I'd like to have a data forensics expert look at the original file and attest to the originality of said document.

 

[Syriusly]

And again- how has the copy I posted been edited?

Which part of my answer confused you?

Your response didn't confuse me- your response didn't address the question- why do you think that photo has been edited?

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

 

[RKMBrown]

Which part of my answer confused you?

Your response didn't confuse me- your response didn't address the question- why do you think that photo has been edited?

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

 

[Syriusly]

Your response didn't confuse me- your response didn't address the question- why do you think that photo has been edited?

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because it has. The handlers used adobe to scan it then print it again during a couple steps in the handling of what we eventually saw, it's not a high res photo of what they originally received. The only reason I know of to use adobe for this is when you want to add stuff to it such as comments or adding additional text that you want to look like it was originally there.

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers. It's also just a low resolution "processed" jpg of a supposed photo of a supposed document. It's not the original photo of the document. If it was an original photo I could give you a ton of information about it. As it is just a low res filtered jpg ... all I can tell you is it's a low res processed jpg.

 

[Syriusly]

'because it has'- and how do you know this? I mean other than waving your magic Birther wand over your monitor?

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

You are not listening.. The photo you showed me is not a photo taken from a camera. The jpg you linked to is a low resolution image that was not taken by a camera. The low resolution image was produced by undocumented image processing software. The jpg you linked to may be a processed version of what she took with a camera, but I see no evidence of that other than you saying she said it's her's.

I could take the jpg you gave me put my pic in it, and give you the same file. Then I could say this is the photo I took and you would have no proof I'm telling the truth or lying.

 

[RKMBrown]

Cause the document they provided includes evidence of the editing. It has been widely reported that the editing, at least by software, occurred. Being an expert on image files, I looked at the file and they correctly reported the fact that an odd tool was used in the steps of getting the image to us. A tool that is typically used to "EDIT" documents. Not a tool that is used to make an actual image of the document.

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

I didn't say I did not believe any of that. I believe every one of those statements to be correct. Well other than the fact that states can't talk. Oh and I wish I had the actual pic she took with her camera... then I could compare her photo to the scan. You'll note that she took a photo of a printout that itself was photocopy. So we have some jpg imaging software that reduced the resolution of some picture, we have the supposed photo from Savannah, we have the supposed photo copy from the state, ... dunno just a lot of things between me and the actual original document.

Trust but verify, comprehende?

 

[Syriusly]

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

You are not listening.. The photo you showed me is not a photo taken from a camera. The jpg you linked to is a low resolution image that was not taken by a camera. The low resolution image was produced by undocumented image processing software. The jpg you linked to may be a processed version of what she took with a camera, but I see no evidence of that other than you saying she said it's her's.

I could take the jpg you gave me put my pic in it, and give you the same file. Then I could say this is the photo I took and you would have no proof I'm telling the truth or lying.

I read what you posted previously fine- and this is the first time you have addressed this image.

It is pretty obvious that this image was originally taken with a camera- just from the image itself.

This is the image that was posted by reporter Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
Not a single reporter who saw the originals says that what the White House or Ms. Guthrie posted was not the same.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

 

[Syriusly]

Ah- so you were assuming that was the image I provided- and ASSumed again that the photo I posted had been edited.

If you are an expert on image files- look at that image I provided and tell me the evidence it has been 'edited'.

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

I didn't say I did not believe any of that. I believe every one of those statements to be correct. Well other than the fact that states can't talk. Oh and I wish I had the actual pic she took with her camera... then I could compare her photo to the scan. You'll note that she took a photo of a printout that itself was photocopy. So we have some jpg imaging software that reduced the resolution of some picture, we have the supposed photo from Savannah, we have the supposed photo copy from the state, ... dunno just a lot of things between me and the actual original document.

Trust but verify, comprehende?

And the verification has come from the State of Hawaii.

And that is 100% more than was done by or for any previous President.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

You are not listening.. The photo you showed me is not a photo taken from a camera. The jpg you linked to is a low resolution image that was not taken by a camera. The low resolution image was produced by undocumented image processing software. The jpg you linked to may be a processed version of what she took with a camera, but I see no evidence of that other than you saying she said it's her's.

I could take the jpg you gave me put my pic in it, and give you the same file. Then I could say this is the photo I took and you would have no proof I'm telling the truth or lying.

I read what you posted previously fine- and this is the first time you have addressed this image.

It is pretty obvious that this image was originally taken with a camera- just from the image itself.

This is the image that was posted by reporter Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
Not a single reporter who saw the originals says that what the White House or Ms. Guthrie posted was not the same.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

My guess is she took a photo of a "printout" of the document that the POTUS handler handed out. I would say that is a very good guess. However I have no proof that she took a photo of the document that the POTUS was handed by the State of Hawaii folks. Nor do I have proof that what the State of Hawaii folks provided is real. Thus at least two points of contention in the chain of document handling. Not to mention the obvious fact that the original document appears to have been put together over an extended period of time. Too bad the doctor's dead would have been interesting to hear his story of the birth. I should think Barry's birth parents would have been memorable.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've not looked at your document. I don't really care too. What did you do add a picture of a mouse?

