Everyone Read - Signature Faked
- Thread starter Grimsatire
- Start date
BuddyRey
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
We need this put up on Digg immediately!!!
Paul/Belichick08
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31
If you can't see from the writing style that Dr. Paul didn't write this letter, I don't know what to tell you.
Quick
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 544
Amen. (and I'm not even religious)
Quick
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 544
I'm not expert.. but if you take this image that is being posted here.
And look at his signature from the document TNR released from 1978..
His signature looks exactly like the one on the right (his real signature) and nothing like the one that was placed on that hateful letter.
What is very consistent with every Ron Paul signature I've seen (and I actually have 3, two on small brochures, and 1 on a big Ron Paul sign) is that the 'aul' in Paul always is always curving up, and never on the line.
I think if his signature from 1978 looks exactly like it does today, the idea that randomly on that one letter he messed up and changed the style of his signature and that signature just happened to be on a very hateful letter is pretty ludicrous to even consider.
Though, this "evidence" is the only thing these anti-Paul people are gripping on to as proof. Can't accuse them of not trying, however. The sad part is that without an actual expert responding, it will always be "us vs. them" on this issue.
And look at his signature from the document TNR released from 1978..
His signature looks exactly like the one on the right (his real signature) and nothing like the one that was placed on that hateful letter.
What is very consistent with every Ron Paul signature I've seen (and I actually have 3, two on small brochures, and 1 on a big Ron Paul sign) is that the 'aul' in Paul always is always curving up, and never on the line.
I think if his signature from 1978 looks exactly like it does today, the idea that randomly on that one letter he messed up and changed the style of his signature and that signature just happened to be on a very hateful letter is pretty ludicrous to even consider.
Though, this "evidence" is the only thing these anti-Paul people are gripping on to as proof. Can't accuse them of not trying, however. The sad part is that without an actual expert responding, it will always be "us vs. them" on this issue.
Last edited:
I have what I KNOW to be an original signature, which he autographed onto my Delegate ID for the Texas Straw Poll.
The signature on that bogus assed letter is NOWHERE near the manner he forms his L's P's N's and A's and R's. In fact, the O isn't even near matching.
The signature on that bogus assed letter is NOWHERE near the manner he forms his L's P's N's and A's and R's. In fact, the O isn't even near matching.
Teflon Master
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 210
I made a gif
Post it!
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
Those Signatures are so NOT the same. haha.
ANOTHER THING.. look at the top of the first page.. "Congressman Ron Paul"
looks like ANYBODY could have made that on a computer.. I dont see any congressional letterhead or anything.
more TNR bullshit if you ask me..
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
hah They Took It Down..
Good Job
Good Job
This is true, it was an error in judgement, and I applaud him for accepting moral responsibility for the newsletters.
The most likely scenario to me is that once his campaign for president as a Libertarian was over, he went back to his practice as a doctor and let people take over his newsletter while not bothering to even read it. Unfortunately, this has caused "blowback" and "unintended consequences" in that it attracted radical racist figureheads like the one that donated to his campaign and was all over the media.
I forgive him. He's human. A negligent mistake does not undo a lifetime of good work.
not for these newsletters with signatures.
GR4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15
Wow, while that certainly doesn't sound like Ron Paul's writings, I am amazed at how much whoever it was got right!!
Listen to them describing the steps to real money (in 1992!!) fiber threads in the bills and then pink and blue dollars with holograms, metal strips, etc.. Uh... didn't those JUST come out? And he knew about this 15 years in advance?
Then the talk about "smartcards" and guess what, buddies - February 2008 is the deadline to start instituting the new "Real ID act" which amounts to a national passport.
He mentioned the bohemian grove, skull & bones of both Bush and Kerry (who the hell knew anything about Kerry back then?) Disregarding any evil conspiracy theory surrounding it, he clearly pointed it out and fell just short of naming two people that might have become Presidents.
