Obama's Birth Certificate faked?

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

OCR software does that? ORLY? I've used OCR software and it hasn't done that at all. What is your source of information? I haven't tried it on my own birth certificate to see if there might be something very strange about OCR software that could confirm what you say. Have you tried it? What makes you think OCR software would create all those layers and what makes you think that the signature would not show gradients?

For the record, I think that the certificate is legitimate, but the scan was purposely manipulated for Obama with the purpose of continuing the discussion. He gained politically by the original call to produce the certificate, so he wants to see if he can do it again. Nothing else makes sense. Your OCR expanation makes no sense. Perhaps you can change mine (and others) minds by demonstrating this effect on other birth certificates or documents. That is a challenge for you. I expect you to fail utterly in that pursuit, but would certainly welcome the effort, and acknowledge your win if it is a reproduceable effect.

I still haven't watched parts 2, 3 and 4. I will do that tonight!

Do you even know the difference between scanning an image to a PDF, and making a photocopy? You clearly don't seem to grasp the difference.


Here are people actually showing photos that even include the seal:

http://nation.foxnews.com/media/2009...th-certificate





It certainly DOES make birther's look completely stupid. So if it is a trap by Obama, it's working!!! Your credibility on all issues sinks more and more with every post.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

OCR software does that? ORLY? I've used OCR software and it hasn't done that at all. What is your source of information? I haven't tried it on my own birth certificate to see if there might be something very strange about OCR software that could confirm what you say. Have you tried it? What makes you think OCR software would create all those layers and what makes you think that the signature would not show gradients?

For the record, I think that the certificate is legitimate, but the scan was purposely manipulated for Obama with the purpose of continuing the discussion. He gained politically by the original call to produce the certificate, so he wants to see if he can do it again. Nothing else makes sense. Your OCR expanation makes no sense. Perhaps you can change mine (and others) minds by demonstrating this effect on other birth certificates or documents. That is a challenge for you. I expect you to fail utterly in that pursuit, but would certainly welcome the effort, and acknowledge your win if it is a reproduceable effect.

I still haven't watched parts 2, 3 and 4. I will do that tonight!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...athan-goulding


The RIGHT WING National Review has already done the work on OCR. No need to redo it.



PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate
April 27, 2011 2:35 P.M.
By Nathan Goulding

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

UPDATE II: For those of you who still aren’t convinced, here’s a one-page PDF that I just scanned and optimized, so you can see for yourself that an optimized PDF shows up in Illustrator as layers. (I didn’t spend hours getting the settings right.)


Your conspiracy theory was killed almost a MONTH ago!!

Stop falling into Obama's trap to make you look like a complete moron.

[M3Bahn]

LOL, when will it end?

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by 11Series

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...athan-goulding


The RIGHT WING National Review has already done the work on OCR. No need to redo it.



PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate
April 27, 2011 2:35 P.M.
By Nathan Goulding

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

UPDATE II: For those of you who still aren’t convinced, here’s a one-page PDF that I just scanned and optimized, so you can see for yourself that an optimized PDF shows up in Illustrator as layers. (I didn’t spend hours getting the settings right.)


Your conspiracy theory was killed almost a MONTH ago!!

Stop falling into Obama's trap to make you look like a complete moron.

If you watched the 4th video, you would see for your self that 3 different birth certificates were compared side by side. And Obamas looked like it was photoshoped from ground up compared to other 2 that are original and belong to other people.





Plus, why is there an odd line on the left side from top to bottom that looked like page was folded or has some odd shadow? I circled it in red.

[11Series]

oh jesus christ.

The right wing National Review already covered the issues of scanner artifacts. Nearly a MONTH AGO.


Obama was right. There is no point appeasing the psycho birthers. They will accept no proof. All proof will be the fodder for future conspiracy theories. I can't explain reality to people who reject it. Come back to reality if you want to debate something serious.

http://www.slate.com/id/2295128/


Besides, everyone knows that O'bama was born in Ireland, not Kenya.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by xbook

Oh my god you guys are FUCKING RETARDED!!!!