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

I didn't say I did not believe any of that. I believe every one of those statements to be correct. Well other than the fact that states can't talk. Oh and I wish I had the actual pic she took with her camera... then I could compare her photo to the scan. You'll note that she took a photo of a printout that itself was photocopy. So we have some jpg imaging software that reduced the resolution of some picture, we have the supposed photo from Savannah, we have the supposed photo copy from the state, ... dunno just a lot of things between me and the actual original document.

Trust but verify, comprehende?

And the verification has come from the State of Hawaii.

And that is 100% more than was done by or for any previous President.

Not many US President's have been the son of a communist official either and who's mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a well know communist, and who's friend included a domestic terrorist, ....

 

[Syriusly]

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

You are not listening.. The photo you showed me is not a photo taken from a camera. The jpg you linked to is a low resolution image that was not taken by a camera. The low resolution image was produced by undocumented image processing software. The jpg you linked to may be a processed version of what she took with a camera, but I see no evidence of that other than you saying she said it's her's.

I could take the jpg you gave me put my pic in it, and give you the same file. Then I could say this is the photo I took and you would have no proof I'm telling the truth or lying.

I read what you posted previously fine- and this is the first time you have addressed this image.

It is pretty obvious that this image was originally taken with a camera- just from the image itself.

This is the image that was posted by reporter Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
Not a single reporter who saw the originals says that what the White House or Ms. Guthrie posted was not the same.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

My guess is she took a photo of a "printout" of the document that the POTUS handler handed out. I would say that is a very good guess. However I have no proof that she took a photo of the document that the POTUS was handed by the State of Hawaii folks. Nor do I have proof that what the State of Hawaii folks provided is real. Thus at least two points of contention in the chain of document handling. Not to mention the obvious fact that the original document appears to have been put together over an extended period of time. Too bad the doctor's dead would have been interesting to hear his story of the birth. I should think Barry's birth parents would have been memorable.

She took a photo of the certified photocopy that was handed out- with the imprinted seal of the State of Hawaii.

And I am sure that the doctor regrets being dead also- but why you think that a doctor in his 90's would remember one specific birth 50 years before.....or how he could verify that that baby is the adult Barack Obama is beyond me.

Again to recap:

State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
Not a single reporter who saw the originals says that what the White House or Ms. Guthrie posted was not the same.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

 

[Syriusly]

So you don't know whether that document is 'edited'- you just assume it is. Silly Birther.

I did not say that. Is there a particular reason you are being such a stupid piece of shit?

I've looked over the document that you linked from that web site, and no that document does not exhibit the same type of tell tale signs of editing as did the document provided by the POTUS handlers.

And why would it? That is the photo taken by Savannah Guthrie- and posted on the internet by her- of the certified original that was handed around to reporters to examine- and it happens to be identical regarding the facts to the one that the White House released.

To recap:
State of Hawaii says President Obama born in Hawaii
State of Hawaii says it issued certified photocopies of the original BC
White House scans and posts copy of the BC sent by Hawaii
President Obama shows said certified copies to reporters.
Savannah Guthrie photographs 1 of the copies- which is virtually identical to the one the White House posts.
State of Hawaii says that the White House posted on the internet Obama's certified Birth Certificate.

So of course you don't believe any of that.

I didn't say I did not believe any of that. I believe every one of those statements to be correct. Well other than the fact that states can't talk. Oh and I wish I had the actual pic she took with her camera... then I could compare her photo to the scan. You'll note that she took a photo of a printout that itself was photocopy. So we have some jpg imaging software that reduced the resolution of some picture, we have the supposed photo from Savannah, we have the supposed photo copy from the state, ... dunno just a lot of things between me and the actual original document.

Trust but verify, comprehende?

And the verification has come from the State of Hawaii.

And that is 100% more than was done by or for any previous President.

Not many US President's have been the son of a communist official either and who's mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a well know communist, and who's friend included a domestic terrorist, ....

Sigh.

Barack Obama Sr. was not a particularly good man- but there is absolutely no evidence that he was a 'communist official'- just another Birther lie.

And if he was? Being a communist is perfectly legal in the United States, and does not somehow make someone's birth certificate mandatory.

Same with his family friend and mentor.

Same with his casual acquantance with a former domestic terrorist.

Birthers didn't believe Obama's BC before you knew about Ayers or Davis, and before the lies about his father were circulating- and continue not to believe it because if you believed the evidence- your entire house of cards would collapse.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I ask again:

Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced after spending millions to keep it sealed?

And, why is the certificate number on the short form markedly out of sequence with the certificate numbers that were issued just before and just after it? "Clerical error"??? Really??? By that much???

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here are some good articles on some of the technical evidence of forgery in Obama's birth documents:

Articles Obama s Other Big Lie

Forged creation matches Obama s birth certificate

Articles Obama Revealed More Than His Birth Certificate Last Year

 

[G.T.]

@ birthers