Finally, anyone else notice some of the sentences being underlined here to show extremism? Clearly, someone was pouring over this to find sentences that they found alarming. But statements like "Americans have the right to be free. We are born free. And we must live free" Why underline those? Did the author have a problem with that sentence?
And the comment about the federal-homosexual coverup of aids? Sounds more like he is alarming people that AIDS is man made and was intended to kill off homosexuals. As conspiratorial as it sounds, it sounds more like he values the homesexuals lives rather that saying anything harmful.
This all actually reads ALOT like Alex Jones, to be honest with you. The bragging, the boasting, etc... But again, other than some conspiratorial remarks (and some that were probably called conspiratorial back then, but have proven to be true now) I find nothing offensive in this solicitation letter.
Still, again, doesn't sound at all like Ron Paul's style of writing. Too much sarcasm and snarky comments, too much boasting. But whoever this person is, they have a pretty good track record of getting things right well before the general public knew anything about them. I am natural skeptic, but it might be wise to at least listen to some of the more nutty sounding stuff as well.
Now I am off to read the rest of the 'evidence' a little more clearly.
Listen to them describing the steps to real money (in 1992!!) fiber threads in the bills and then pink and blue dollars with holograms, metal strips, etc.. Uh... didn't those JUST come out? And he knew about this 15 years in advance?
Then the talk about "smartcards" and guess what, buddies - February 2008 is the deadline to start instituting the new "Real ID act" which amounts to a national passport.
He mentioned the bohemian grove, skull & bones of both Bush and Kerry (who the hell knew anything about Kerry back then?) Disregarding any evil conspiracy theory surrounding it, he clearly pointed it out and fell just short of naming two people that might have become Presidents.
Finally, anyone else notice some of the sentences being underlined here to show extremism? Clearly, someone was pouring over this to find sentences that they found alarming. But statements like "Americans have the right to be free. We are born free. And we must live free" Why underline those? Did the author have a problem with that sentence?
And the comment about the federal-homosexual coverup of aids? Sounds more like he is alarming people that AIDS is man made and was intended to kill off homosexuals. As conspiratorial as it sounds, it sounds more like he values the homesexuals lives rather that saying anything harmful.
This all actually reads ALOT like Alex Jones, to be honest with you. The bragging, the boasting, etc... But again, other than some conspiratorial remarks (and some that were probably called conspiratorial back then, but have proven to be true now) I find nothing offensive in this solicitation letter.
Still, again, doesn't sound at all like Ron Paul's style of writing. Too much sarcasm and snarky comments, too much boasting. But whoever this person is, they have a pretty good track record of getting things right well before the general public knew anything about them. I am natural skeptic, but it might be wise to at least listen to some of the more nutty sounding stuff as well.
Now I am off to read the rest of the 'evidence' a little more clearly.
GR4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15
BTW, anyone notice the copyright warning at the bottom of the political report?
By Jamie scanning this and converting it to a PDF, isn't he violating the copyright? Would it still be valid after 18 years?
Just sayin'
By Jamie scanning this and converting it to a PDF, isn't he violating the copyright? Would it still be valid after 18 years?
Just sayin'
GR4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15
On page 2:
"But they imposed a thousand new guilts over racism, sexism, ageism, specieism, and homophobia (the dread belief that normal sexual conduct is superior to abnormal.)"
I am just reaching there, but is this person taking a swipe at homophobia, calling it "dread" in a tone that implies that they think the idea silly? Probably confusing because of the next paragraph which states opinion that "natural law is sex between a man and a woman." Is that offensive to gays? It sounds perfectly rational to me, but I am not gay. By natural law, one would assume the author simply meant that since... well, we all know how conception happens, not only among humans but animals as well. We were supposed to be designed that way - sounds like "natural law" to me. Obviously gay people wouldn't exist if their parents hadn't been hetereosexuals. But again, does that necessarily imply anything bigoted towards gays? I hold the belief above and hold absolutely NOTHING against gays and I don't believe it just a "lifestyle of choice" or that it is immoral. I have several gay friends, but they know I don't want to hear details of their sex lives. For that matter, I don't want to hear details of my heterosexual friend's sex lives.