Thank you! The mental image I conjured up of you screaming at the screen had me laughing so hard I got tears in my eyes. But I think are being overly generous, this circle jerk is beyond inane. Whew!

p.s. Got no use for Nobama but this is just dumb as two left shoes.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...athan-goulding

The RIGHT WING National Review has already done the work on OCR. No need to redo it.

PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate
April 27, 2011 2:35 P.M.
By Nathan Goulding

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

UPDATE II: For those of you who still aren’t convinced, here’s a one-page PDF that I just scanned and optimized, so you can see for yourself that an optimized PDF shows up in Illustrator as layers. (I didn’t spend hours getting the settings right.)


Your conspiracy theory was killed almost a MONTH ago!!

Stop falling into Obama's trap to make you look like a complete moron.

Thanks for copying and pasting that. Have you tried the scanning to PDF yourself? Unfortunately I don't have Windows and Adobe software anymore since I switched to Linux, The GIMP and Okular for my scanning and OCR. In these packages you don't get any of these junk layers. I don't even scan much anymore (I used to scan a lot but never made the error of leaving OCR on when it should be on). Maybe it was a stupid clerical mistake.

I still haven't watched videos 2, 3 and 4. In video 1, the piece that caught my eye was what could be either digital painting on the Dunham signature, or perhaps using threshold settings on the scan. Either that is deliberately tampering with the scanned image, or it is a strange thing that scanning with OCR would switch between gray scale and a threshold filter. It just doesn't add up.

I am not going to pick up copies of all these Windows software packages to see if I can recreate Obama's errors. Others can battle that out.

Again, thanks for posting, but in too many of your comments you are not discussing issues and information. You are attacking others who want to discuss these things. That is simply unacceptable language. You need to just stop it. Post rational replies without cutting remarks and you will be taken much more seriously, and perhaps not be shouting at your computer screen.

Jerome Corsi's book has shipped. I'll have my copy soon. Maybe I will read it soon and have more to discuss. But your anger and your haranguing in these forums in not conducive to rational discussion, but is more likely to elicit shallow replies if anything. It is as if you have been coached by ACORN how to shout down opposing views in the hope of silencing them.

If you have calmed your tone, then I apologize. I think I get you mixed up with xbook at times because you both often post together. I am not going to go back and read them again to see who was who.

[scottwww]

What is of much greater importance than this in regard to Obama's birth: Did Obama become an Indonesian citizen? Did he lose his U.S. citizenship at that time? When did he regain U.S. citizenship? Is this a disqualifier for the term "natural born Citizen"?

And another angle: As Barack Obama's father was a British subject, is one U.S. citizen parent enough to establish "natural born Citizen" status for a child who is even born on U.S. soil? And what about Ann Dunham possibly not having been old enough to have had her citizenship and the location of birth together fully trump the nature of citizenship that would partly come down from the father?

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by 11Series

oh jesus christ.

The right wing National Review already covered the issues of scanner artifacts. Nearly a MONTH AGO.


Obama was right. There is no point appeasing the psycho birthers. They will accept no proof. All proof will be the fodder for future conspiracy theories. I can't explain reality to people who reject it. Come back to reality if you want to debate something serious.

http://www.slate.com/id/2295128/


Besides, everyone knows that O'bama was born in Ireland, not Kenya.

Tell me, what is the abnormality that is circled in red?? What has caused it?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by KGB7

Tell me, what is the abnormality that is circled in red?? What has caused it?

Is that a clip from the PDF that the Whitehouse released? If it is, how could it make sense? Why would there bee a border around the page that merges with the pattern on the page except where the page folds over into a binding?

Interesting find.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by scottwww

What is of much greater importance than this in regard to Obama's birth: Did Obama become an Indonesian citizen? Did he lose his U.S. citizenship at that time? When did he regain U.S. citizenship? Is this a disqualifier for the term "natural born Citizen"?

And another angle: As Barack Obama's father was a British subject, is one U.S. citizen parent enough to establish "natural born Citizen" status for a child who is even born on U.S. soil? And what about Ann Dunham possibly not having been old enough to have had her citizenship and the location of birth together fully trump the nature of citizenship that would partly come down from the father?

