Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama as Manchurian Candidate?


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#31    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:57 PM

View Postoly, on 29 January 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

& that conceit is a symptom of the phenomenon?
Im'm sorry, based on your comment earlier, you seem to think that just because this is a Conspiracy Forum that any and all Conspiracy topics posted here is a statement of fact.

I'm not being conceited I am just stating my opinion on the matter.

You are free to post your beleifs, I am free to post my objection to your beleifs if I think it has no merit.  

Take it as you will.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#32    oly

oly

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 949 posts
  • Joined:19 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:14 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 January 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Im'm sorry, based on your comment earlier, you seem to think that just because this is a Conspiracy Forum that any and all Conspiracy topics posted here is a statement of fact.

I'm not being conceited I am just stating my opinion on the matter.

You are free to post your beleifs, I am free to post my objection to your beleifs if I think it has no merit.  

Take it as you will.
Since this is a conspiracy forum I find it interesting how many seem opposed to ct's being discussed. Of course not every ct is true.
Your opinion being that people who disagree with you should be (re)educated, &/or lack common sense? I'd say that was conceit. It's not just you though, hence my conjecture about the psychological phenomenon. I thought it'd make a change from usual paid troll theory.


#33    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:00 PM

View Postoly, on 29 January 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Your opinion being that people who disagree with you should be (re)educated, &/or lack common sense? I'd say that was conceit. It's not just you though, hence my conjecture about the psychological phenomenon. I thought it'd make a change from usual paid troll theory.

Well I apologize, that was not my intention.

View Postoly, on 29 January 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Since this is a conspiracy forum I find it interesting how many seem opposed to ct's being discussed. Of course not every ct is true.

Of course not every CT is true.  If Conspiracy theorists did not have skeptics to debate with, then there wouldnt be a need for a discussion board.  Right?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#34    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:04 PM

View PostDamrod, on 29 January 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Watch the republican debates...they are so disrespectful...they don't refer to the POTUS as "President Obama"...they say Barack Obama or just Obama...and that is disrespectful...period...regardless of your political sides.  I don't like a lot...or most...of what has and has not been accomplished by this President...but disrespect is uncalled for and those participating in it should be ashamed of themselves.
most of the press, talking heads and democrats refer to him as "obama", are they all racists? fact is, obama packaged himself as obama, no tie, no jacket, sleeves rolled up, just a regular informal guy, i think you're seeing to much into it.


#35    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:05 PM

anyone have any comments on post#10, or are you all still too "stunned" and "shocked"


#36    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:09 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 January 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

If Conspiracy theorists did not have skeptics to debate with, then there wouldnt be a need for a discussion board.  Right?
if you look closely enough you'll see that "conspiracy theorists" are not actually conspiracy theorists, they are skeptics, and "skeptics" are not largely skeptical at all, they are generally dogmatic.


#37    oly

oly

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 949 posts
  • Joined:19 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:17 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 January 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Well I apologize, that was not my intention.



Of course not every CT is true.  If Conspiracy theorists did not have skeptics to debate with, then there wouldnt be a need for a discussion board.  Right?
No need to apologise, thanks though! Isn't that your opinion?
It's good to question things but often there is repetition, ridicule, aggression etc on a lot of these threads which is unfortunate.

Edited by oly, 29 January 2012 - 10:20 PM.


#38    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:24 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 29 January 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

anyone have any comments on post#10, or are you all still too "stunned" and "shocked"

I'll bite.  

This is to prove what?  That it is possible Obama's had Twins? Triplets?

I see where you are saying it is digitally identical, but if this is the only instance where it looks to be digitally modified, what was the entire point of modifiying that section?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#39    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:37 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 January 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'll bite.  

This is to prove what?  That it is possible Obama's had Twins? Triplets?

I see where you are saying it is digitally identical, but if this is the only instance where it looks to be digitally modified, what was the entire point of modifiying that section?
if it proves something it proves that the birth cetificate has been photoshopped, which means thereis strong evidence it is fake, so you should at this point be skeptical of the entire certificate.

I don't follow the logic that this means obama has a twin, that is a possibilty of course, but not the only one.


#40    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 29 January 2012 - 11:03 PM




#41    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 29 January 2012 - 11:18 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 January 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I see where you are saying it is digitally identical, but if this is the only instance where it looks to be digitally modified, what was the entire point of modifiying that section?
so are you saying I have to prove what the reason was for editing the twin box in order to show the twin box was edited? I would have thought showing the twin box to be edited is enough to show the twin box was edited, sorry for the sarcasm but i think you missed the point - it looks fake.


#42    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 29 January 2012 - 11:52 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 29 January 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

so are you saying I have to prove what the reason was for editing the twin box in order to show the twin box was edited? I would have thought showing the twin box to be edited is enough to show the twin box was edited, sorry for the sarcasm but i think you missed the point - it looks fake.

Are there any other instances in the birth certificate that shows editing?  Thats the point im trying to get to.  

Also, I do not see any reasonable explanation on why that particular section would need to be edited to begin with.

Perhaps coincidental?  I beleive the only way to tell is to look through the entire birth certificate to find other instances of digital duplication.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#43    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:07 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 January 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Are there any other instances in the birth certificate that shows editing?  Thats the point im trying to get to.  

Also, I do not see any reasonable explanation on why that particular section would need to be edited to begin with.

Perhaps coincidental?  I beleive the only way to tell is to look through the entire birth certificate to find other instances of digital duplication.
oh yes there are loads, I just wanted you to acknowledge post 10 as good evidence. do you know about kerning? it is when a computer moves letters closer together to make it less "typwritery", the software will do this for a particular font depending on what letter follows, so basically a typewriter will not know what letter you are about to follow up with, nor will have a memory of what letter you pressed immediately before, that is why kerning is impossible on a typewriter, agreed? you can tell kerning when 2 adjacent letters overlap in vertical space.

so why is there kerning on the birth certificate?
Posted Image
only one conclusion - it was produced on a pc.

I don't accept the antialiasing as coincidental, its just not possible to throw a hundred consecutive sixes on a dice.

Edited by Little Fish, 30 January 2012 - 12:17 AM.


#44    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,405 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!
    It is not my intent to make anyone feel bad because of what I am writing.

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:10 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 January 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

It appears that Obama's qualification to be President is invalid and that he should not have been a candidate.  Further, it appears the birth certificate the White House offered is counterfeit.

Some speculate that higher-ups in the party structure knew this before the election.

So heard a Georgia court recently, and the attorney for Obama did not show up for the scheduled court appearance.

Conspiracy, or not?


I don't care about his qualifications. What I care about is that he is as or more atrocious than Bush The Stupider.
Gods, what has this country come to???????

Who will watch the watchers? I sure as hades am!!!!

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#45    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:43 AM

look at the "Kap" picture.

why is there no bleed through around the edges of the letters, they are perfect black squares. this can only be done on a computer (with antialiasing turned off). it cannot be done on a colour scan of a paper certificate. if you don;t know what bleed through looks like, zoom into the number "1" in the top right corner of the birth certificate on the whitehouse website and look at the pixels surrounding the number.

the unexeplained mystery here is why is it not obvious to everyone?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users