Skeptics and armchair scholars are mostly silent regarding the recent and devastating disclosure of Russell Leslie Oppenheim’s 1963 (2014 certified copy) Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya certificate of birth.
It should also be noted that Dr. Conspiracy (i.e., Kevin Wayne Davidson, born June 16 1950, son of Oland Patrick Davidson born 12.03.1916 – died 11.20.2009 and Doris Augusta Davidson born 02.17.1921 – died 05.01.2007) refuses to take notice of and acknowledge, and intentionally disregards, the Russell Leslie Oppenheim document in his new March 29 2014 article titled Why did Bruce Steadman give Lucas Daniel Smith $5,800? in which he chooses to only address and discuses Bruce Steadman, $5800.00 US dollars, deportation from Republica Dominicana to Kenya and a Dominican document called Acta de Denuncia.
It appears that Dr. Conspiracy typically, and negligently, looks the other way when consequential, significant and even-handed research (presented alongside documentation and official sources) is presented just as he has on foregoing and noteworthy research such as, though by means limited to, my October 11 2013 research report titled White Mischief – Stanley Ann Dunham goes to Kenya – Act 2.
Dr. Conspiracy’s sole reference to the above referenced report was posted in a comment (Oct. 16 2013) on one of his Occasional Open Threads:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/10/the-occasional-open-thread-no-whining-edition/#comment-292583
I really and truly don’t believe that Dr. Conspiracy has the aptitude, capacity or integrity to address and discuss the said research. It appears that his writings are more geared towards the ribbing and ridiculing of Orly Taitz and Mike Zullo as well as an occasional pseudo-psychology thesis.
Speaking of the Acta de Denuncia document (referenced above in paragraph two of today’s report) there have been a plethora of both incautious and impulsive attempts to recklessly and audaciously discredit the recent and overwhelming disclosure of the said document which was published here: 2014. Lucas Daniel Smith extradition {to Kenya} files – document 1
Example:
A member of The Fogbow using the handle of Raicha published a comment which, when you first read it, appears level headed and even includes a transcript of their own English translation of the Spanish (the first, and as of right now the only, translation available online). The translation of the document’s language might be relatively accurate but the problem with Raicha’s comment (provided directly below) is that it is…racked with egregious errors:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=599408#p599408
Response to first (1st) observation: We don’t know which “badge” should, or shouldn’t be, on which documents. There are two different badges displayed (far left and far right) on the banner (displayed directly below) of the Dirección Central de Investigaciones Criminales (DICRIM) website:
The badge on the far right of the banner appears to be the same badge that is also on the header of the Acta de Denuncia document. Furthermore, there is a third image of a badge in the banner, on the police officer’s uniform (shoulder) itself, which also appears (though somewhat blurred) to be the same badge listed on the Acta de Denuncia document. In any event, we don’t know which badge would, or should, be on the header of the Acta de Denuncia document.
Response to second (2nd) observation: Raicha stated that, “The National Police are not on the first floor of the National Palace. They have their own headquarters on Av. Leopoldo Navarro.” There is no mention of the “Palacio Nacional” (I assume you are referring to the Presidential Palace) anywhere on the Acta de Denuncia document. Nor is the “Palacio Nacional” mentioned in Raicha’s english translation. Who said anything about there being Policia Nacional on the first floor of the Palacio Nacional? Yes, the “Palacio de la Policia Nacional” is located on Avenida Leopoldo Navarro, but who said that it wasn’t? The Policia Nacional are located in the Palacio de la Policia Nacional and no one ever said that they were located in the Palacio Nacional (the President Palace).
Yesterday (Saturday afternoon) I made a video of myself driving (the passenger who I took with me held the camera) my motorcycle to the Palacio de la Policia Nacional and then on to the Palacio Nacional (i.e., Presidential Palace). The said video is embedded directly below. Please also note that in the video I pass under a large, overhead, green-colored street sign (on Avenida John F. Kennedy) which lists the Palacio de la Policia Nacional as the “Palacio de la Policia.” Additionally, the Palacio de la Policia Nacional building itself says “Palacio Policia Nacional.”
Response to third (3rd) observation: Does not affect the authenticity of the document.
Response to fourth (4th) observation: Does not affect the authenticity of the document.
Response to fifth (5th) observation: Raicha stated that, “The National Police do not have extensions of 809-682-2151 (the general number) They have their own numbers:” That is false, and even a simple Google search of “Policia Nacional” displays the Policia Nacional number 809-682-2151 with ext. 2144:
Moreover, if you Google search for “809-682-2151 ext” you’ll find other extensions in the search results.
One particularly troubling facet of the internet is that you’ll find lots of people like The Fogbow member Raicha who come across, in their writings, as being relatively bright, collective, professional, level headed and even minded, yet when you begin to verify what they’ve said you discover that these people are misinformed, lazy, lack critical and analytical thinking skills and, in general, lack competence and often have no idea what they are really and truly talking about. I’ve also encountered innumerable reviews and comments at Amazon.com left by these types of people.
In closing I also wanted to point out that a person using the handle Vox Reanoni showed up here at the WOBIK blog yesterday (03.29.2014) and stated, “The “Spanish” on that police document is certainly not written by a native Spanish speaker. It’s racked with the kinds of errors that someone who had Spanish as second or third language would make. You’re a pretty piss poor lair, when just some guy off the street can spot mistakes like that.”
It appears that, at least on the WOBIK blog, that person usually posts comments using the handle Voice of Reason. I’m not sure what language “Vox Reasoni” is but it certainly does not appear to be Spanish. Furthermore, I’d like to know more about the errors in the document’s Spanish.
It should also be noted that a person who was born in Spain (her name appears to be Madeleine de Larrain Ross and, from what I could find, she appears to be a real person) showed up yesterday, after Vox Reasoni left his comment, and stated in reply to Vox Reasoni, “¿Qué pasa con el español del documento? ¡Yo no lo veo raro!” Essentially, she (as a native Spanish speaker) was asking what was wrong with the spanish document, and that she herself did not see anything wrong, or off, with the way that it was written.
Most of the other comments, regarding the Acta de Denuncia document, left on other websites in the last 24 hours are also negligent attempts to audaciously discredit the document. I will cover those comments in upcoming reports.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.