Why can't you realize that people get frustrated with you, because you keep asking the same questions and making the same statements, over and over again, while ignoring the answers which have been provided.

It has been established probably 20 or 30 times in this forum that a child does not lose citizenship by living in another country - this whole train of discussion is moot. Further, it was never a secret that Obama's father was not a US citizen, yet you act as if you are revealing something that hasn't yet been considered.

As far as the birth certificate, the logical explanation is that it's real, and that's the end of it. There's a big difference between "healthy scepticism" and being pigheaded. You're latching onto this image analysis conspiracy, while giving no consideration to the fact that Obama's 1961 birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers, and the validity of his birth records was certified by the republican governor of Hawaii.

But the real question is why you and others waste your lives discussing this meaningless topic. All legal challenges on this issue have been struck down long ago. Meanwhile, the 2012 republican field is pathetic, and with your "principle" of voting for minor candidates, you are not taking measures towards getting someone else into office (which is fine by me).

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Why can't you realize that people get frustrated with you, because you keep asking the same questions and making the same statements, over and over again, while ignoring the answers which have been provided.

The questions come up when there was no sufficiency in an answer. Which questions and statements have I made repeatedly?

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

It has been established probably 20 or 30 times in this forum that a child does not lose citizenship by living in another country - this whole train of discussion is moot.

The question is not whether you lose citizenship by living in another country. They question includes what was his citizenship when he was admitted to an Islamic school? Do you have to be Indonesian to go to an Islamic school? What was his citizenship when he went to Pakistan? If he was American in Pakistan, did he break the law? If he was Indonesian, could he have dual citizenship? Or was his citizenship renounced to become and Indonesian citizen? There are likely more questions in this line of reasoning that I have not considered. I have tried to get the discussion going here, because these are the forums where I post. What has been discussed of this subject in other forums?

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Further, it was never a secret that Obama's father was not a US citizen, yet you act as if you are revealing something that hasn't yet been considered.

Everyone know that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. That is not the question. The question is whether his father's citizenship being British made it impossible for his son to be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. The argument being whether BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens AND the child be born on U.S. soil in order to be a "natural born Citizen". There is information at points in U.S. and pre-U.S. history that are emminently appropriate to the argument. It takes effort to find the info to come closer to an understanding of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. And then it leads at some point to whether what the original intent of the Constitution even matters to present-day America.

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

As far as the birth certificate, the logical explanation is that it's real, and that's the end of it. There's a big difference between "healthy scepticism" and being pigheaded. You're latching onto this image analysis conspiracy, while giving no consideration to the fact that Obama's 1961 birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers, and the validity of his birth records was certified by the republican governor of Hawaii.

I think that the birth certificate is probably real. It is possibly something that has been actively used by Obama as a means of deflecting attention of some of his critics from the more important points of his citizenship, and also of his policies. There are interesting points of discussion about the certificate and the apparent inconsistencies with scan. With the certificate numbering, and I don't know what all else as in this thread it is my first look at it. I am interested in hearing both sides of the argument in a thoughtful way. The shouting and the insulting is not a discussion. As for corroborating evidence in the newspapers: This is part of the argument favoring Hawaii as the location of birth. There are explanations for how that could have occurred, but I have not paid much attention to that. Others may have more to say about that. If it could be established that Obama was born in Kenya, then we have a major problem. Assuming he was born in Hawaii, there are things that should be discussed that have not been dealt with in these forums except to be dismissed by some before any discovery is made. This is the court of public opinion and there should be evidence presented, rather than assumptions based on ignorance alone.

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

But the real question is why you and others waste your lives discussing this meaningless topic. All legal challenges on this issue have been struck down long ago. Meanwhile, the 2012 republican field is pathetic, and with your "principle" of voting for minor candidates, you are not taking measures towards getting someone else into office (which is fine by me).

