Jul 22 2008

The Cult Of The COLB Under Fire

Pamela is getting it from all sides by real professional document investigators (check out the comments by Furious T).  Some examples:

Folks: I’m in techdude’s industry as well, and you simply cannot do this kind of “forensic” examination on a COPY of a document without having access to the original. In other words, nothing techdude wrote matters at all because he didn’t work with the original document. Period. It is absolutely laughable that we can draw any conclusions from an electronic COPY of a document posted on a third-party website. And I know of no credentialed investigator who would assert otherwise.

Which is why techdude should be vetted, in my opinion. As a matter of professional responsibility, a bold accusation such as this (particularly one based on a COPY of the document in question) should be accompanied by the actual name of the investigator, his license number and the state in which he’s licensed, and the name of his investigative company. Even better would be a list of the cases he’s worked on and/or testifed at trial.

My whole point is that I cannot comment on techdude’s “analysis” because he’s not working with an original document. None of what he found matters. It is not, as Pamela claims, “suitable for the courtroom,” again precisely because he did not use an original document. Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, there is no way to determine that Obama’s birth certificate as posted by Kos or the LA Times is a forgery without having access to the original document. And I am personally surprised that any self-professed forensic investigator would say otherwise.

With all due respect, Pamela, you haven’t even begun to investigate this issue. What’s particularly troubling is that there are numerous avenues by which you could attempt to acquire your own copy of the birth certificate. You would require knowledge about Hawaii public records, their storage and delivery, how the Hawaii Department of Health handles requests for certified copies of birth certificates, and the location of archival documents from the town and facility in which Obama was born. There are literally dozens of ways I could determine whether or not Obama was actually born in Oahu, none of which would require document forensics. Again, it’s astounding to me that a self-professed “legal investigator” and “private investigator” would not have exhausted the brick-and-mortar route (a sadly fading enterprise among today’s PIs) before undertaking this highly specious analysis.

Ouch, that pretty much nails the quality level of this supposed report. Just an FYI. BTW – still looking for a COLB circa 2006-2008 with the same green border as seen in the Obama COLB.

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “The Cult Of The COLB Under Fire”

  1. Ray_in_Aus says:

    AJStrata wrote:

    Dale,

    I am not his friend and he can say what he wants.

    ===============

    And that’s how it should be too, if meaningful dialogue is to take place amongst strangers.

    I suppose if people all had to fill out a big questionnaire about all sorts of things, we’d find a lot of agreement but that doesn’t make them friends.

    On this particular issue of the forged COLB, both AJ and myself just happened to be declaring that we were not swayed by baseless speculation – especially when it defied logic and the odds to an astonishing degree. If the truth be known, Bin Laden himself may have agreed that it was likely to be total nonsense.

    Ray

  2. AJStrata says:

    BTW Ray, I know a lot of really nice people who are not my friends – yet

  3. Ray_in_Aus says:

    DaleinAtlanta wrote:

    “He’s like a Jihadi practicing “Taqiyah”; “I’ll lie, suck up to AJ, agree with him on this because he believes in it passionately, then I’ll sneak in behind with the Pro-Jihadi bullcrap, and by that time, I own him.”
    =================

    Hey, I still need to find out where AJ’s coming from before I could possibly try to “indoctrinate” him. Hell, I don’t even know which political party he’s currently backing. All I know is that he’s not an Obama fan, but neither am I. I just want to see Obama and everyone else get a fair deal – for a few reasons, but partly because things run smoother if people are not carrying grudges around for years after getting shafted.

    I’m not all talk and no action. Look at how much of a fair deal I’ve given you. I could have marginalized you on day one, but instead of doing that I’ve repeatedly put up with your lies – knowing that when I do eventually cross you off my Christmas card list, you will know for sure that you’ve only got yourself to blame.

    Ray

  4. AJ: here is a post from over at Atlas; would you happen to have an explaination?

    There is an anomaly I have not seen discussed in this matter, which may be seen as significant.

    The Form number AND REVISION DATE are the same on both the alleged Obama certificate and on the Decosta certificate, yet there is a significant “printed form” difference including a difference in the title of the state official involved: The “Obama” certificate shows on the printed form “date accepted by state registrar” while the Decosta certificate shows “date filed by registrar” instead, yet BOTH are noted as being “Form OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11.01) LASER”.

