Obama Conspiracy Theories 1000 Word Challenge

The link below is self-explanatory. Here is a chance for any Birther to make their case in 1000 words or less on one of the oldest and most widely read anti-birther sites. I can’t imagine any Birther site making a similar offer. Time for Carl Gallups or Mike Zullo to step up to the plate. How about you Adrien Nash or even Orly Taitz? Here is your big chance.

Obama Conspiracy Theories’ 1000 Word Challenge

This entry was posted in Birthers and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Obama Conspiracy Theories 1000 Word Challenge

  1. arnash says:

    Well, I submitted my 1,000 word or less response and now the Obama Conspiracy Theories website is no long online. Is it something I wrote? Or maybe everything I wrote. I doubt that but it’s an interesting coincidence. I’ll expect it to return tomorrow, but won’t be too shocked if it doesn’t. Here’s what I wrote:
    Why Obama’s LF COLB can’t be believed
    The reasons to doubt that Honolulu was the location of Obama’s birth are all tied to what is missing.
    It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place. No one remembers him or her. No photos of proud mother with newborn. Wouldn’t someone have taken one of an only child with her firstborn? Not even one photo of pregnancy, -the most dramatic event of Ann’s young life. No hospital claiming bragging rights as the place that a unique President, a Hawaiian supposedly, was born. No public hospital record that the public is allowed to examine. No “half hand written, and half typed” affidavit in possession of the HDOH that anyone has been allowed to examine even though a supposedly real birth certificate is fully public, nullifying privacy concerns.
    No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama. No Hawaiian official has ever testified under oath as to anything about Obama’s birth record. No Hawaiian official has released a statement that wasn’t couched in carefully written, legally ambiguous language. No statement made by any Hawaiian official can be taken as true because of a state and party and ideological bias toward supporting their favorite Hawaiian son, -son of one of the most socialistic, welfare-dependent states of all.
    The birth certificate image is couched in mystery, with nothing provable about its origin and legitimacy, but everything cloaked in attorney-client privilege, and deliberately so. Even Obama himself was careful to never once mention the long-form bc that he appeared before reporters to present. It was never even allowed in his presence, (plausible deniability).
    No unbiased, questioning person was allowed to exam what was supposed created by the Hawaiian DOH. No one can testify that it was not merely a color photocopy of a digital file that was fabricated on a computer using original Obama and non-Obama sources supplied by an insider in the Hawaiian DOH.
    No one can explain why the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara was missing from the database, (and presumably the archive) when inquiry was first made. Nor why her brother was barred by the DoH and a judge from obtaining a copy of her long-form even though she died just days after her birth, nor why her registration number, seen on her short-form, is totally our of sequence when that would have been impossible under the strict administration of Verna Lee, -the registrar at that time.
    No one can replicate or explain the layers seen in the 9-layer pdf. No one can explain the layers being pure green-gray and not true black. No one can explain how ink came to be located in the exact perfect position in relation to the letter “a” of the name Alvin to result in an unmistakable appearance of a smiling face. If moved the slightest amount in any direction the effect would not exist. How great does one’s gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence?
    How can an image, or a print from it, be certified by any legitimate authority when it is unsigned, and unsealed and is nothing more than an abstract digital creation from an unknown and unprovable source? What business or organization in the world would accept a document or contract of major importance without a signature when every legal document created requires one? Who would buy a million dollar bridge offered by a Nigerian “businessman” or “government official” based on trusting in a contract stamped with a facsimile of a signature?
    Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being? How can one have confidence that the secretary that wields the signature stamp ever even consults with the registrar?
    How can Obama’s birth place be assured when Hawaii allows and allowed out-of-state births to be register for the purpose of obtaining a birth certificate, including foreign nationals with one year of residency?
    Why did Obama Sr. not capitalize on having an American child when seeking an extension of his Visa in late August 1961? Why would one not conclude that he didn’t know of his birth even though the State Dept. did? Why is the State Department microfilm record of the cards filled-out by persons entering the U.S. in the first week or 10 days of August 1961 missing from the archive, but no others?
    Why is there no record of a marriage between Obama’s parents, nor witnesses, nor photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation? Why did Obama, or his ghost writer, claim that they lived together for two years when they didn’t live together ever?
    Where was Ann Dunham between February and August of 1961? Who can prove or show that she was not living in her familiar home-environment of Seattle during many of the later months of her pregnancy? Who can show that she did not want to hand her child over to an adoption agency when that is what a note by a federal official in Hawaii states the parents were considering? Who can show that she didn’t resort to seeking adoptive parents in Canada (Vancouver) because no parents in Washington volunteered to adopt?
    Who can show that the Hawaiian witness (and future adoring teacher of Obama) who heard the statement: “Stanley had a baby” did not hear; “Stanley has a baby”, or that either statement indicates the place of birth?
    Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances? Why has every court folded and caved to Obama even when, in one glaring instance, his lawyer failed to even show up in court? What naïve fool would assume that Obama-appointed functionaries in the government, including the NSA, IRS, and FBI did not and do not feed his political operatives private information, like that which Harry Reid claimed before the Senate regarding Romney’s supposed non-payment of taxes?
    What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government? What naïve fool would assume that key Obama supporters in the Hawaiian government wouldn’t justify “the means” used to provide him a way to present the appearance of having a Hawaiian birth certificate by “the ends” of not seeing his presidential legitimacy crack apart and crumble?
    Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could and you can’t tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.

