OK, I haven’t watched this video beyond the first minute where it says:
His presidency became mired in controversy when researchers and political opponents alleged that Obama was not eligible…
spoken over images of Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and John McCain, two of whom never in any way questioned Obama’s eligibility.
That was enough to tell me that, like the typical UFO cable TV documentary, this isn’t meant to present the facts accurately and in context. The video features three birthers and one “skeptic.” The birthers are Mario Apuzzo, Phil Berg and Karl Denninger (an early crackpot image analyst that I have mostly ignored). The skeptic is Allenna Leonard, billed as “Committee Chair of Democrats Abroad Canada.”
I have had some indecision about how to present the video. I could embed it from the Canadian site, but I don’t know if that is fair use. So here are two links:
- Web page with video embedded and discussion forum (video has advertising)
- Link to raw video
Really, top notch reporting. Yeah, right!
I understand that links to this video are making the Tea Party email rounds.
The host later went on Boyles’ show. Not only did the host go full birther, he made claims that most birthers don’t.
At the end of the show the host (Richard Syrett ) gave a somewhat rational summation then he went on the Peter Boyles show and went full-on conspiracy theorist to the point I thought he was putting Boyles on.
http://peterboyles.podbean.com/e/peter-boyles-show-sep-10-2014-hr-4/
Birthers are all excited that the Conspiracy Show website poll (which allows multiple voting) was showing 70% believers.
I voted six times because I kept changing my mind what it was asking. Here is the question:
Barack Obama is not an American Citizen
— Believer
— Skeptic
Finally I figured out that “Skeptic” was the correct answer.
I repeat voted until the “Skeptic” category moved up one percent (from 33 to 34 percent). About 25 votes and took about ten minutes. I thought about writing something that would auto vote while I was out doing other things. In the end I decided it was worth the effort.
The show reminded me of the old Leonard Nimoy show – “In Search of …”
Some legitimate shows have a habit of presenting a conspiracy theory as if it were true, though. I once wrote an angry letter to one of our biggest news TV channels after they had aired a one hour program about the Moon landing hoax that presented the conspiracist arguments as factual, only to go to the debunking in the last 5 minutes (specifically because my girlfriend had fallen for the story before and took the program as reinforcement of her belief).
Unfortunately, teach the faux controversy sells. And it’s cheap to produce. RUnning the real story at the end, like a hurried disclaimer on an advertisement, is extremely dishonest.
Syrett going online and going birfer is disappointing. Producing a show like his is slimy enough … like Art Bell pandering to nuts by giving them a platform from which to air (and spread) their brainworms. But at least Bell projected skepticiams and bemusement. Actually believing this crap, or at least being willingly to play the part in order to shill for his show, is another level of evil.
I was introduced to this obscure show by a birfer from Brazil. Who insisted it was “taking the world by storm”. Taking the slow, scenic route to the storm! 😉