Monday, May 11, 2009

Philip Berg, MommaE, Lisa Liberi on 'The Awakening w/ Hanen & Arlen'



39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Okay.Thanks.I'll listen in.

Anonymous said...

Thanks.BTW,the Gary Kreep interview comes on automatically.The show is archived.Maybe you can remove the widget in the article.April 21st.

Anonymous said...

Show just started.Good start Arlen.Momma E says they can't talk about things.You asked her what they can talk about.I figured this would be a rambling interview.Hope the rest stay on track.Momm E definitely has a case.I still think Berg should not have filed this lawsuit,at least not for Momma E.

Anonymous said...

Half hour into show.No problem with the claims against Hale.He slandered Momma E for months.But they should address the fact that Orly is still maintaing her claims of Liberi right up to today.She can't be that dumb.The hosts should put that recent information by Orly to them and get a response.Orly has been updating her blog daily,and is not backing down one bit.Berg just came on and right off the bat he is parroting his same diatribe of being numero uno out of the gate and blah blah blah.I hope Berg...nope...he just did the same thing as on the Chalice Show,that he doesn't want to talk about this lawsuit,but about his eligibility cases.Sorry Phil,we know your story.This sounds like a personal vendetta against Orly.I figured he would turn this into a plea for money.He even threw in the "biggest hoax" line.He says the secret service should arrest Orly.Bull!!! Walter Fitzpatrick has opened the floodgates for patriots.We can't wait forever for a response from the traitors in DC.We have to call them what they are.Let them arrest Orly or a military man.Somehow,we need "discovery" and a resolution.If these people have the guts to take on the usurper,so be it.Phil will be content to wait four years for a response.We don't need to hear the same rhetoric from Berg for four years.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy,sounds like another Phil Berg grandstanding interview.This show is not about the current lawsuit so far.Berg is just repeating his story.The same one we've heard for months.Maybe the second hour will be about the topic of the interview.

Anonymous said...

LOL!This is definitely about Berg having an axe to grind with Taitz.This Berg is one big broken record.

Anonymous said...

Berg is preaching to the choir.Blogtalk listeners know of the eligiblity issue.I thought this show was about the lawsuit against Orly and Hale.

Anonymous said...

The brth certificate again?Come on.someone ask this guy about the slander lawsuit or something pertinent other than the bc issue.

Anonymous said...

The bc matter is something Berg will talk about for years.The Barry supporter that called is like the msm,saying this doesn't matter.In part,they are right.The nbc is an eligibility requirement,not the bc.Sure ,he should release it.But this is all a smokescreen.So,how Berg thinks he can awaken more people by being focused on the bc is odd to anyone following this drama.At this point we should be asking why there is blanket covering for Barry,which is what Orly is doing.Pointing out how everyone is neglecting to do their job in government.

Anonymous said...

Berg is wrong on the nbc issue.I can't believe he wasn't called out on that lie.

Anonymous said...

Look at Berg's website for the truth?LOL!!!!! Look at the work of Apuzzo and Donofrio where they lay out their position with history and laws.Glad Arlen spoke up on the nbc issue.We know he's wrong on that one Arlen.Berg doesn't back up anything with precedent cases or laws,codes,statutes,or blogs on his website.The more I hear Berg,the more I disagree with this man's legal approach.In fasct,his harping on the bc and the dogmatic approach of Kenya is a distraction.And now this lawsuit against Orly.No,I don't see Berg getting anywhere with his cases.He's still stuck on "standing" in one of his cases.

Anonymous said...

Arlen,I would like your opinion of Berg after this interview.That is,when you get the chance in the next day or two.I don't support Orly's legal acumen,though I think her proactive measures are helpful.But Berg is way out in left field when you hear everything he has to say.He always starts out with the nice rhetoric,but look at the bigger picture of what he's done or rather what he hasn't done.His focus on the bc and Kenya,both of which are unknowns and not eligibility requirements and still working on "standing" when Leo and Apuzzo have gone over all of that in detail,is fishy.And his bitterness with Orly was painfully clear in the interview.

Anonymous said...

Time to interview Orly.At least she isn't reticent in diiscussing current events.I've had my fill of Berg.

Anonymous said...

Devvy's email to Orly that she sent to Berg : Phil:

The hoax below came to my mail box about a week ago. I sent out mail to let people know it was not true and why.

You have accused Dr. Taitz of planting this hoax on the Internet.

What is your proof?

Please tell me, Phil. As as investigative journalist, I’d like to know.

You know something, Phil? I have tried to be fair about some of what has been going on regarding the legal battles re Obama’s birth cert and citizenship. The sniping has been most unbecoming by some and simply grand standing by one of the attorney’s.

The lawsuit you recently filed shocked me. Now, you make this accusation without providing a shred of proof or evidence.

I have to wonder what this vendetta is against Dr. Taitz?

At least when Leo Donofrio has disagreed with Orly on some of the legal aspects, he has done so professionally and respectfully.

For some reason I can’t figure out, you have become vicious towards her and I don’t believe it’s just about this Lisa person. It’s something else.

You are wrong in your assessment that the lawsuit you filed against Orly and anyone else you could lump in is hurting her. Quite the opposite. I can tell you I’ve had a flood of emails from people damning you and wanting to know what your agenda really is. You see, it’s not just me.

In closing, I’m sorry to see what I consider to be base and demeaning behavior on your part. You cheapen yourself by wallowing in a pig sty of innuendo and dirty tricks. Most regrettable.

Cordially,

Devvy Kidd http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?paged=2 I'm going to have to agree with Devvy on this one.I have no respect for Berg.Things are coming down too quickly to be straying from the goal of ousting the usurper.The interviews he's done recently prove he is irate with Orly,and is taking this to a personal level.

Anonymous said...

You could be right speculating on Orly's being a dual national,and the whole jesting of immunity and skipping the country one day.But I will say this Arlen : Berg would've done better to play dumb over the NBC definition than completely reversing the information and historical works relating to it.Yes,the courts have never defined it,but common sense dictates we look at the Grandfather Clause the Founding Fathers used to permit/allow those living at the time of the writing of the Constitution that were foreign born to serve as POTUS.Over the past 4-5 months I've heard him admit to never reading the other lawyers works on the subject.On the show,he sent up red flags for me on several occasions.Saying Orly should get helpfro Berg was ludicrous.I don't trust Berg any more than Orly.I found it odd that Berg simply ignores really going into substantive matters about Orly.The case against Hale is clear.But not so with Orly.And if he wants to keep mum on it,then he shouldn't be doing interviews on the subject.The interviews have been a few minutes on Momma E's problems with Hale,and the rest is just a big commercial for Berg.And there is nothing to see at his website.After Barry entered the oval office his cases became moot,regardless of the life support they are on for show.

Anonymous said...

I think we've got a better chance with the Grand Juries and with the people filing criminal complaints.Sam was on Don Nicoloff's show last night.Don is the author of the series on Obama.Here's part 6 [the photos won't come through here.Link at the end] The Three Stooges go to Washington, Part 6 Barack Obama: The Pictures Speak A Thousand Lies

by Don Nicoloff

April 25, 2009

In spite of all the hoopla following the election of "America's first black president," Barack Obama has yet to offer any legitimate documentation proving that he was born in the United States. Nothing. Nada. Niente. Rien. Gar nichts. And don't expect him to anytime soon.


As was previously covered in Parts 4 and 5 of this serial article, Obama's Certificate of Live Birth is fraudulent. No amount of posturing or grandstanding by public officials, senators, Congressmen, and the mainstream media can fix it. His Selective Service Registration is equally bogus—an embarrassment to its creator, at best.