    by Adrien Nash July 2013 obama–nation.com

    • Doc moved his site to a new dedicated IP address with his hosting company because of a problem with a shared IP on the old one. Check the status here. I ran “ipconfig /flushdns” from the command line as administrator in Windows and it worked for me. On some browsers you also have to clear the browser cache. Don’t worry, your article didn’t cause him to shut his web site down. It may have delayed the move while he was laughing though.

      • RoadScholar says:

        It’ll be fun seeing how little it takes to utterly destroy A.Nash’s drivel. But kudos to him for having the stones to at least try. As far as I know, he’s the only one to submit a screed so far.

        Seriously: you may be the poster child for confirmation bias and willful ignorance, but you are not a quisling. I guess that’s something.

        • I may start a contest to see how many times Adrien used the straw man argument. Here is one for example: “Since I don’t know Ann Dunham’s whereabouts exactly in 1961 then Barack Obama was born in Canada. Prove me wrong.”

  2. “Since I don’t know Ann Dunham’s whereabouts exactly in 1961 then Barack Obama was born in Canada. Prove me wrong.”

    Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Since we don’t know his exact whereabouts, prove me wrong.

    Mitt Romney strangled a girl in 1987. Where did he bury the body? Prove me wrong.

  3. arnash says:

    A new thought occurred to me, and it is the question as to why obama would have to steal another’s registration number? -unless he was never registered at all? The assumption is that his birth was registered, the newspapers printed the vital statistics that included his name (not birth place) and the two go hand-on-hand. But the newspaper-clippings images would also have to be fake because if he was really registered then he would have had a registration number and would not have to steal one from another deceased baby’s birth certificate. He could have used his own number, unless he was registered a long time later, -which isn’t something that is suspected based on anything.

    No one can prove that the newspaper images are frauds nor that they’re not frauds but they seem to have come from only one source that pretended to be two independent sources. I recall that a reward was offered for anyone who could produce an original newspaper from the dates of the obama mention.
    So it seems the conversation may need to take a new direction because of the current assumption that the newspaper reports are genuine, indicting an Obama registration, indicating no need for a phony registration number. (unless he was not registered until his mother moved back to Hawaii a year later.)

    Since the short form gives only a “filed” date instead of the required “accepted” date, it is conceivable that a registration was filed but not accepted pending further proof of things like place of birth or citizenship of the mother or Hawaiian residency. If required information was never delivered , then no birth certificate would have been issued, but that is separate from the function of sending information to the newspapers. That could have been compiled from all *filed* documents rather than all *accepted* documents.
    Although the questions have changed, the answers are still elusive and unavailable.
    The easiest means to create a counterfeit birth certificate for Obama is digitally. But it would have to contain original text from what was typed up from the mother’s or grandparent’s affidavit that substituted for a hospital bc. Obama’s bc clearly contains old digitally extracted microfilm text imagery so no birther looking at it can assume that it is 100% fabricated in the digital age. It is too authentic-looking for that to be assumed.