Why do people waste their time talking about tax policy? Why do people discuss gasoline prices? Why do people discuss the stock market? Why talk about the job market? Why talk about the environment? Why talk about war? We discuss these, because they are interesting even if individually we can't change what happens outside our immediate sphere of influence. Courts have been known to make mistakes. Courts have become political entitites. Even the Supreme Court is nearly always divided with a significant minority opinion. Just because a court decision happens, it doesn't mean discussion ends with the people. I can choose to support whom I wish in elections. My vote for a small party candidate is much more valuable than a vote for someone in the siamese twin parties. There can be exceptions to that principle where I do support someone running as if one of the twins.

Fianlly, thanks for the more civil tone of voice.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Is that a clip from the PDF that the Whitehouse released? If it is, how could it make sense? Why would there bee a border around the page that merges with the pattern on the page except where the page folds over into a binding?

Interesting find.

Yes, its directly taken from white house Gov website.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...th-certificate

[xerox445]

Originally Posted by Spoolin335

How about you chill out.... first off i am not even American so i dont care who your president is, nor do i even have a say in it.
I have no hate for Obama so before you get all high strung re read what i said.

I just simply posted a video that may prove his certificate is not legit.

Your country is my hat.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

too many of your comments you are not discussing issues and information. You are attacking others who want to discuss these things. That is simply unacceptable language. You need to just stop it. Post rational replies without cutting remarks and you will be taken much more seriously, and perhaps not be shouting at your computer screen.

But your anger and your haranguing in these forums in not conducive to rational discussion, but is more likely to elicit shallow replies if anything. It is as if you have been coached by ACORN how to shout down opposing views in the hope of silencing them.
.

Stop trying to play the refs. We all know the rules around here.

[11Series]

Do you actually think your "Thank you for Smoking" style non-debating posturing really influences the small minded among right wing voters?

You are obviously not stupid enough to believe your own BS yourself. So what I don't get is why you thing people on the right wing are so stupid that they will actually buy your Nick Naylor act? How insulting to right wingers.

Every single issue you have re-re-re-raised in this post has already been answered over and over.

Everyone knew Obama's father long before he ran for office. This was known before Obama's first copy of his certificate of live birth was made public. It was known before the second copy of his certificate of live birth was made public. Yet all we heard was "why doesn't Obama just show his birth cerfiticate and this will be over."

It's over.

Going to an Islamic school doesn't remove Natural Born US citizenship.
Visiting a foreign country doesn't remove Natural Born US citizenship.

Stop the Nick Naylor act.

Originally Posted by scottwww

The questions come up when there was no sufficiency in an answer. Which questions and statements have I made repeatedly?


The question is not whether you lose citizenship by living in another country. They question includes what was his citizenship when he was admitted to an Islamic school? Do you have to be Indonesian to go to an Islamic school? What was his citizenship when he went to Pakistan? If he was American in Pakistan, did he break the law? If he was Indonesian, could he have dual citizenship? Or was his citizenship renounced to become and Indonesian citizen? There are likely more questions in this line of reasoning that I have not considered. I have tried to get the discussion going here, because these are the forums where I post. What has been discussed of this subject in other forums?


Everyone know that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. That is not the question. The question is whether his father's citizenship being British made it impossible for his son to be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. The argument being whether BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens AND the child be born on U.S. soil in order to be a "natural born Citizen". There is information at points in U.S. and pre-U.S. history that are emminently appropriate to the argument. It takes effort to find the info to come closer to an understanding of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. And then it leads at some point to whether what the original intent of the Constitution even matters to present-day America.


I think that the birth certificate is probably real. It is possibly something that has been actively used by Obama as a means of deflecting attention of some of his critics from the more important points of his citizenship, and also of his policies. There are interesting points of discussion about the certificate and the apparent inconsistencies with scan. With the certificate numbering, and I don't know what all else as in this thread it is my first look at it. I am interested in hearing both sides of the argument in a thoughtful way. The shouting and the insulting is not a discussion. As for corroborating evidence in the newspapers: This is part of the argument favoring Hawaii as the location of birth. There are explanations for how that could have occurred, but I have not paid much attention to that. Others may have more to say about that. If it could be established that Obama was born in Kenya, then we have a major problem. Assuming he was born in Hawaii, there are things that should be discussed that have not been dealt with in these forums except to be dismissed by some before any discovery is made. This is the court of public opinion and there should be evidence presented, rather than assumptions based on ignorance alone.