And Barack Obama's so-called adoption by a so-called stepfather from Indonesia who married his so-called mother from Kansas is marred by the prerequisite forgery of signatures. A cursory examination of Stanley Ann Dunham's Mercer Island High School yearbook and the Indonesian adoption papers reveals distinctly different longhand writing styles. Dunham's yearbook signature predates the adoption papers by at least three years and should be considered genuine for purposes of forensic examination. The Indonesian signature is totally inconsistent with multiple samples obtained from her high school yearbook. Even a child could determine that the adoption papers are forged and fraudulent.


Claims by Hawaii's Secretary of State, its governor, or other officials asserting they have examined and then sealed Obama's records are equally disingenuous, misleading, and corrupt. If Barack Obama possessed any legitimate documentation of any kind, he would have willingly presented it for publication, and then his problems—or his nightmare—would have been over. His handlers obviously underestimated the tenacity and the discernment of those able to see through the deception.


Attempts to procure any semblance of a transcript from Hawaii's Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, or the Harvard University Law School have met with equally dubious excuses, implying that something about Obama's transcripts hold some kind of sacred dispensation. Even the world's true Messiah had His life documented in a book for all to read. Obama's non-history is sealed like a pickle in a Mason jar. Are we to assume that Obama, the "Christian," retains a rank even above that of Christ? Let's not fool ourselves for too long, folks.


Therefore, one can only conclude that in the absence of any genuine documentation, if Barack Obama cannot prove that he was born on United States soil (and he cannot), the documents he has presented to the usually "unreliable" Internet and the less-than-unreliable mainstream media are a fraud perpetrated upon the whole world. It will not be the first time such a fraud has been committed, though this is one time when the perpetrator(s) are being called to task.


The media's relentless crusade to foster adoration for their illegitimate, favorite icon has become a disgusting orgy of pretension. Since the old images (photographs) of Obama's childhood have become mildly suspect, the media has been entrusted with the duty of creating new ones, turning every political speech, diplomatic event, and public appearance into a low-grade fashion show. Ever prepared to dutifully pounce on the author of the latest Obama exposé, the mainstream media begins their relentless attacks with the usual, not-so-subtle references to the Internet, conveniently forgetting to mention that Obama ran his political campaign there, including the publication of his bogus genealogical portfolio.


It stands to reason that if Obama's 'official' documents are fraudulent, then the photographs which supposedly chronicle his life history must also be fraudulent. They would have to be. Yet the media—and the law—have conveniently disregarded what will become crystal clear before the conclusion of this fourth chapter—or shall we say, "exposé"—about the mythological character known as Barack Obama.


Digital technology's role in the creation of illusion: A digital primer


Human beings are sentient creatures by nature. We have feelings, senses, and in extreme cases, awareness. Impediments to our awareness (illusions) are created by any number of means. The most common forms of illusion are employed in order to artificially imbalance or control one or more of our senses. Is it any wonder why the realm of digital technology is called "artificial intelligence?" Artificial intelligence is not real intelligence, and it never will be.


The intentional imbalance and manipulation of our natural senses leads us into the realm of mind control, the preferred method of subjugating the masses. Repetition is a critical component in the creation of a belief system, and those who would enslave us are implicitly aware of that fact. The effectiveness of advertising is but one example. The assault on our sight and hearing is relentless. Pictures (both moving and still) and sounds (words, music, and special effects) are employed in order to influence our thoughts and emotions. It is upon this foundation that a belief system (mind control) is built. Unfortunately, many can no longer differentiate between reality and illusion.


Artificial imagery is another critical component of any illusory system. Hollywood has turned illusion into an art form, even a religion, through the creation of stories, images, symbols, and special effects (FX) designed to validate what would otherwise be considered impossible. By exploiting the suggestibility of the subconscious mind as a foundation, movie makers cause viewers to willingly substitute illusion for reality. Through the unconscious acceptance of special FX as reality, the natural senses and rational thinking capacity come under further assault and subjugation.

Sensory and emotional overload


Music plays an equally prominent role in the creation of illusion. Since music intrinsically touches one's emotions, its role has become essential in the production of movies, documentaries, TV programs, commercials, and events of an 'official' nature. Musical scores are the glue that binds the characters, events, and special FX together into a complete, 'larger-than-life' package. Music will cause one to love the protagonist and to hate the antagonist. Music will cause one to love, laugh, feel patriotic, anticipate danger, mourn, or experience fear. Today's average moviegoer is typically unaware of the psychological role that music plays in controlling his/her emotions and ultimately, the mind.


Despite the apparent advantages available via digital technology, there exist a few disadvantages. Through one's discernment, one can recognize anomalies in an artificial reality through the use of the natural senses. Artificial scents, sounds, and images are distinctly different from natural ones. Certain fruit-scented cosmetics, incense, candles, and perfumes emit odors of a chemical nature. At best, such products can only imitate what occurs in nature.


Likewise, synthesized music can only approximate what occurs in the realm of natural acoustics. A trained musical ear can easily distinguish between the natural sound of an acoustic (analog) instrument and a digital reproduction of the same sound. Because human hearing is analog in nature, one can feel that artificial sounds are unnatural. Digital sound creation, though dramatically improved during the past ten years, still lacks the fundamental qualities found in nature. The author happens to be an expert in both the acoustic and digital modalities.


Artificial images have been incorporated into TV commercials, movies, documentary films, signs, and even the Internet. Depending on the desired end result, these images may challenge our discernment, ultimately blurring the line between illusion and reality.


Digital technologies do offer alternative methods in the recording, reproduction, and dissemination of information, but those methods are not without fault. Because digital technologies use numbers as the foundation for processing information, they can facilitate the gathering, compilation, and retrieval of that information at incredible speeds. However, speed does not necessarily translate in quality, nor accuracy. One can hear a glitch in a music recording or see visual distortion in a film if the information becomes corrupted during the process of recording, replication, or while being played back.


Finally, live musical performance has been gradually replaced by prerecorded music, enabling the embedding of subliminal sounds with messages intended to affect one's subconscious mind. The typical solo artist performing on a stage with an 'invisible' band or orchestra is now accepted, unfortunately, as a legitimate substitute for the real thing.


Advances in digital photography


Photographic techniques also exhibit similar characteristics to those described above. The method of capturing images on light-sensitive film and the development and transfer of those images to photo-chemically-sensitive paper has gradually been replaced by the digital process of capturing, reproducing, and replicating images to be viewed on a screen or transferred (printed) on a variety of paper stock. A digital camera can even transfer an electronic representation of a photo without it ever having been printed. With today's technologies, photos can even be created without the use of a traditional camera.


The digital age has introduced a gradual progression of technologies, including FAX machines, copiers, scanners, and computer programs which enable further manipulation of original photographs and documents. Images can be electronically masked, and their content can be edited or compiled at will. Though the technique of photographic manipulation serves a variety of commercially viable purposes, it can also be (and quite often is) used for deception—not just in advertising, motion pictures, and television programs—but also in the mainstream news.


Unlike the standard 'retouching' of photos which removes blemishes from the subject(s) within a photo, digital photography facilitates alteration of the content, in whole or in part, of a photographic event. Photoshop is a computer program with such capabilities. Separate images can be (and are) combined, as a compilation, to give the appearance that an event (the photograph) was captured with one click of a camera's shutter. The viewer assumes the photograph was a real event because it appears to have been taken at a school, an airport, or in a park. Why would anyone fake such an event? The only plausible answer to that question would be, "because the event never occurred in the first place."


Human vision, being analog in nature, compensates for differences in focal points by adjusting the eyes' lenses to focus on a particular object (or objects) being viewed. Traditional photography, equally analog in nature, employs lenses and mirrors to focus, enlarge, or reduce the size or distance of an object, i.e. the subject(s) within a photograph. Light filters placed in front of a camera's lens aid in producing special effects which are automatically transferred to the film within the camera.