    But that does not preclude the possibility of digitally altering various elements albeit at a stage not revealed by the pdf. A completed fake image file could easily be inserted into the Hawaiian vital records database and automatically assumed to reflect what is in the microfilm (which is never checked, -nor the original paper documents).

    Since no imagery of a “true copy” has or ever will be made public, one has to take on faith that what is seen in the abstract is a faithful representation of an original. With all that rests on that assumption, reasonable people have no legitimate basis on which to base such an all-trusting assumption. Nor on the word of strong obama-supporters in charge of the place.

  4. Jim says:

    Arnash: “No one can prove that the newspaper images are frauds nor that they’re not frauds but they seem to have come from only one source that pretended to be two independent sources.”

    Hey arnash, you do understand that multiple college libraries, library of Congress, heck, even libraries across the Country get copies of newspapers delivered to them daily, don’t you? If you went to College and had to do reports on events, you’d know this. You want to prove fraud, I recommend you go to each one, and look at the micro-fiche and find one or more that don’t list the President’s birth. Should be easy, we’re only talking about maybe a thousand. Then again, if all 1,000 show the same thing, that would disprove the the fraud. So, get to work and you can prove or disprove the fraud you claim. Oh, and there is no fraud. Have fun!

  5. I believe that copies of the newspaper announcements were found in the archives in Honolulu, Library of Congress, and the California State Library. I have no idea where Adrien is going with this. I also don’t really care.

    • Jim says:

      well, if he wants to prove fraud, he’d better be taking a road-trip to all 50 states. If he just wants to see what his typing looks like, nowhere. He’s going nowhere.

  6. Adrien Nash says:

    Bias has barred ya’ll from grasping the essence of my innocent question, which is: If the newspaper listings of births are genuine, then Obama’s birth would have been registered and have a registration number that would not have to be stolen from Virginia Sunahara’s bc. Thereby disproving all of the suspicions regarding the origin of his number.

    But there are two possibilities that would nullify that logic. 1. If his registration was over a year later (when did Ann return to Hawaii? Was it later than Aug 4. 1962?) then only a late birth certificate would have been issued, which, if I recall correctly would have stated that it was a late registration (more than a year after birth). In which case the newspaper record images would have to be faked.

    Since the source of the newspaper images has never been revealed nor authenticated, and no one has come forward to testify that they can be found in the Hawaiian archives and they personally have seen them and therefore verify their existence, it is impossible to assume that if there was a need to create a fake birth certificate, then the newspaper records would not have simply been ignorantly ignored.
    After all, what conspiracy of such a magnitude and important would not have been well thought out?

    That is not conspiracy thinking. That is simply the way that amoral politics works, and most politics is completely amoral.

    The other reason his birth could have been reported to the newspapers in with all the others is that the reports sent out listed all “FILED” submissions to the DoH, rather than all “ACCEPTED” registrations.

    If his mother only filed an Affidavit with the local registrar, which was typed up, (“half hand-written, half typed”) and it was stamped as “FILED” (as is what the short-form states contrary to all other SF BCs) but was not stamped as ACCEPTED because of a need for corroborating evidence, then it would also never have been given a Registration Number, thereby leaving a “record”, -a “vital record”, -an “original birth certificate” (Ha!) in their archive, but no DoH Hawaiian hospital birth certificate.
    Thus his birth could have been reported to the newspapers even with no corroborating “proof” received and accepted by the DoH. None of us can get to the bottom of which sets of “records” went out to the papers (Filed or instead only Accepted) so suspicions and questions remain unanswered, and probably unanswerable without some serious investigation.

    Does anyone have a good reason why either of those scenarios is not plausible without resorting to idolizing the word of Hawaiian officials? One makes sense and debunks suspicions about a need for a stolen registration number. The other makes sense and raises suspicions of a need for a stolen registration number and a faked newspapers record. Neither can be shown to reflect the truth because of a lack of evidence, which mostly remains classified as non-public.

    I welcome any honest and unbiased thoughts.

    • Where in the world did you get the idea that President Obama’s birth certificate has a certificate number stolen from Virginia Sunahara’s certificate? Dean Haskins published her certificate number last year, and it is 11080, not even close to Obama’s.

