Originally Posted by xbook
So what exactly are you looking for? What proof can be given that would get you to believe it? My guess is NOTHING. You are unreasonable with what you are asking for. The proof has been given, but you decide to believe some ignorant video guy with a youtube account.
I still don't believe gravity is real, that shit's a gov't ploy to get me to purchase nice shoes.
For what has been discussed in the videos, I am willing to look at both sides of the argument. What effect scanning with OCR to PDF has on a document may explain some of the anomalies. I don't have the resources (Windows computer and necessary software) to make tests of my own that would confirm or refute either side of the argument. Therefore on the authenticity of the document, I will take an interest in the argument, ask questions, and see what really grabs my attention. For a start, look at KGB7's post. What is the explanation for that?
Then to get to where my interest in the subject of Obama's citizenship is found... Really it is an entirely different argument, and I guess off topic for this thread. It has been attempted to be discussed elsewhere, but has only been shouted down. Maybe I will identify the most appropriate thread for the discussion of "what is natural born Citizen" rather than sidetracking this thread. I think it is the more important question as it is regarding the most basic qualifications for one to act as President of the United States. One must be a "natural born Citizen". To have a sufficient definition, there needs to be research and thoughtful discussion from multiple viewpoints. This definition is needed for future application more than the present case which is beyond remedy. We need to better know, as a whole, who can and who cannot take the office. Only by dismissing the Constitution can one say it doesn't matter.