On the other hand, computerized photography has certain advantages that allow for a myriad of additional post-production possibilities. Photos can be altered by an infinite combination of special FX, including focal point adjustment, color saturation/removal, hue, contrast, brightness, sharpness, distortion, and the addition/subtraction of original objects, etc.


A few disadvantages found in digital media


Digital photography, in the hands of an inexperienced or sloppy manipulator, has its own unique limitations. Advances in computer software have introduced new techniques in photo editing, yet, despite those advances, digitally produced photographs still do not measure up to the sensitivity of a discerning human (analog) eye. Imperfections and manipulations reappear during enlargement (zooming in), due to the enlargement of the pixels themselves.


When digitally enlarged, a computerized photo first begins to distort at the junction(s) of two or more differing colors, including different, adjacent objects. For example, a photo of an airplane with the background of a blue sky will begin to reveal square pixels along the outer edges of the wings, fuselage, tail, cockpit, etc. when enlarged. A white cloud will begin to pixellate at the same time as the airplane. However, if the airplane is inserted (as a composite) into a photo of a blue sky with the aforementioned cloud, the plane will likely pixellate before the cloud, revealing the composite nature of the photo. Pixels appear as square boxes when enlarged in a digital medium. Pixellation can alternately be referred to as 'bitmap distortion' and can be minimized by a technique called 'pixel interpolation', which artificially blends adjacent colors at higher zoom levels.


Video photography also suffers from the same phenomena, though the movie industry has, long ago, dealt with those issues by doubling the film capacity from 35 mm to 70 mm reducing the pixel distortion on large theatrical screens. 70 mm film actually uses 65 mm for the images, and the extra 5 mm are used for producing multi-channel sound, i.e. Dolby surround, THX, etc.


Audio recordings inherently suffer from the same digital issues for similar reasons. Human hearing is analog in nature, and a trained ear can still hear the difference between an analog and a digital recording. As sampling frequencies increase, distortion becomes less apparent. Noise can be completely eliminated from the human audio spectrum, though increases in volume reveal similar types of distortion. The process of 'dithering' converts the higher sampling rates to the standard 16-bit format which can then be read by the majority of computer-based disc drives, or CD and DVD players. Technology has yet to match the capabilities of the human body. As with the trained eye, a trained ear can perceive the mechanical nature of digital sound, though that gap is being reduced through software updates, faster processing, and modeling synthesis.


Virtually all photo editing programs leave a telltale signature within a digital photograph, and Photoshop is one. The Photoshop signature even includes the program's version number and in some cases, the date and time the photo was created, though this information is not generally seen when viewing the image in the normal manner. Digital pictures contain imbedded text files which can be viewed separately from the image file.


Though Photoshop is probably one of the more popular and versatile photo editing programs, it is not perfect. It cannot simulate certain lens phenomena, such as 'depth of field'. A trained, naked eye can spot a Photoshop compilation in a heartbeat. Since a photo compilation represents multiple subjects at different points in space and time, the original images will most likely have been photographed with different cameras, differing focal points, different lighting conditions, and a host of other anomalies that will become evident upon close inspection. Barack Obama's 'family' photos are no exception to this rule.


The Dunham clan photo composites


The family photos of Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama released for mainstream and alternative media publication on television, in newspapers, magazines, campaign literature, and on internet web sites are, without a doubt, composite misrepresentations of fact. The overwhelming majority of those photos are recreations intended to mislead the viewer(s) in concluding that Stanley Ann Dunham is his American birth mother, and that Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Lee (Payne) Dunham are his maternal grandparents.


The following analysis of these photos is the first to have been conducted by anyone searching for the truth about Barack Obama's true origins. Again, simple logic dictates: "Bogus documents, bogus photographs." There exists no other conclusion.


Through careful forensic study of the now-popular photos of Obama's 'family', it is evident that all of those published photos representing Obama's childhood days, purportedly taken in Indonesia, Africa, the Punahou School in Hawaii, Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA, Columbia University in New York, NY and elsewhere, have been doctored through the use of photo editing software -- predominantly Photoshop 3.0.8.


The conclusions drawn from a careful study of the aforementioned photographs are based upon those sloppy, composite fabrications which are replete with numerous anomalies that defy nature, physics, and reason. Shadows present in those photos behave erratically and are often totally and mysteriously absent under normal lighting conditions.


Contrarily, some of those photographs also have shadows where none would naturally exist in the most extraordinary circumstances. Those shadows have been added to the photographs to obfuscate or hide visible imperfections, due to the fraudulent methods in which the photographs were created. Composite photographs, when reduced (compressed) in size, often hide those imperfections. Upon enlarging the photographs by zooming in, one begins to see the anomalies appear with ever-increasing clarity. Pixellation begins to occur at a given point in any computerized photographic-enlargement procedure, often revealing which objects represent the more fraudulent elements of composition.


Let it suffice to say that if Barack Obama's 'official' document representations are fraudulent (and they are), then his photographic representations must also be fraudulent—and they are. The composite photos reveal additional anomalies that become quite obvious, once one understands what to look for.


In addition to the untimely pixellation which occurs during enlargement, the photo contents are replete with unnatural artifacts. Objects appear to move in and out from one another, lines or light appear around some or all of the objects, and some of the human subjects have three arms, three hands, unusually large heads, or multi-colored (not matching) shoes, shirts, jackets, or trousers.


(See: "The Three Stooges go to Washington, Part 3," The Idaho Observer, and on this web site for the original publication and preliminary analysis of the following photos within that article.)

Photo 1




The photo above is intended to legitimize the Dunham family story and is the only one published of Stanley Ann Dunham as an infant with. But is it really Stanley Ann in this photo?


Photo 1: Analysis


Notice that Stanley Ann's head is larger than her mother's and is out of proportion with the rest of her tiny body. In fact, as represented in the photo, her head is nearly the size of her father's. Those three anomalies, alone, confirm that this photo is a compilation.


Contrasting shadows, skin tones, and objects that are intentionally obscured are revealed by modifying various light aspects of this computerized collage of three separate photos. All three subjects demonstrate differing focal points derived from a single camera, and the lighting casts opposing shadows typically found in such fabrications.


All three subjects' eyes are focused in different directions, further indicating that each subject was photographed in different settings at different times.


Stanley Armour Dunham's overall appearance is gray and outside the light parameters of the rest of the photo. Notice how his tie casts a dark shadow behind his tie, indicating the light is shining from the left side of the photo. However, the right side of his face (that which faces the direction of the light) is obscured within a shadow. If the shadow was created by the light approaching from the left, his tie, his shirt, and his chin would be obscured by his daughter's head. But it is not being obscured by her head, evidenced by the singular shadow behind the tie. Therefore, the tie’s shadow is foreign to any lighting effects present in the overall portrait, disqualifying Stanley Armour’s image


Though his wife's and daughter's faces are illuminated by foreground light, his chin and throat are enveloped by a shadow that should not exist. And though his tie casts a shadow to the right, the left side of his head and face do not. In order to blend these three separate photos into a single compilation, shadowing effects were employed to hide this photo's fraudulent nature.

Photo 1-A




Photo 1-A: Analysis


The photo above represents a digital copy of “Photo 1,” which has been purposely edited (by the author) in order to accentuate the obvious discrepancies in shadows, light angles, and background manipulations intended to mask the compilation of three separate subjects (photos) and several special FX. By reducing white/black-point ratios of the original photograph, the author has revealed where the composite 'blending' is actually occurring. The darker blue portions reveal where light anomalies occur due to the layering of three different photographic images within the same digital photograph.

Image layering is a special effect available to Photoshop artists and is commonly used to create advertising media or motion picture special FX. It’s use is considered to be ‘creative’ in nature, though it can be (and often is) used to create fraudulent images, such as Photo 1 (above).