      • arnash says:

        “Where in the world did you get the idea that President Obama’s birth certificate has a certificate number stolen from Virginia Sunahara’s certificate? Dean Haskins published her certificate number last year, and it is 11080, not even close to Obama’s.”

        It was from a well researched report I once read at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/ That report is in one of her archived past months, but it may have a link to it on her homepage which she keeps updated. If 25% of what she presents is inaccurate, the other 75% is devastating to Obama’s credibility and points to collusion with the Hawaiian upper management to perpetuate a fraud on the American people.
        The published number for Sunahara is impossibly higher that it could possibly be, a is shown in the research and investigation presented on the website. If Obama’s BC is fabricated, then so is the registration number since it could not belong to him. Thus it had to have belonged to someone else, -someone dead or in his pocket.

        • Northland10 says:

          It was from a well researched report I once read at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/

          Do you intend to stop digging before you get to China?

        • gorefan says:

          What about Johanna Ah’Nee? She was born on August 23rd and her number is 09945. Which is lower than the Nordykes’.


          • arnash says:

            You are like a fool who starts out assuming that President Nixon is innocent. Were you born yesterday? There is NO STATE OF HAWAII that speaks. There are only honest or dishonest employees. In the case of Hawaii, it’s dishonest. The law is irrelevant to what the truth is, -so lies from Hawaiian officials does not change reality. Get it?
            As for Verna Lee, my great aunt was sharper than I am and everyone I know when I spoke to her when she was over 90 years old.

            I looked at the linked page about Johanna Ah’Nee. I’m in astonishment at what I saw.. Not in astonishment at how it confirms your belief but in how it confirms your belief in your own blind belief. I wish I could remember if Verna Lee reported that the BCs were numbered weekly or monthly, (someone else needs to check) but I know this much: Gretchen comes alphabetically before Susan (which has a lower number) and Sunahara comes before Waidelich (with a lower number also). How on earth can you find that they were alphabetized monthly when they are not alphabetized at all? Amazing. What are you smoking?

            Second, the source of that BC is completely unknown, like the source of the newspaper announcements, and highly suspicious because it has an appearance that is impossible because a real BC from that period would have been produced from the same month’s microfilm. The imagery would be identical in that both Obama’s and the mystery female’s BCs would show the curvature at the left side. The higher up the page that lines appear, -the greater the curvature.
            That BC shows no curvature caused by they way they were held in binders while being captured on microfilm, with the camera positioned above the bottom line (making it perfectly straight). Instead, all lines are perfectly straight.

            Third, it is missing the bottom part which contains the registrar’s rubber stamp signature. Falsifying that is probably a serious crime but omitting it avoids committing such a crime. Smart prevention of criminality.

            Fourth, the background being security paper, or the appearance of it, reveals that it is not a scanned original but an abstract, but not one produced like all others captured on microfilm since it has the appearance of a straight-lines scan. The originals did not have a security paper appearance since they were on plain paper. Hence it is an abstract of an unknown creation and unknown source. You cannot draw any conclusions from such a mystery anymore than you can be certain about Obama’s either way.

            To prove that Obama’s was made from a scan one has to produce a similar pdf for examination and it has to show the same grayness of the extra layers of text imagery. If it shows pure blackness as it should, then proof fails. An explanation is needed for such an anomaly.

        • gorefan says:

          Arnash – did you even look at the pictures in the article. This BC was issued in 1995. Hawaii did it differently back than. The registrar stamp is on the back of the BC.

          As to the source of the BC. Dr. Corsi got it directly from Johanna Ah’Nee..

          Vern Lee said monthly and sorted by geographic regions according to Zullo but he never talked to her.

          The BCs may be in alphabetical order by last name. And since Virginia Sunahara was born outside of the Honolulu city limits, her BC number is not going to be close to the Nordykes because she was in a different geographic region.

          • arnash says:

            We’re still without any understanding of why the BC does not bear the same curvature as others like Obama’s which would have all been obtained from the digital capture of the microfilm images. The microfilm images must then be different. Which would imply that the placement of the bound volumes could be different somewhat for each placement instead of uniformly placed. Which would imply that the software that extracted the BC info was not dependent on uniform perfect placement of every image in order to do its job, hence each volume wouldn’t have to be in the exact same position in relationship to the camera as was the case with Obama’s COLB.

