On Jul 12, 11:30*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 7/12/2011 9:10 PM, harry k wrote:





On Jul 12, 5:22 pm, John *wrote:
On 7/10/2011 8:07 PM, John Smith wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=319337

"Now that so many highly qualified graphics experts – seven by my count
– have weighed in unequivocally in pronouncing Barack Obama's "long-form
birth certificate" as an outright fraud, it's time to issue a challenge
to other highly qualified experts to explain why they're wrong.

Isn't it curious that not a single media outlet has quoted even one such
expert to proclaim the document valid?"

Regards,
JS

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=320133

"
In an allegation that pushes the dispute over Barack Obama's
presidential eligibility to a new level, an affidavit prepared to
accompany a criminal complaint over the "Certificate of Live Birth"
released April 27 suggests there was a plan to mislead the American
public, and it went as high as the Oval Office."

Regards,
JS

BTW when you quote the *World Nut Daily, you are off on the wrong foot
to begin with.

Harry K

Yeah, for some reason it is noted that you have a hard on for them, but
since they are constantly quoting experts to back up their data, your
allegations are unfounded ...

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

WNutD is noted for publishing rumors and made up stories. Rarely do
any of their "hot news" stories hold water. There reputation is only
slightly above what used to be the "News" tabloid.

Harry K