Jul 22 2008
Seems the rock solid evidence of a forgery is not so rock solid all of a sudden – with new data coming to light supporting the information on the Obama COLB. TexasDarling is the one eating the crow on this one, but at least she/he has the integrity to post the data and admit the whole COLB thing was a waste of time (H/T Reader Kathie):
Based on all the research and analysis to date, here is what I believe today, not to be accepted as fact by anyone who wants to believe something else:
1. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, the hospital still unknown for some reason, on Aug. 4, 1961. A birth announcement in the newspaper has been found by one of our researchers …
Hi, Iâ€™ve talked to the Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser.In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records.
Wonder how Techdud (yep, that is a deliberate typo) and Pam Geller are doing? Are they preparing some crow or building a wall of denial? Whatever, I did find this comment on the irrefutable evidence report quite telling:
OK, I considered it.
a) No matter how someone presents themselves an “expert in forgeries” – to suggest you can determine something a forgery by comparing (1) different documents (2) printed on different printers and then (3) scanned in on different scanners (4) at different resolutions before being (5) saved at different resolutions
It’s like diagnosing illness from TV with the sound off. I don’t know how to get more clear about it – you, Techdude, nor anyone else aren’t even in direct contact with the evidence.
And further – you don’t even have any evidence that any “crime” has even occurred! You just want to believe there is a crime, because you don’t like him – for reasons we all know you decided long before there was any thought that his birth certificate might not be accurate.
b) The differences that are being suggested as “proof of forgery” are *exactly the kind of differences* you can expect from, you guessed it,
(1) different documents (2) printed on different printers and then (3) scanned in on different scanners (4) at different resolutions before being (5) saved at different resolutions.
But you want to believe you have found something. Well alright then! Have at it.
I believe that was the point I was making – this person just did it quite succinctly.