Photo 1-B




Photo 1-B: Analysis


The above photo (an exact digital copy in which the author has altered the gamma, contrast, and exposure levels) demonstrates a few additional anomalies worth pointing out. Madelyn Dunham appears to be wearing a uniform, possibly that of an airline stewardess. Below her right lapel is a number or ID badge. The tuft of hair behind her left ear is distinctively different in color than the rest of her head. Notice that her hair is parted on the left side, yet in many other photos, she parts her hair on the right side. [The author has seen only two photos where Madelyn Dunham parts her hair on the left side of her head.]


Stanley Ann appears to be sitting in a wooden high chair which, based on the perspectives of her parents, would mean her head is reaching a height approaching five feet. Next to her left arm is an abnormal representation of Stanley Armour's U.S. Army shirt pocket. The pocket is not sewn on straight, it is much darker than the rest of his shirt, and the pocket's material below the button is of a different texture. His ribbon bar is also pinned onto the shirt in a sloppy manner and is not parallel to the pocket flap. [This author can envision him cleaning latrines with a toothbrush while doing one-handed pushups for having violated "U.S. Army" protocol, that is, if he ever was in the army. Dunham’s uniform would not have passed inspection!]


In order to understand what one is actually seeing, the head of Stanley Armour Dunham has been 'Photoshopped' onto the image of another person, likely a real soldier. The dark shade of the pocket is part of the soldier's original shirt, and the lighter shade of the shirt (above the pocket) was added in order to accommodate the larger head and neck.


The creator of this collage determined that the discrepancies would be hidden by the intentional darkening of the composite photo.


Unnatural shadowing of the neck was added in order to hide the 'attachment' of Dunham's head to someone else’s torso, and the frill of Stanley Ann's dress conveniently aids in obscuring the darker color of the original shirt's image next to the pocket.


Photo 2




This photo was created and published in order to legitimize the Dunham clan, Barack Obama's so-called mother and grandparents. The photo's purported location (Beirut, Lebanon) was surmised as a result of the author's investigative research and was not proffered by anyone outside of international intelligence assets. Despite this photo having been 'taken' sometime between 1952-54, it is in remarkably good condition, that is, until its true nature is revealed.


Photo 2: Analysis


In the photo above, the original background has been darkened to aid in masking numerous anomalies which occur in the foreground regarding the three subjects, Stanley Ann, Stanley Armour, and Madelyn Dunham. The shadows cast by each subject's head travel in a different direction (angle), revealing that the photo is actually a composite of at least three photographs. Shadows follow light angles and do not possess the ability to move independently. The contrast level of the original photo was altered to hide the composite nature of the subjects, shadows, etc.


Photo 2-A




Seated (L-R) are Stanley Ann, Stanley Armour, and Madelyn Dunham. This photo has been edited (by the author) in order to reveal lighting anomalies which exist in the original prior to having been masked. The contrast, exposure, and brightness have been restored (somewhat) to reveal its fraudulent nature.


Photo 2-A: Analysis


In the photo above, the shadows end unnaturally and are even nonexistent in places where they should be. For example, why are all three subjects' heads casting shadows at different angles, but their bodies and/or limbs are not casting shadows at all? Notice the shadow to the left of Stanley Ann's head. It stops at the curtain but does not continue onto the wall next to the curtain. Each subject is also looking in a different direction, as if each is totally unaware of the photographer's position, implying that this is a candid shot. Zooming in (enlarging) reveals many anomalies, especially where arms, elbows, and clothing come into proximity to one another. In general, the subjects have been deposited into the photo at different times, Stanley Armour Dunham being the most obvious insertion. Notice the dark lines along the edge of his suit jacket. His image takes on an almost 3-D quality, though the shadow his head casts is much lighter than those cast by Madelyn and Stanley Ann. Notice the shadow on Stanley Ann's right arm, supposedly cast by her belt!! And though her dress doesn't cast a shadow, her belt does. Her right shirt sleeve is also the wrong shade -- it should be white. One can now see trees and other objects through the window. Notice the 'entity' (between Stanley Armour's head and Stanley Ann's left shoulder) that appears after the overall contrast has been readjusted.


Reviewing “Photo 2,” one can now discern its fraudulent nature, having seen the additional content in “Photo 2-A” (immediately above).


The next set of photos reveals several anomalies discussed in the aforementioned article. (See: "The Three Stooges go to Washington, Part 4,” The Idaho Observer)


A much older Stanely Armour and Madelyn Dunham are purported to have visited a 21-year-old Barack Obama, Jr. upon "his graduation from Columbia University, New York, NY, in 1983." Obama's dark clothes were chosen to hide the composite imperfections (see below) which would be more apparent had he worn lighter clothing. Both the Dunhams’ and Obama’s clothing is multi-hued, showing effects contradictory to those of natural sunlight, including the absence of (otherwise) natural shadowing.


Photo 3




Barack Obama sits on a bench in Central Park South, New York City with his grandparents, Stanley Armour and Madelyn Dunham.


Photo 3: Analysis


Stanley Armour Dunham was reported to have died on February 8, 1992, so he could not have been in a photo which simultaneously includes Obama's wedding ring, obtained (and worn) on or about October 18, 1992. If this is a genuine photo taken in 1983, Obama would have actually been wearing his wedding ring prematurely—by 9 and 1/2 years.


The most glaring anomaly is the fact that his grandfather appears to be suffering from a severe anatomical distortion: he has 3 arms! Look closely at his left shoulder. His arm is obviously hidden but is clearly hanging at his side. Simultaneously, Stanley Dunham puts his 'third hand' over Barack's shoulder (without raising his arm), but it doesn't quite rest on the shoulder -- it floats in the air!


A closer examination reveals that even the park bench is fraudulent. The photo appears to have been compiled in layers and in the following order: the bench, Stanley Dunham, Barack Obama, Madelyn Dunham, Stanley Dunham's suit jacke—entire left side, and Madelyn Dunham's suit jacket — entire right side.


The background, if in the actual setting of Central Park South, should have water on the other side of the wall nearest the bench—not trees. A closer look reveals two walls, the first near the base of the bench, and the second behind that wall. As in the previous set of photos, the subjects are not looking at the same photographer because there wasn't just one photographer—there were at least three, and most likely, six. The alteration/reinsertion of clothing is most visible along Stanley's left lapel and Madelyn's buttonhole side of her suit jacket, which is, abnormally, a straight line. The buttonholes are aligned, but the right-side lapel is definitely smaller than the left lapel, and so, it is out of proportion.


This photo is a complete composite fabrication intended to perpetuate the lie that Barack Obama attended and graduated from Columbia University and was subsequentlyvisited by his grandparents.


Photo 3-A




Photo 3-A: Analysis


The original photo has been edited (by the author) in order to reveal the darkened aspects of the composite manipulations. Changes were made by altering the white/black-point aspect ratios and by lowering the gamma drive. The actual sunlight patterns of the background become brighter, while the foreground becomes more distinct. The light anomalies of the foreground still remain opposite of what they should be and have little or no affect on Obama's clothing. Because the background is actually lighter, the foreground should be darker. It is not. Therefore, the subjects appear to be together due to composite construction.


With the brightening of this photo, Obama's left trouser leg now appears to be composed of three different types of material, due to the recropping of his leg onto the photo, after the insertion of Madelyn Dunham's image. The pant leg near the cuff is a light grey color which mutates into black. Below his left hand, the trousersturn light gray, then coal black. Still not convinced? Then notice that Obama's upper-left leg (femur) appears to be larger (thicker and taller) and longer by 5-6 inches (up to the knee) than his right leg. This is 'Photoshopping' at its worst.