Why do people waste their time talking about tax policy? Why do people discuss gasoline prices? Why do people discuss the stock market? Why talk about the job market? Why talk about the environment? Why talk about war? We discuss these, because they are interesting even if individually we can't change what happens outside our immediate sphere of influence. Courts have been known to make mistakes. Courts have become political entitites. Even the Supreme Court is nearly always divided with a significant minority opinion. Just because a court decision happens, it doesn't mean discussion ends with the people. I can choose to support whom I wish in elections. My vote for a small party candidate is much more valuable than a vote for someone in the siamese twin parties. There can be exceptions to that principle where I do support someone running as if one of the twins.

Fianlly, thanks for the more civil tone of voice.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

Do you actually think your "Thank you for Smoking" style non-debating posturing really influences the small minded among right wing voters?

You are obviously not stupid enough to believe your own BS yourself. So what I don't get is why you thing people on the right wing are so stupid that they will actually buy your Nick Naylor act? How insulting to right wingers.

Every single issue you have re-re-re-raised in this post has already been answered over and over.

Everyone knew Obama's father long before he ran for office. This was known before Obama's first copy of his certificate of live birth was made public. It was known before the second copy of his certificate of live birth was made public. Yet all we heard was "why doesn't Obama just show his birth cerfiticate and this will be over."

It's over.

Going to an Islamic school doesn't remove Natural Born US citizenship.
Visiting a foreign country doesn't remove Natural Born US citizenship.

Stop the Nick Naylor act.

It looks like you are jumping to all your conclusion with absolutely no support. Your re-re-re answers are conclusions with no foundational support. There was no discussion. You just are convinced you already know the answer and that everyone should accept your conclusion because you already know. You will need to persuade that your answer is correct, rather than dismiss questions as if they were nonsense.

For those who all they wanted was to see a long form birth certificate, they may be satisfied. For those who had the long form certificate as part of the question, they have only seen part of the question answered. For those who do not accept the evidence as untampered, they will require more convincing. No matter how much you think this is put to rest, are you aware that discussion continues in webspace, airwaves, and around the water cooler?

Suppose everyone accepted the birth certificate as valid and that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. What about the rest of the questions that are re-re-re raised? They have NOT been answered no matter how many times you claim they were.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by scottwww

It looks like you are jumping to all your conclusion with absolutely no support. Your re-re-re answers are conclusions with no foundational support. There was no discussion. You just are convinced you already know the answer and that everyone should accept your conclusion because you already know. You will need to persuade that your answer is correct, rather than dismiss questions as if they were nonsense.

For those who all they wanted was to see a long form birth certificate, they may be satisfied. For those who had the long form certificate as part of the question, they have only seen part of the question answered. For those who do not accept the evidence as untampered, they will require more convincing. No matter how much you think this is put to rest, are you aware that discussion continues in webspace, airwaves, and around the water cooler?

Suppose everyone accepted the birth certificate as valid and that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. What about the rest of the questions that are re-re-re raised? They have NOT been answered no matter how many times you claim they were.

So what exactly are you looking for? What proof can be given that would get you to believe it? My guess is NOTHING. You are unreasonable with what you are asking for. The proof has been given, but you decide to believe some ignorant video guy with a youtube account.

I still don't believe gravity is real, that shit's a gov't ploy to get me to purchase nice shoes.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by scottwww

The question is not whether you lose citizenship by living in another country. They question includes what was his citizenship when he was admitted to an Islamic school? Do you have to be Indonesian to go to an Islamic school? What was his citizenship when he went to Pakistan?

The question is whether his father's citizenship being British made it impossible for his son to be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. The argument being whether BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens AND the child be born on U.S. soil in order to be a "natural born Citizen".

You've done it again. Conclusive answers are given, and you ignore them. A minor child does not lose US citizenship in any of the situations you bring up. No matter how many questions you ask, the answer is that, as a child, Obama did not lose his US citizenship. That is why Obama was deemed eligible to run for President by all three branches of the US government, and by both major political parties. If there is something you are unclear about, then you need to do the research, not us.

