@mystery-ak @Sanguine@austingirl
I heard that interview when it first came out. The statements people have made about what she said were very misleading. The woman did not speak English, and the questioner kept asking very leading questions that had to be translated into her language. I put very little credibility with the announced conclusions of that interview because it was clear the woman was confused about what was being asked of her.
....That can be explained as being a common misconception because people kept repeating that claim. It should not be taken as proof that the claim is true.
....That doesn't prove anything other than that a lot of people are willing to believe something without any proof being necessary.
....It is a fabrication, but I don't think it is a forgery. I think it is an official birth certificate produced by the State of Hawaii. It's not his original one, it is one fabricated to resemble what his original one would look like if he had one.
...Agree. The Birthers were the only reasonable people in the entire mess.
I appreciate healthy cynicism--especially the sort that the Birthers have displayed (as you also seem to be saying), and consistent with that perspective, I have not bothered to claim that the points that I made meet a standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." At the very least, there is a
preponderance of evidence that would have gotten Obama indicted if the case had been a Grand Jury case. And I frankly submit that the judges who threw out the lawsuits by military personnel committed grievous judicial errors by essentially ignoring this preponderance of evidence (which was all that was really required in order for the trials to go forward much deeper).
I would also point out that the grandmother made the startling statement that she was
present for Obama's birth in Kenya. (She could not have been talking about the birth of Obama's father.) And so I flatly refuse to believe that this response was elicited by "leading the witness." She was surely confused as to the legal importance of Obama's birthplace, but it does not appear that she was otherwise confused in the interview. Confusion aside, she was explicitly declaring that the Democrat nominee for POTUS was born in Kenya.
With regard to the BC: I don't understand the distinction that you seem to be making about the difference between a document fabrication and a document forgery. I believe that all of the experts who have examined it have called it a digital forgery--based on numerous technical points, of course.
It seems that a large number of TBR members have bothered to discover the overwhelming digital evidence of that monumental fraud, only to conclude that Obama and his associates would have been found guilty of a (necessarily treasonous) fraud--beyond a reasonable doubt, of course--if the matter had been tried in a criminal court. Sadly, a lot of TBR members have been too disinterested (gullible?) to search out that matter. (Remember my British friend's lament about Americans as a whole.)