As is seen in most of Barack Obama's photos, his ears protrude closer to his skull, less than can be seen in live television shots. His ears normally protrude outward by an additional 22.5 degrees or so.


There are far too many abnormalities within this photographic rendition for it to be genuine—a “D-” grade in Photoshop 101—and that’s being generous.


Photo 4




In order to promulgate the lie that Barack Obama is related to Kenyans or that he was sired by a Kenyan father, Obama's image was inserted into the following photo which is, again, replete with anomalies, distortions, and fraud.


[The initial analysis of the subject content of this photo appears in the article, "The Three Stooges go to Washington, Part 4," The Idaho Observer.]


Photo 4: Analysis


Enlargement (zooming in) of the above photo again reveals some peculiar anomalies which demonstrate a continuing pattern of obfuscation and fraud. How is it that one is unable to identify certain members of one's own family? The answer to that question is found, first, in considering this photo is an entire composite hoax and never actually occurred at all in realtime.


Barack Obama, Jr. and all other subjects have been compiled into this photo to give the fraudulent representation of a family gathering. Obama's hands appear to be resting on the shoulders of his half-sister, Auma and his grandmother, Kezia. One can see his cupped hands do not look natural—especially his right thumb—and are merely superimposed to look like they are really there. The hand of Abongo (Roy) Obama, his so-called step-brother, rests on Barack's shoulder, while the same hand is holding the hand of an unknown woman. Enlargement reveals that Abongo's right hand has been altered (masked) by photographic editing, showing a large, square pixel in place of the hand.


Again the unknown individual (back row, 2nd from the right) is wearing dark clothes intended to obfuscate the compiled abnormalities which cannot be hidden by other means. The unknown individual (back row, far right) next to him is sporting two-toned trousers, the left leg being powder blue, and the right leg being dark purple. Even the trousers’ inseam on the left leg is purple and is inconsistent with the lack of natural shadows within the entire picture. Nevertheless, that individual's right shoe remains white, while the color of his right pant leg has turned purple.


Photo 4-A




The author has edited an exact digital copy of “Photo 4” in an attempt to determine why shadows appear in such an orderly fashion, especially in places accessible to light


Photo 4-A: Analysis


Consistent with the fraudulent nature of this photograph are the following: Attempts at brightening the shadowed areas underneath and between the two center chairs reveal wheels on one chair, but produce no successful results on the other. This anomaly indicates that the shadow is a solid-black coloration added to facilitate the compiled nature of the photo. Why don't the outermost chairs produce similar shadows where the lighting should be naturally impeded? The floor shadowing effect is actually occurring in the areas between the chairs, where the lighting should reveal a white floor and not a black surface. The floor behind the unknown subject (again, back row, far right) suddenly turns powder blue, matching both the photo's backdrop and the subject's left-trouser leg.


Further analysis of this photo will consistently reveal the same types of anomalies. It should suffice to say that if one subject is fraudulently inserted into the photo, the entire photo is a fraud. This photo also pixellates at different levels of digital magnification, indicating it has been created by a crude method of compilation.


Photo 5




Barack, Sr. joins the photo-fraud party... Photo 5: Analysis


The above photo was discovered after the publication of "The Three Stooges go to Washington, Part 5." This photo is purported to have been taken at "Barack Obama, Sr.'s graduation party" in Hawaii. This photo is also a fraud.


Digital magnification (zooming in) reveals an extremely abnormal set of clues that the photo has been compiled. The majority of subjects are wearing light clothing with short-sleeved shirts or sleeveless dresses, yet the character wearing the abundant number of Hawaiian leis is also wearing a business suit and carrying a portfolio case.


Though the photograph appears to have been taken with a flash bulb, not one of the subjects casts a natural shadow, except for one individual seen squatting in the center of the front row. Actually, the individual wearing the long-sleeved white shirt casts a shadow of his left-hand index finger. That's it.


Magnification reveals that the individual representing Barack Obama, Sr. looks strikingly different from his other photographic representations. His skin tone is suddenly of a lighter complexion, and the left sleeve of his suit jacket is substantially lighter than the rest of his suit—an obvious, unnatural anomaly.


The leis that adorn Obama's neck, shoulders, and chest have been artificially inserted to mask the insertion of his own image. Upon magnification, the leis begin to pixellate immediately, demonstrating that the depth of field in this photograph is virtually nonexistent. This photo is nothing more than another of a collection of compiled photographs.


And despite the fact that this photo implies a sendoff of sorts, Stanley Ann Obama and Barack Obama, Jr. are suspiciously absent. The photo is an obvious attempt at legitimizing cultural diversity, one individual's uncommon popularity, and Obama's presence at the University of Hawaii—another fairy tale.


Photo 5-A




Photo 5-A (above) has been edited (by the author) to demonstrate and reveal the abnormalities which occur in the aforementioned descriptions. Magnification (by zooming) reveals the compiled construction of the photo. The gamma drive has been lowered, which lightens the generally-obscured portions of the compilation.


Photo 5: Analysis


Depicted in this photo are a menagerie of people—several who have, in varying degrees, mastered the art of levitation. Though it is impossible to determine exactly how many of these characters were in the original photo, it is easier to ascertain who was not.


As we will soon see in the 'Punahou School' photos (below), three individuals are squatting in the front row. Close-up magnification reveals that all three are looking in different directions, leaving the impression that they are totally unaware they are about to be photographed.


Upon close inspection, the reader will notice that the ground has front-to-back 'pitch', as if the polished-concrete surface has a slight incline. Note that the trunk sitting in the foreground does not follow the pitch (aspect ratio) of the ground surface. The lock side of the trunk is too high in perspective, creating the illusion that the trunk is levitating in the front. And the trunk exhibits ridiculous light anomalies, such as unnatural shadowing in line of the camera flash.


Looking at the young boy's feet (front-center), his right foot appears to be lifting off the ground. Have you, the reader, ever attempted to squat in this manner while raising the toe end of your foot? You will immediately experience excruciating pain due to the unnatural stretching of muscles, ligaments, and tendons, especially in the area of the shins. Yet, this boy accomplishes the feat with a smile on his face.


The individual sporting the long-sleeved white shirt is also smiling as he accomplishes the same trick with his left foot. His buddy, the one with both hands on the trunk, appears to have recently undergone a dual forearm transplant. One wonders who the donor might have been. It is obvious that the doctor who performed the 'surgery' works for the CIA.


Similar anomalies appear in the front (standing) row, one of the more obvious being the insertion of a sailor who was evidently levitating when the photographer said, "Cheese." The Hawaiian lady to his left (photo right) managed to look in the direction of the photographer, and is actually levitating an inch or so higher than the sailor. Like the others, the pregnant lady standing on the opposite side of the sailor is floating 'above ground', though the extra weight of the fetus probably keeps her slightly closer to 'terra firma'.


Obama, himself, is totally blocking the person behind him, whose coat or jacket protrudes slightly from behind Obama's artificially-reconstructed left arm. And upon extreme magnification of this image, Obama's suit lacks any hint of the grainy quality of the other subjects' clothing. On the other hand, Obama's face begins to pixellate at the same level of magnification, when the others do not. He has obviously been artificially inserted into this photographic compilation, along with the majority of its participants.


Obama is also holding a portfolio case in his left hand which is an additional prop to aid in obfuscating his left-arm transplant and to plant the idea that he was 'going somewhere' into the mind of the viewer. The presence of a trunk (or travel case) leaves one with a similar impression, although an independent photographer recognizes it as a ‘camera case’. The author is inclined to agree with that assessment, which now begs the question, “How often does a photographer leave his personal effects lying around, in plain sight of his camera lens?