Same is true for his natural born citizen status. You are asking questions that have been evidently answered years ago. Again, the government and both political parties, fully aware of the citizenship status of Obama's parents, deemed him eligible. So you can answer your own questions above.

I'm sure that if I wanted to waste my time, I could come up with a large list of Presidents and eligible candidates, who have had a non-citizen parent. But it's not necessary for me to prove any of that to you, because the evidence lies in our current President.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by xbook

So what exactly are you looking for? What proof can be given that would get you to believe it? My guess is NOTHING. You are unreasonable with what you are asking for. The proof has been given, but you decide to believe some ignorant video guy with a youtube account.

I still don't believe gravity is real, that shit's a gov't ploy to get me to purchase nice shoes.

For what has been discussed in the videos, I am willing to look at both sides of the argument. What effect scanning with OCR to PDF has on a document may explain some of the anomalies. I don't have the resources (Windows computer and necessary software) to make tests of my own that would confirm or refute either side of the argument. Therefore on the authenticity of the document, I will take an interest in the argument, ask questions, and see what really grabs my attention. For a start, look at KGB7's post. What is the explanation for that?

Then to get to where my interest in the subject of Obama's citizenship is found... Really it is an entirely different argument, and I guess off topic for this thread. It has been attempted to be discussed elsewhere, but has only been shouted down. Maybe I will identify the most appropriate thread for the discussion of "what is natural born Citizen" rather than sidetracking this thread. I think it is the more important question as it is regarding the most basic qualifications for one to act as President of the United States. One must be a "natural born Citizen". To have a sufficient definition, there needs to be research and thoughtful discussion from multiple viewpoints. This definition is needed for future application more than the present case which is beyond remedy. We need to better know, as a whole, who can and who cannot take the office. Only by dismissing the Constitution can one say it doesn't matter.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by scottwww

For what has been discussed in the videos, I am willing to look at both sides of the argument. What effect scanning with OCR to PDF has on a document may explain some of the anomalies. I don't have the resources (Windows computer and necessary software) to make tests of my own that would confirm or refute either side of the argument. Therefore on the authenticity of the document, I will take an interest in the argument, ask questions, and see what really grabs my attention. For a start, look at KGB7's post. What is the explanation for that?

Then to get to where my interest in the subject of Obama's citizenship is found... Really it is an entirely different argument, and I guess off topic for this thread. It has been attempted to be discussed elsewhere, but has only been shouted down. Maybe I will identify the most appropriate thread for the discussion of "what is natural born Citizen" rather than sidetracking this thread. I think it is the more important question as it is regarding the most basic qualifications for one to act as President of the United States. One must be a "natural born Citizen". To have a sufficient definition, there needs to be research and thoughtful discussion from multiple viewpoints. This definition is needed for future application more than the present case which is beyond remedy. We need to better know, as a whole, who can and who cannot take the office. Only by dismissing the Constitution can one say it doesn't matter.

So to prove the authenticity of the moon landing, you gonna build a rocket?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by xbook

So to prove the authenticity of the moon landing, you gonna build a rocket?

You are rude and condescending. The questions being raised in this and other threads about citizenship have absolutely no relationship to the moon landing. Only you blind followers are talking about the moon landing as if that dimishes us who have no argument about the moon landing.

Since you think that your conclusions about what is "natural born Citizenship" is the end of discussion, let's just leave it as the end of YOUR part of the discussion. You have offered absolutely nothing of value regarding the subject. You are a bitter little man with bliind faith in your Obamassiah.

As for my opinion on what constitutes "natural born Citizen", I have not come to a conclusion for those with a foreign parent. I am not pursuing research alone, at this time. I did a lot of research a few years ago regarding the nature of McCain's citizenship and came to a conclusion satisfactory for me about that.

Perhaps Jerome Corsi will have researched the issue and documented it in his new book that is now shipping.

You seem to think there is something wrong with people asking questions that have not yet been answered in any convincing way. You would be better off just withdrawing from citizenship discussions if you are not going to contribute anything but your unfounded conclusions.