    It would seem that the distinction of the change of the officer’s title as being “registrar” or “state registrar”, as well as the distinction of “filed” vs. “accepted” are significant enough linguistic changes that a different form revision date would have been required by state procedures if both are genuine!

    AJ; I am NOT playing “gotcha” here, I think it MIGHT be a point, but frankly I’m too lazy to even try and figure it out!

    What do you think?

  5. Ray_in_Aus says:

    DaleinAtlanta wrote:

    “The Form number AND REVISION DATE are the same on both the alleged Obama certificate and on the Decosta certificate, yet there is a significant “printed form” difference including a difference in the title of the state official involved: The “Obama” certificate shows on the printed form “date accepted by state registrar” while the Decosta certificate shows “date filed by registrar” instead, yet BOTH are noted as being “Form OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11.01) LASER”.”
    ================

    I can help a bit with that. The rep for the Hawaii Health Dept has acknowledged that one or both of those changes were made without them having altered the Form number. Form numbers are only an internal office matters usually.

    Ray

  6. AJStrata says:

    Dale,

    It’s nothing. The version numbers haven’t changed since 2001, but the format has. No biggy, normal government bureaucracy.

  7. AJStrata says:

    Dale,

    Do me a favor and go over to Pam’s and ask Furious T to email me [ajstrata@stratap-sphere.com].

    He has some bomb shell data, I can tell. If he wants, he can post it here.

    AJStrata

  8. Okay AJ, in about 5min…

  9. AJStrata says:

    Thanks, whenever. Pam still has me sleeping on the couch, so to speak.

  10. Ray_in_Aus says:

    Seen on another blog:

    [....]

    “It appeared in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961. It said that Mr. and Mrs. BHO had a son on Aug. 4, 1961. Gives their address as 605 Kalaninole Highway. It does not give the name of a hospital were the birth occurred or the name of the son.
    [...]”

    Ray

  11. Ray_in_Aus says:

    AJ,

    Is there any chance of getting a dedicated “back-pedalling” thread going for the forgery and false birth data allegations, so we can log a stack of them for posterity?

    Ray

  12. VinceP1974 says:

    I wish all of you would shut up about this already. It’s cluttering my RSS feed .

  13. bomza says:

    AJ,

    You loved what Furious T wrote so much that it’s practically your entire post. Thank you.

    Once again you make my point for me without realizing it.

    You quote Furious T when he says…”Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, there is no way to determine that Obama’s birth certificate as posted by Kos or the LA Times is a forgery without having access to the original document.”

    Amen to that. Absolutely true. No question about it. And there is also NO WAY that the Obama campaign can expect the American public to accept a posted image as PROOF of his birth certificate despite their continued lies to the American people in their Google ad saying “See the ORIGINAL birth certificate.”

    Could you please stop this back and forth nonsense and just ask the Obama campaign to release the paper birth certificate so we can THEN determine if it is a forgery or not?

    And if it is genuine, what’s the problem?

  14. AJStrata says:

    Bomza,

    Why would I waste my time on YOUR fantasy? Look, all the work done to date points to a scan of a legitimate COLB.

    move on!

  15. AJStrata says:

    Ray,

    I cannot wait until I can stick a fork in this and leave it behind. If you want something fun to look at check out my posts on the Downing Street Memo fraud – that was something!

  16. AJStrata says:

    Thanks Dale – owe you one!

  17. bomza says:

    “Bomza,

    Look, all the work done to date points to a scan of a legitimate COLB.”

    AJ, Do you even realize how often you contradict yourself?

    Furious T – ”Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, there is no way to determine that Obama’s birth certificate as posted by Kos or the LA Times is a forgery without having access to the original document.”

    So NOW you DON’T think Furious T has a valid point?

    Which is it???
    A) You believe Furious T when he says a scan can’t be proved to be real or not
    B) All the work done to date points to a legitimate scan.

    Make up your mind. Which is it???

  18. Ray_in_Aus says:

    bomza wrote:

    [......]

    Which is it???
    A) You believe Furious T when he says a scan can’t be proved to be real or not
    B) All the work done to date points to a legitimate scan.

    Make up your mind. Which is it???
    .

    Both statements are true, so it’s actually you who needs to understand (or should I say concede) what’s going on.

    Ray