(The O-folk see only the reality they want to see. That's why and how they formed delusions of Messiah-hood around a crooked Chicago pol.)
At any rate, I've found out a bit more about Paramjit Multani, the driver who allegedly hooked Sinclair up with Barack Obama.
Although Sinclair said that he was divulging the name for the first time at the press conference, he had in fact already allowed it to slip out. There is a taxi cab driver in Maryland by that name (this is the fellow I tried to reach), but he appears to be the wrong person.
Another Paramjit Multani was caught up in a particularly messy deportation proceeding, which lasted from 2000 to 2006. (He was accused of participating in a sham marriage.) The documentation created by that complex affair (see here) indicates that this Multani may indeed have been in Chicago in 1999. This Multani was sent back to India in 2006 (if I understand the document correctly).
At the press conference, Sinclair disclosed a document which showed that one Rashpal Multani owned the limo service in question. A pdf of this document is here. During the Q-and-A session, Sinclair indicated that the Multani he met moved to Tupelo, Missippi, not long ago. If so, then the fellow deported to India was a different man.
I wonder: How did Larry Sinclair come to know -- and remember -- the full name of the limo driver?
Another detail has cropped up which may indicate that "something odd" lurks in back of this story, however absurd the charges and the person making them. I'm intrigued by the role played by Dan Parisi of www.whitehouse.com.
You may recall the name, since he caused some controversy a decade ago. Many thought that children seeking the official site for the White House (www.whitehouse.gov) might stumble onto Parisi's adult-themed site by accident. In the wild-n-woolly early days of the web, Parisi made a million dollars a year, pushing porn and anti-Clinton propaganda on his site.
He is now a big Obama fan. (Sounds like the Arianna story, eh wot?) And he has paid much attention to what Larry Sinclair has to say -- in fact, he paid for the lie detector test. More than that, he paid Larry $20,000 to take the test, pass or fail.
But there may be more than that. Here's what Larry had to say at the National Press Club:
Finally, in February 2008 I was told anonymously that Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com received $750,000 from the Obama campaign through AKR Media to organize an effort to publically discredit me. When I confronted Dan Parisi with this allegation, he did not deny it but instead withdrew the second exonerating polygraph report of Dr. Gordon Barland, failed to post the video of my polygraph as he and Whitehouse.com promised they would do, and even removed posts from their web site altogether...Why didn't Parisi deny the $750,000 pay-off charge? Parisi can't claim "I don't consider Larry Sinclair worthy of response." After all, Parisi considered Sinclair worthy of $20,000.
That is odd. Obviously, no-one would pay $750,000 to discredit a mere nutjob.
Someone has devoted an entire blog to debunking Larry Sinclair. This is no small operation -- the writers of the Mitch and Nan site are almost as prolix as I am. More than that: These people claim to be personally responsible for arranging Sinclair's arrest.
Marjorie Schoedinger, the disturbed woman who charged George Bush with rape, did not evince this kind of attention.
Bottom line? I cannot believe Larry Sinclair. Yet I can't escape the feeling that this tale has ramifications we don't yet comprehend.
14 comments:
To the best of my recollection the Multani name was first mentioned by a commenter on Larry's Youtube page. Larry admitted that the driver was named Multani, then denied it, and now says it is. My theory: Larry Sinclair is simply a lying sack of shit.
That's not quite how it went, Gary. Larry denied that his driver was the fellow in Maryland. People incorrectly took this as a denial that the name was Multani.
He may still be a lying sack of shit. The motive puzzles me.
Yet I can't escape the feeling that this tale has ramifications we don't yet comprehend.
Perhaps Rove has an Obama doppelganger with quite a sordid history!
Regarding the Mitch and Nan blog... reading through it last night, I found it odd that a number of posts were listed as 6/19/2008... even now, there's a post from 6/20/2008. Hosted abroad? Across the international date line? Or just bad time- and/or date-stamps?
BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS?
Joseph: As you know Kos posted a copy of Barry's birth certificate. This doc has been utterly debunked here:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
SO WHY IS THIS NOT GETTING ANY HEADLINES ANYWHERE?
<>_<> Watching and Wondering
BUT WAIT...IT GET'S BETTER!
Someone posted the link to debunking the (forged) Obama Birth Certificate at Taylor Marsh. That post was "deleted" and that person was kicked out. Zombabots have occupied TM's corpse.
But in the New Order of CHCANGE this too is perfectly reasonable if the "message" has any HOPE of staying on "topic".