The limp-wristed remark? I think it was just a retort at an overly sensitive journalist going on attack and attempting. Not particularly tasteful, but not unusual for someone that bucks the PC bull. Kind of a rebellious remark saying screw you, I have free speech.
I am reading a person defending gay people , but also offering their own personal opinion about the subject.
Basically "You are free to be gay, and I am free to believe natural law says sex 'should' be between a man and a woman. In other words, live and let live." The last two sentences however are a bit confusing. Just more personal opinion?
I don't know, the format is just too causal and loose. Ideas are not really finished.
"But they imposed a thousand new guilts over racism, sexism, ageism, specieism, and homophobia (the dread belief that normal sexual conduct is superior to abnormal.)"
I am just reaching there, but is this person taking a swipe at homophobia, calling it "dread" in a tone that implies that they think the idea silly? Probably confusing because of the next paragraph which states opinion that "natural law is sex between a man and a woman." Is that offensive to gays? It sounds perfectly rational to me, but I am not gay. By natural law, one would assume the author simply meant that since... well, we all know how conception happens, not only among humans but animals as well. We were supposed to be designed that way - sounds like "natural law" to me. Obviously gay people wouldn't exist if their parents hadn't been hetereosexuals. But again, does that necessarily imply anything bigoted towards gays? I hold the belief above and hold absolutely NOTHING against gays and I don't believe it just a "lifestyle of choice" or that it is immoral. I have several gay friends, but they know I don't want to hear details of their sex lives. For that matter, I don't want to hear details of my heterosexual friend's sex lives.
The limp-wristed remark? I think it was just a retort at an overly sensitive journalist going on attack and attempting. Not particularly tasteful, but not unusual for someone that bucks the PC bull. Kind of a rebellious remark saying screw you, I have free speech.
I am reading a person defending gay people , but also offering their own personal opinion about the subject.
Basically "You are free to be gay, and I am free to believe natural law says sex 'should' be between a man and a woman. In other words, live and let live." The last two sentences however are a bit confusing. Just more personal opinion?
I don't know, the format is just too causal and loose. Ideas are not really finished.
GR4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15
And here's an interesting sentence:
"I bought my first copy of the men's fashion magazine GQ ..."
Wasn't there a New York Times article last year where a reporter was riding with Ron Paul in a limo to the Stephen Colbert Report where his staff told him that he was to be featured in GQ, and the reporter recorded a conversation in which Ron Paul expressed that he had never heard of it?
Bad memory, or a small piece of evidence that Ron Paul definitely did not write this? The writer sounded pretty informed about GQ magazine.
Actually, I see it mentioned on another thread, but it didn't seem to get attention. This is a pretty important piece of evidence, folks.
"I bought my first copy of the men's fashion magazine GQ ..."
Wasn't there a New York Times article last year where a reporter was riding with Ron Paul in a limo to the Stephen Colbert Report where his staff told him that he was to be featured in GQ, and the reporter recorded a conversation in which Ron Paul expressed that he had never heard of it?
Bad memory, or a small piece of evidence that Ron Paul definitely did not write this? The writer sounded pretty informed about GQ magazine.
Actually, I see it mentioned on another thread, but it didn't seem to get attention. This is a pretty important piece of evidence, folks.
Paul has been everywhere, fox, cnn and msnbc talking about this newsletter thing.
This is over; unless new data is found-
There is NO new News here, so no New Headline!
No new Headline, No story!
It's over! Let it die.
It was out there early and now it's out of the way- that's why Ron did all the shows when he did.
Put your sticks down, stop poking this dead horse.
This is over; unless new data is found-
There is NO new News here, so no New Headline!
No new Headline, No story!
It's over! Let it die.
It was out there early and now it's out of the way- that's why Ron did all the shows when he did.
Put your sticks down, stop poking this dead horse.
Similar threads
