(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote:(March 15, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The exact argument you joked about has been around since the early pages, and you haven't even attempted to address it any of those times. Most likely because you can't.The core argument by me is this: open your freaking eyes and take a cold, hard look at these 3 characters and see which one Obama most resembles.
And the core argument fails because it is far too weak to overcome the reasonable presumption that his parents of record are his actual parents, despite whatever amateur physiognomy analysis you think you can bring to bear. Genetic inheritence can't be so easily parsed from photos.
(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: There's not much logic to it. It comes down to a visual judgement.
Exactly. Your 'visual judgment' is insufficient on its face to overcome the initial plausibility that the president's birth records are accurate.
(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: After watching the documentary and studying all the family members, I can see as clear as day that Obama resembles Frank Marshall Davis and does not resemble the Kenyan.
And we should respect your opinion on such matters why? I don't think he particularly looks like any of them, including Davis. But I'm not an expert on determining parentage from looking at photos of people's faces, if such an expertise even exists.
(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: The other facts about Obama's character, and his mother's nude photos etc, these are secondary. You don't need any of these arguments to see family resemblance.
They aren't secondary. They are completely irrelevant.
(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: Frankly I don't know how you can't see it, but there's no point arguing much further because it's a visual comparison test.
Calling it a 'test' dignifies it far beyond what it deserves.
(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: (Actually I do know how, because a week ago my mind would not have even bothered to take this subject seriously, but would have reflexively dismissed it as preposterous).
When something seems preposterous at first glance, it almost always actually is preposterous, and it should take strong evidence to persuade one otherwise. Like genetic sequencing.
(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: The strength of the documentary was probably not any particular arguments, which remain speculative, it's strength was merely that it grabbed your attention and forced you to look hard at the visual similarities between Obama and Frank.
Speculative and cherry-picked. It has some strength as propaganda.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.