Based on the accounts of prankBarack Obama, Sr.'s alledged Hawaiian departure sometime in "1963," is it plausible that one of his 'comrades' would be holding up the 'peace' sign? As you may recall, the peace sign evolved in the late-1960s. Its appearance in this photo is an anachronism, and that minute, disingenuous signal, itself, falls short of plausibility. Okay, so it might just be a ‘victory’ sign or someone playing a ‘devil’s-horns’ prank. Since Obama is not actually there, the fingers were probably added to the photo as another meaningless distraction.


Below is the same photo (Photo 5-B) with the gamma drive lowered to zero and the black-point aspects also lowered to zero. A very slight exposure reduction reveals the individual who has beenartificially added to the photo. You guessed it—Barack Obama, Sr. He has become a white man in a silver-gray suit. This phenomenon occurs because his image is foreign to the original lighting aspects of the entire photograph. The editing effect darkens the non-white clothes, yet Obama's suit has become light silver in appearance. Notice that the black sailorin the front row is still black. That is because he was added to the photo in a separate layer, prior to the layer in which Obama was added.


Photo 5-B




Photo 6




This photo of the Lolo Soetoro family was published as a representation of Obama's claim to have been adopted by Soetoro. Published as a B&W photo, it is actually a modified color photo. Forensic examination reveals it was modified with Photoshop 3.0.8 and an Apple computer.


(See: "The Three Stooges go to Washington, Part 4," The Idaho Observer, for original publication and preliminary analysis of the following photos within that article.)


The author discovered this anomaly, which has been revealed by him during numerous Internet radio broadcasts since October, 2008. The B&W version of this photo is intended to obfuscate various metaphysical phenomena which appear, along with the typical, compiled representation of separate photographs.


Below is the colorized version of the same photo.


Photo 6-A




Photo 6-A: Analysis


Enlarge6ent of the above photo will reveal many anomalies, foremost being the artificial insertion of the individual subjects that make up the final compilation. Additional anomalies can be clearly seen on the skin, i.e. hands, arms, and knees of the 'human' elements of the photo. Also revealed are lighting abnormalities which surround the heads of all subjects, producing a 'halo' effect on the background wall. Human subjects cast shadows—not light—when photographed.


Shadows and skin tones are either lacking or unnatural, and depth of field is nonexistent. Lighting from the camera's flash is uneven and inconsistent, i.e. one side of the wicker chair casts a shadow, but the other does not. The right side of the wicker chair is also tilted downward (as in the Central Park photo above), and the wood is several shades darker than the left side. Even Barack's left ear casts a shadow which is different in appearance and disproportionate to the shape of that ear and the angle of the camera flash. Notice that Lolo Soetoro's left ear casts a smaller shadow than that of Barack.


And take special notice that Barack's head and left ear are larger than Lolo's. Stanley Ann's head is also larger than Lolo's head by at least 25%, and though she is sitting behind Lolo, her legs, which are slanted slightly to one side, are longer than Lolo's by several inches.


The baby sitting on Stanley Ann's lap, Maya, is also unusually small for a human baby, though her legs extend beyond her mother's knees. In comparison, Barack's left ear is approximately one-half the size of his sister's head. The reason for the disproportionate subjects in this photo can only be explained by the its composite nature.


Photo 6-B




Photo 6-A: Analysis


Further adjustment of the gamma drive, as in “Photo 6-A” reveals that Stanley Ann is wearing a dress with imbedded sequins and a matching Muslim burqa. Both versions of the colorized photo also reveal snake-like skin on all of the subjects. Those features are not caused by pixel distortions and are representative of the original subject content of the photo, another reason for releasing a B&W version of this revealing photographic compilation. The reason for creating such a photo is simple—the purported family is fictional.


Photo 7




Photo 7: Analysis


Obama's presence in the photo above, a Punahou School class photo is, once again, a result of fraudulent manipulation of images inserted into the entire foreground of what originally represented a girl's group photo. The entire row of boys squatting in front of the original photo's subjects is designed to represent a mixed class. In the photo below, every single male has been inserted into the original photograph. The photo not only lacks depth of field, it lacks any semblance of natural shadows. The inserted images are unnatural compilations and could not occur in a realtime photograph. The heads and bodies of the squatters are too large, despite their being in the foreground. The heads of the boys in the front row are also 25-50% larger than those of the girls standing in the back row. Magnification reveals lines around each of the squatting subjects. In order for the front row subjects to reasonably be in the photo, the distance between each row would have to be the width of an Olympic-size swimming pool, just to compensate for the differences in body size. One subject (lower left) is actually cut out of the photo. This collage is yet another mulit-layered Obama fraud, again, with Obama 'Photoshopped' into the near-center.


The photo below, along with all other Punahou School photos within this treatise, was published within three hours of Dr. Orly Taitz' amended complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court. The photos mysteriously appeared on the huffington.com web site, and the time reference within each photo demonstrates both the times and dates of each photo's release. Dr. Taitz referenced her filing time as "2:30 p.m." These photos have an imbedded time stamp of "5:14:04 p.m." on the day that Dr. Taitz filed her amended complaint. More obfuscation, or just plain damage control???


Photo 8




Photo 8: Analysis


Above is Barack Obama's Punahou School Basketball team photo. The original color photo was changed to B&W before publication. The author, as in the case of the Lolo Soetoro family photo, discerned it was originally a color photo. It was, and it was doctored to hide inferior Photoshop compiling. Again, Obama is conveniently centered in the photo, and he is sitting unusually close to his 'teammates'. Obama is also holding a basketball in his laan event unlikely to occur twice in any basketball team photo. His complexion is also unusually dark—darker than his usual photographic skin tone. Enlargement reveals a myriad of artificial compilations inserted, in stages, to make it appear that Obama is really in this photograph. Coincidentally, Obama's crotch area is the only one that casts a shadow.


Notice the right arm of the individual sitting to his left (photo right) and how it is lighter in complexion than his left arm. That anomaly is caused by the actual insertion of Obama's image, followed by the reinsertion of the arm. The same abnormality becomes more apparent in the colorized version of the same photo, which is why it was originally published in B&W format. (See Lolo Soetoro family, “ Photo 6” above.)


Photo 8-A




Photo 8-A: Analysis


This original (restored) colorized version of the B&W photo (above) reveals inconsistent colors on the players' uniforms, especially those sitting in the front row. The author restored the color balance of this photo by using the basketball's color as a reference. The other colors appear as a result of the basketball looking like a basketball. The color differences seen on the uniforms are a result of sloppy photographic compilations, not color restoration.


Obama's 'Afro' begins pixellating before any other subject in the photo, indicating it is a multidimensional compilation derived from multiple sources. It is obvious that Obama's hair is out of proportion, on the left side of his face, and protrudes onto his forehead by several inches more than on the right side. No other photo of Obama exhibits such a hair line as the one seen in this photo. Digital magnification immediately reveals the fraudulent nature of this photo.


Most significant is the coloring of the jersey letters spelling the word, PUNAHOU. The individuals seated on each side of Obama and the one at top row, far right, have jerseys with black lettering. Though all of the letters are sewn onto the jerseys in a semi-circular pattern, the student at the right-center (Obama's left) has lettering that is sewn on in a horizontal line. The letters also have a distinctively different font from the other jerseys, and based upon the appearance of what should be the letter A, the word, PUNAHOU is misspelled.


The script on Obama's jersey is totally masked, both by his arms and by the basketball he is holding against his right leg. Obama's legs are obscured in shadows, though the ball exhibits a unique ability to resist shadowing. Notice that Obama casts shadows underneath his arms, under his chin, and along/between his legs. No other student, except for the one with the anomalous jersey, is casting such shadows, and he casts shadows from a variety of light angles which are not naturally found in the original photo. The light reflected on Obama's


basketball reflects light from directly overhead (top), yet the basketball in the front row reflects the same light from the top sides and front angles.


