CSI OBAMA

[LWW]

HOLY COUNTERFEIT BATMAN! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs)

[LWW]

CRIME NEVER SLEEPS ROBIN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S40WKxKSlHc&feature=player_embedded)

[LWW]

WHAT WOULD DETECTIVES POSSIBLY KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qDzMYWTjds&feature=player_embedded)

[LWW]

SAY IT AIN'T SO BARRY, SAY IT AIN'T SO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs)

[LWW]

REMEMBER WHAT DEAR LEADER TELLS US ... JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN PROVE IT'S A FAKE DOESN'T PROVE A THING (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S40WKxKSlHc&feature=player_embedded)

[LWW]

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qDzMYWTjds&feature=player_embedded)

[eg8r]

You linked the wrong video here. It is the same as the first one.

eg8r

[eg8r]

Again, wrong video. Unless you just want it posted twice.

eg8r

[eg8r]

Again, this is a repeat. Is this on purpose?

Why not show the video about Optimization?

eg8r

[Soflasnapper]

Contact Donald Trump!

Or the World News Daily! Larry Sinclair! [Gratuitous mention of the late Mr. Breitbart omitted for reasons of taste]

[Soflasnapper]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WHAT WOULD DETECTIVES POSSIBLY KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qDzMYWTjds&feature=player_embedded) </div></div>

As proofreaders, these guys are not good detectives.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Opitical</span> character recognition? Don't recognize that term!

Well, no worries. Sloppy people who cannot be bothered to make sure their first page is spelled correctly are still VERY RELIABLE when it comes to rigorous thinking and attention to details of evidence and argument.

Don't you agree?

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, this is a repeat. Is this on purpose?

Why not show the video about Optimization?

eg8r </div></div>

Not sure what happened this AM:
OPTIMIZATION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQUGwEZ-xDo&feature=player_embedded)

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, wrong video. Unless you just want it posted twice.

eg8r </div></div>

CONCLUSION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgTZUVpb3dk&feature=player_embedded)

[LWW]

ADDITIONAL FORGERY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHAM3hRI8_Y&feature=player_embedded)

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WHAT WOULD DETECTIVES POSSIBLY KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qDzMYWTjds&feature=player_embedded) </div></div>

As proofreaders, these guys are not good detectives.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Opitical</span> character recognition? Don't recognize that term!

Well, no worries. Sloppy people who cannot be bothered to make sure their first page is spelled correctly are still VERY RELIABLE when it comes to rigorous thinking and attention to details of evidence and argument.

Don't you agree? </div></div>

What a scathing rebuttal.

As I have always said about O-cultists ... when all you need is a reason to dent reality, any reason at all will do.

[Soflasnapper]

What I said was correct, in as much as these guys were indeed that sloppy or couldn't be bothered to run their powerpoint or video captioning through spell check. Or simply to LOOK at the piece before finalling it, and finding such an obvious mistake as this.

I was not correct when I ironically or sarcastically said that such sloppy, couldn't care less people were still very reliable when it comes to [being right on all other claims].

I admit it is no definitive disproof of their claims otherwise, but maintain it should decrease overall confidence in their claims, at a threshhold level. They got the very start of their presentation wrong. What else did they get wrong, that isn't so obvious to notice?

Without evidence of any reliability or expertise in this subject, such 'evidence' as their presentation and reasoning about it would not pass muster into a court proceeding. Is there any such evidence?