            I believe I recall that the BCs from the various regions were alphabetized among themselves and then the regions were alphabetized before stamping with the numbers. So it seems that everything just might check out are normal in that regard.
            (That still doesn’t answer the suspicions as to whether or not Obama’s number is that of someone else. If his mother’s affidavit was submitted but never accepted because she didn’t return with corroborating evidence, then her submission would not have received a registration number and therefore one would have to be “borrowed” in order to fabricate an “official birth certificate”.)

  7. Jim says:

    So basically your argument is that something in your imagination which you have absolutely no proof of is more believable than the actual records, historic facts, and all the contrary evidence. Those are my unbiased thoughts.

    • What happened to Adrien’s “Ann Dunham” gave birth in Vancouver, B. C.” theory? What happened to the WH LFBC PDF was a forgery theory? What happened to the AP JPEG was made from the forged WH LFBC PDF theory?

      By the way Adrien, “Date Filed” is what was on all of the COLB’s issued in 2007 – 2008. Have you seen Stig Waidelich’s COLB? The “date filed” vs. “date accepted” BS is another stupid Birther bit of insanity. Google “Stig Waidelich BC”.

      • arnash says:

        Obama was born in Vancouver and no one can prove that he was not. Every form of “proof” of birth in Hawaii has been debunked or discredited. The reason that the Customs cards from the week of his birth are missing from the microfilm roll is because his mother flew from Vancouver to Hawaii to be with her mother soon after delivery, -perhaps on Aug. 7th. Then registered her son on the 8th by writing out a self-attesting affidavit. She soon visited a doctor for a check-up for both her and her son, (she may have had a bleeding problem or who knows what) and that visit was the source of the observation made by Dr. West which I’ll rephrase to make sense: “A Stanley had a baby! with emphasis on the name of a person having a baby not being a woman’s name. A week later she flew back to Seattle where she was living prior to birth.

        As for the forgery of the LFBC, I would not longer put stock in it but questions still remain as to its features, namely the paleness of the text imagery seen in the layers. That has no logical explanation since stark blackness is the only desired appearance. And the smiling face is an anomaly without any innocent explanation. You can’t argue that the Xerox copier just happened to miraculously put that image in the exact right spot to give that result. That defies credulity and you know it.

        You are both right and wrong about “filed” and “accepted” since I have images of both on SF COLBs. One has to guess that terminology was rather imprecise when they came to cooking up a new version of the form, so my theory, only a theory, is disproven by the evidence.
        What I believe I learned from the interview with the very fastidious Verna Lee is that Obama’s registration number would have been lower than the Nordyke twins, not higher, so that being the case, no innocent explanation explains why it is the opposite.

        read by latest essay at obama–nation.com WHY OBAMA IS NOT A TRUE AMERICAN.
        Then you’ll begin to understand the outlook of the man you think is a true-blood American icon. He is nothing of the sort.

        • Two points: First, the State of Hawaii has the final say on where Obama was born. That is the law. Second, we do not know what Verna Lee (a 93 year old lady in a nursing home) said because we have never heard the interview. I don’t know whether at 93 she is still fastidious or not. I know that a slick con artist like Jerome Corsi could probably con a 93 year old lady into nodding her head in agreement with just about anything he wanted her to do. Hell, even I could do that and I am completely without experience in con games and lying.

    • Northland10 says:

      Well, I do have a bias. I am biased for arguments supported by actual records and historical facts. I am biased against arguments based upon making shit up.

    • arnash says:

      The only things that are believable are things that are far more logical or actual than things that are less logical or even illogical. Institutionalized error does not impress me nor convince any questioning mind because religiously accepting the current consensus is the perfect way to swallow wide-spread errors. Now go read about real imagination by reading about the Piltdown Man and then try to tell me about how consensus opinion always gets it right.

  8. Mr. Nash was the only birther who took me up on the challenge.

  9. arnash says:

    My “resluts” need further investigation but there is no one to do it, and no one with the subpena authority to get anywhere, and that is just perfectly fine with the socialist cabal in Washington, Democrat and Republican alike.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s