As a final note, the student sitting in the front row, center has a shadow on his left arm which is, in turn, casting a shadow on the right arm of the student sitting to his left (front right). It is impossible for a shadow to cast another shadow upon another object, especially when that object is in front of the shadow. This representation of Barack Obama's basketball team photo is absolutely fraudulent.


Photo 9





Barack Obama, Jr.'s Punahou School graduation photo attempts to convey the impression, once again, that he did attend the school in Hawaii.


Photo 9: Analysis


Upon enlarging this photo, the image of the females seated and standing in the background seem to be a projection on a large screen. From the focal point where Obama appears to be accepting his diploma, all the other subjects within the photo are bathed in overhead light of a reddish hue, an effect that yellows their gowns and reddens their faces—with one exception, the blonde-haired girl whose face is visible beneath the 'handshake' and above the diploma being handed to Obama. Her hair remains blond, and her gown is snow-white, totally unaffected by the red lights. We are to presume that the camera flash singled her out of the crowd, affecting only her dress and hair, while leaving everyone else, but one cartoon-like character in the vicinity of the diploma, untouched.


Also evident are the fingers visible on Obama's right hand and their distinctively darker color. His claw-like grasp of his ‘diploma’ mirrors the numerous abnormalities and general disfigurement that follows him—from one photo to the next—throughout this entire exposé.


Obama' s tapered, white-collared dress shirt resembles a T-shirt which is not tucked within his trousers—an unexplainable anomaly which suggests the shirt, necktie, and sport coat are Photoshopped into the image. It is strange that the lighting that casts an orange-red hue on his 'Afro' hairdo has no impact upon his white shirt, his sport coat, his tie, his trousers, nor his hand which is held upward, facing the very light which has given his coal-black hair a reddish hue. Equally, the man presenting the diploma is not at all affected by the same reddish light on any part of his head, body, or clothing. His hands also exhibit different skin tones, despite both hands being exposed to the same light of the camera flash. And the white object behind this individual seems totally unaffected by the same reddish light bathing the rest of the audience.


This photo is not only full of inexplicable inconsistencies, it is an abomination. (No pun intended!) It is no surprise that the background subjects paid little or no attention at all to Obama, largely because he was not even there. Generally speaking, such photographs are taken from the perspective of the whole audience, not from backstage. And this photo, like Obama's other school photos, is cropped at the edges, omitting any possible details that might give away its fraudulent nature. Ponder that for a moment, and you, too, will see the ruse.


Conclusions


By now, the reader will be asking more than a few questions. Why would anyone fake such important photographs, and how could they expect to get away with such a criminal act after all? The answers to those questions (and the others you may be asking yourself) are simple:


Obama and his New-World-Order handlers had no other choice. Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama, Jr. is, and has been, a fraud—from day one. That is what he is, and that is all he will ever be.


The powers-that-be, in their arrogant, psychopathic zeal, assume that a sufficient number of people have been adequately brainwashed to the extent that they will 'believe' anything. Many have believed the lies from the very beginning and likely still do. But the NWO types and their minions have severely miscalculated the sheer determination and conviction which drives those who relentlessly cast light on their dark deeds and on their evil plans for humanity.


The first step in accepting Barack Obama's promise for "change” is taken after accepting his fraudulent historical accounts, his fraudulent 'documentation', and now—his fraudulent Photoshop images. If you, the reader, can honestly look at any photographs of Barack Obama or his self-proclaimed international-bloodline stooges without a hint of suspicion regarding those photos’ origins, you have already experienced the "change" for which you have longed. You will have been blinded by the very darkness that follows him and those whose bidding he does.


The 'messiah' you have awaited has symbolicaly twisted the words which describe the True Messiah's "Immaculate Conception," into his own "immaculate deception." Satan, himself, would be proud of such a feat.


In summation, there remains no doubt, now, that the photographic biography of Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama, Jr. is as great a fiction as his own autobiographical accounts, whether in book, audio, video, online, or print-media format. Although these photos do not conclusively prove where Obama or his family were at any given point in time, they do prove where he—and they—were not.

Don Nicoloff

© Don Nicoloff / Direct Light Productions, 2009
http://directlightproductions.com/

Anonymous said...

These lawyers are acting like clowns.Arlen,Sam Sewell did a good job explaining the Citizen's Grand Jury on Don's Evident Footprints Show.And how Fitzpatrick's criminal complaint of treason was added.He wasn't aware of Don's series.Give him the links.He might be able to add the information to the charges.Surprised you haven't linked his series here yet. http://www.whale.to/b/nicoloff_h.html http://directlightproductions.com/

Anonymous said...

Tell Sam that the Whaleto website is much easier to read than Don's website.He is going to review Don's works before going on his show again next week.This is good news.Don has a different listener audience thna the Obama POTUS eligibility type listeners.

Anonymous said...

Berg's lawsuit ? More like Berg's Boondoggle.

Anonymous said...

The proud Hillary supportera on the show went mute when Marxism was mentioned. http://www.usasurvival.org/ck061903.shtml http://www.apfn.org/apfn/hillary_waco.htm http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/071212

Polarik said...

The next big lawsuit you will be hearing about is the one naming Defendant Don Nicoloff for plaguiarism and copyright vio;ations. Printing someone elese hard work as passinbg it off as your own, even to the point of putting your copyright is beyond despicable.

I went to your website where your theft began, and no one, not a single other writer who produced the work that you shamelesly stole, was given any attribution whatsoever.

I know everyone who is the real source of what you wrote, and I'm going to contact everyone of them so that they can reclaim what belongs to them -- not you!!!

O thought Obama was the biggest liar that I've heard, but after reading your self-promotion on directlightproductions, you win, hands-down:

Here you will find my research-based articles published by the Idaho Observer and other alternative ‘truth media’. The result of several years of painstaking research and analysis..Just how "painstaking is it, Don, to rob those of us who actually did all of the hard work??

Arlen Williams said...

Interesting comments. I should be able to address some of them, this evening.

Anonymous said...

Now Don is in this?Unreal!!!! Talk about sidetracking issues.Sheesh!!!

Anonymous said...

Seems that in one of these camps it isn't about exposing Obama as much as it is sour grapes over a lack of credit for this or foor that.

Anonymous said...

Polarik knows every single researcher thathas done the "original" research related to Don's work?Another big lawsuit with Don as Defendant?Arlen,is this what the Berg camp is all about?I know you've been kind to Berg over the past months.I'm really interested in your thoughts of these strange actions in that camp.Because it is apparent we truthseekers are not all in the same camp at gearing our efforts at exposing Obama,and not caring about credit or money for it.I heard the rant by Berg of Orly being wrong to call our nonresponsive-to put it mildly- judges and federal and district attorneys criminally complicit for not investigating Obama.Wrong.Sam went over the co-conspirators angle with Don last night.And how the enforcement of these criminal indictments against Barry will come eventually,including the co-conspirators.After Fitzpatrick was included in this effort I think Sam is correct.I had doubts about the GJ"S and how it could be enforced.And I know Orly is not a good lawyer,and I don't support her.But the organizing she is doing aids the GJ effort.Because we are not getting redress of griewvances form our government.That's where Leo is wrong.A line has to be drawn in the sand,and it was with the GJ"s.The government and SCOTUS can stonewall forever,but we are not waiting for these eligiblity cases to be heard.Or for Pidgeon's National Grand Jury.Or the Con.Convention that keeps getting postponed.People are acting now.And Orly took the disappearing Pidgeon's GJ and got things done quickly.No,she isn't deserving of credit.But that isn't the point.SEwell,Swenson,Campblell,and all the rest of the patriots are doing something instead of filing lawsuits or seeking credit.The fun sort of credit is the challenge between patriots,like Sam's with another guy,mentioned on the show last night.That is to get more GJ members than the other patriot.That is called TEAMWORK.

