On May 1, 8:35*pm, "Rocky" wrote:
Reply at the very bottom

"Ron" wrote in message

...
On May 1, 7:29 pm, John Smith wrote:http://incontextreport.com/2011/04/2...ficate-was-cre...

This should cut though some of the obfuscation cr*p that some are
attempting to "disinform" with ...

Regards,
JS

.
.
Why in the name of sanity would you place trust in the "analysis" of
the Obama BC when the author repeatedly says "I don't know"? *From
your cite we read:

1. All the letters in that portion are vectorized graphics except for
the R which looks pixelated. I don’t know why.

2. Secondly, there is a white faded ghost around all the text and
black lines of this document, again I don’t know why.

3. All the letters in that portion are vectorized graphics except for
the R which looks pixelated. I don’t know why.

4. Secondly, there is a white faded ghost around all the text and
black lines of this document, again I don’t know why.

5. It reveals a layer of white ghosting beneath it. I do not
understand this or know the purpose of it.

But....on the other hand, so many of your previous posts make
reference to Jones' PrisonPlanet and InfoWars. *So in a left handed
way, you are consistent: You'll believe ANYTHING in print.

* * *========== *Reply below *==========

Don't forget this was also stated in the link:
"I am very confused by this but I can say with certainty that there are
major problems with this document. It’s almost as if someone from inside the
White House is trying to send a message to tell everyone that this is a
fake. Either that, or they are as stupid as they seem."

Rocky
..
..
But don't ignore the bottom line of the link:

"If that’s true, why was this fake put online? Once again, more
questions than answers."

The author of this baloney has branded the document a fake, but as I
stated in my first post, the author's analysis is filled with
ADMISSIONS OF HIS IGNORANCE concerning his assessment of the BC.

Conclusion: He is full of Dookie.

RO