Anonymous said...

What is the point in filing lawsuits-other than a hidden agenda-against patriots tryig to expose Obama? Orly communicated with Berg and this coulod've been resolved,but Berg admits cutting off communication with her last December.And now Don is going to be sued instead of corrobating the evidence and also going to him to see if he had his own contacts and did his own research or if he did ripoff other's works?One doesn't have to work on legal eligibility laswsuits together,but should support each other to expose Obama.I haven't seen Orly make overt derogatory statements against Berg.She has said over and over again that she sent him information and he refused to discuss it with her.Some think he is in a pickle and has to go in the direction he has take for self-survival or other reasons.Others support Berg without giving valid reasons for doing so,as we haven't heard or seen evidence against Orly,but only Hale.Others are confused or on the fence.All I'm saying is that these lawsuits and badmouthing of people without proof is not something prudent lawyers or intelligent people engage in.You back up your accusations with facts.Or,in Orly's case what you believe to be facts.If she's wrong,fine.But I have heard and seen nothing from Berg.

Arlen Williams said...

Things to say....

1. No one needs to be obsessed with this law suit.

2. It should not be difficult to accept that Orly Taitz is responsible for the chaos she has spread and that others have decided to defend their reputations and privacy.

3. There may or may not be a follow-up posting about this case and how it happened to come about. If I post such an article/commentary, it will become more understandable that Philip Berg, Lisa Liberi, MommaE, and Lisa Ostella have had their eye on the ball and that Orly Taitz has taken some problematic bait (and that Ed Hale has always been Ed Hale).

Anonymous said...

A day or two trying to hear Berg's side and getting nowhere is not obsessing.Yes,it is not difficult at all to believe Orly is a loose cannon.But that alone,doesn't prove the allegations in the 85 page lawsuit.The ones about Ed Hale are easy to believe for anyone that has listened to the man.But Orly's crazy antics do not prove the allegations,for it hasn't been mentioned how she is wrong.She could be,but that cannot be based on generalized statements about her.Any detriment to Berg's reputation has been from his own actions.As for the two Lisas,most of us haven't a clue.Shed some light on this topic or drop it.This isn't about obsession or defending Orly.It is about interviews that were supposed to be about this slander lawsuit that ended up being more of Berg's usual grandstanding.You apparently know more and thusd have taken Berg's side vy saying they have their eye on the ball.Well,the listeners didn't hear that evidence.They heard accusations just as in the lasuit.Until both sides are heard and examined it is impossible to render an impartial judgment in one's mind,unless there has been a presuppositional bias at the outset.

Anonymous said...

What I mean with the difference between Hale and Taitz is that Hale is on record slandering Momma E over and over again.Orly hasn't slandered Berg.She's raised questions about Berg,and without a response it raised more questions.There is no doubt that she was wrong to email private information on the others.But,since Berg is doing all the talking and claims he is injured as well,it stands to reason he should say something on the topic instead of spouting the hoax line over and over.And sending out an email on Orly,making sure that bold and caps were used for the words : I NEED YOUR HELP!! and EVERYONE and FINANCIAL SUPPORT.Gee,that really sounds like he has his eye on the ball there Arlen.Again,regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks of both of these lawyers,the evidence or information from both sides should be weighed and scrutinized before arriving at a decision.Of course,ultimately that is up to the court and a jury if necessary.But if this is public news,it is naturally going to be commented on.Once again,Berg hasn't said much about the lawsuit.That's his prerogative,but he should've let the hosts know so they could change the title of the show to Berg's Donation Hour.

Anonymous said...

True.Eye on the moneyball.

Arlen Williams said...

Orly Taitz' accusations according to this suit have been focused chiefly upon Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella.

Since she relies significantly upon the work of others in her "research," there seems to be a problem person or problem people giving her information/disinformation.

Arlen Williams said...

However, Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are entitled to privacy regarding private matters, even if some or all of Taitz' allegations are not true.

If one does not wish to be grilled about personal matters pending a lawsuit playing out, there is little that can be fleshed out. That is the court's job, essentially.

Anonymous said...

Okay.We all understand both the privacy and judicials aspects of the story.The point is that the defendants came foreword publicly,and then didn't say anything of import.Time to move on.This wasn't about siding with Orly or Berg,but rather this lawsuit being thrown into the public domain and interviews taking place by the defendants,and the information being scarce and digressing into another standard Berg interview.So,we'll leave it at that.

Anonymous said...

Correction---interviews by the Plaintiffs.The only defendant speaking is Orly.Hale finally had a lawyer muzzle his trap.And nothing is being heard from the other defendants.Besides this lawsuit,most of us are simply weary with the pleas for money by some of these lawyers.

Anonymous said...

On a final note,and this is my last comment on this until something major takes place,is that if one doesn't want to be grilled,they do not come out in the public.There are othr options :Post a statement on a blog,or have a spokesman speak out on the subject.It's deceptive to go on shows on a specific topic and then turn it into a grandstanding event that is off topic.Even if the Plaintiffs are 100% correct in each and every allegation.But then,Berg has had that problem since he started the interview circuit.Whenever a host or caller "grills" him he tells the host to cut them off or he will hang up the phone,which he has done.I respect those that can sit in the hot sdeat and deliver the goods.It's not easy.But doing so gains a person much respect.

PatriotLinda said...

Arlen & Hanen,

I can't believe you keep falling for his crap. I listened to about a total of 7 min of the entire program(fast forwarding past the redundit crap) and Berg doesn't know crap from shinola about the constitution. Everything he says about the definition of NBC is incorrect.

And not only does Berg NOT know his constitution, you guys just sat there and never brought up any of the supporting documents from the founding fathers and the intent of the NBC clause.

The lawsuit against Orly isn't about the law, it's about getting Berg more air-time for him-self and he has that E person prodding him all the way and we already know to take anything she says with a grain of salt, because that's about the size of the truth it only hopes to hold.

My conclusion, none of this is going anywhere, even the AGJ's which are now running unconstitutionally because they have broken the 1st rule of a jury: jurors entering into it unbiased.

So, until some sorry Senator or Congressman wakes up in Washington, we are stuck for 3 1/2 yrs and by that time we will no longer recognize our country because too many so called patriots are too tied up in the new blogtalk fame game and not proud enough to get off their PC easy chair and go to the real public.

Hey, how about a show on that..."What are you doing besides blogging for the cause to save the country and our constitution".

Anonymous said...

Linda,that's what I thought of the interview as well.And all Berg's interviews.Same spiel,and he definitely doesn't understand the NBC clause.And even though I think Orly needs to explain why she never filed the Keye's QW he wrote and sent to her months ago - she's been asked countless times on that one - that is no reason to give Berg a pass.When you get down to it,the people are not being heard,not rising in great enough numbers,and there is going to be no heroic politicians standing up for the Constitution.We'll be in the NAU and serfdom in less than 3 1/2 years.By that time we wll be in the NWO.

Anonymous said...

The best method at damge control is to choos someone to be "the first out of the gates."

J&D said...

米蘭情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,飛機杯,自慰套,充氣娃娃,AV女優.按摩棒,跳蛋,潤滑液,角色扮演,情趣內衣,自慰器,穿戴蝴蝶,變頻跳蛋,無線跳蛋,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒


辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss,視訊ggoo,視訊美女ggoo


080苗栗人聊天室,080中部人聊天室ut,ut影音視訊聊天室13077,視訊做愛,kk777視訊俱樂部,上班族聊天室,聊天室找一夜,情色交友,情色貼片,小瓢蟲情色論壇,aio交友愛情館