<>_<> DIGGING A DEEPER BUNKER
"Finally, in February 2008 I was told anonymously that Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com received $750,000 from the Obama campaign through AKR Media to organize an effort to publically discredit me. When I confronted Dan Parisi with this allegation, he did not deny it but instead withdrew the second exonerating polygraph report of Dr. Gordon Barland, failed to post the video of my polygraph as he and Whitehouse.com promised they would do, and even removed posts from their web site altogether..."
How do you know any of his statement (quoted above) is accurate?
I don't -- not all of it. But while trying to play catch up with all of this Sinclairian weirdness, I found that the $750,000 allegation was mooted some time ago, and has not, to my knowledge, been denied. Which one would think Parisi would do.
Parisi is an odd guy, and even if you leave the three-quarter mill allegation out of it, I just can't understand his interest in the affair.
By the way, bubba -- I'm trying to better understand the allegation of fakery regarding the birth certificate. I think that whole argument is predicated on a false understanding of how jpg artifacts affect an image. But I'll conduct my own experiment.
Might be a fun thing to talk about over the weekend.
Perhaps Sinclair's and Obama's trail may lead to Rezko trial star witness Stuart Levine and then infamous Purple Hotel....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/870606,CST-NWS-rezko01.article
IT IS BEYOND ARTIFACTS
Joseph: As someone with extensive Photoshop experience I can assure you this is more than lossy compression and associated artifact displacement. The document clearly was fabricated in other ways (layers construction) as well. Spend a few minutes reviewing the "comments" from other graphics "experts". There seems to be considerable agreement. In addition I have compared this doc to other BC's from that era. This is NOT a reliable document.
<>_<> HIDE AND SEE
Bubba, I've been working with Photoshop for roughly 20 years myself. And what you are saying makes no sense.
If someone worked on the thing in layers, then why would the jpg artifacts only affect the typeface layer?
C'mon, think about it! Use the "Leetle gray cells," as M. Poirot would say.
The type layer remains vectorized and razor sharp until the whole thing is flattened!
Only then, when you have a final product, do you transform the result into a jpg. The whole thing gets affected at the same time.
Obviously, this is NOT an original COB from 1961. I've made that point previously; you must have missed it.
Actual Certificates of Birth from that era are pre-printed forms with the relevant information added in either a monospace typewriter font or by longhand. (Longhand, common earlier, was rare or unheard-of by 1961.) The proportional font, the reference to a "laser" copy, and the stamp on the obverse all testify to a state-issued document manufactured in 2007.
It does not pretend to be anything else.
Such abstracts are not uncommon. They are sometimes called "short form" Certificates, issued by the state or province and valid for most legal purposes. I've seen an exactly similar example from Canada -- a late '50s birth recorded on a recent computer-generated document with a fancy background and using the same Helvetica proportional font.
You may now ask: Why would these abstracts exist? Why would the state not simply issue a photocopy of the original?
I'm about to offer a guess. But I'm pretty sure that this guess is correct.
An abstract can be easily whipped up from information in a computer database. I mean, how long could it take some nameless government functionary to input that stuff and then hit "print"? Maybe five minutes.
This would be easier than telling the same nameless slob to go down into the bowels of some repository (which may be in another building), where he must shift through ancient files in manila folders, and find the original document in order to photocopy it.
No, I think the document is real -- if, by "real," we mean created by an actual state agency in 2007.
But the abstract might well include less information than would present in the original.
THAT is the part that interests me.
Great story brother Cannon! Keep up the great work! Your site is what I would hope to oneday be able to accomplish...The graphics and all. Thanks for the link also. If you don't mind I will link your site on my page also. good luck Brother and keep up the good fight!
Joseph: YOUR grey cell application is at the very least selectively convenient. The document was constructed in seperate applications. The "type" was applied to a seperate file. The "flatten image" step was an entirely seperate step with a seperat file. Doh!
BASIC QUESTION: Is the type "pixelated" or not? If the answer is yes, which it should be, then explain how this occurs with any prinitng method available circa 1961.
Perhaps if you had reviewed the thread as I suggested you might have projected differently.
This isn't a Photoshop contest. But fyi, Photoshop was created in 1990 so unless you were a 1.0 user, which is doubtful, then what does your exaggerated tenure have to do with it?
<>_<> ciao ciao ciao
Bubba, the ad agency for which I worked did indeed use the very first Photoshop iteration. I was something of a star in those early months because I was the only one in the shop who bothered to read the manual. I intuitively "got it." In fact, it was only after I produced an image enlarging a centerfold girl's breasts to absurd proportions that the other artists became enthusiastic about the software.
(We were an incorrigible and indefensible lot.)
But I hated, and still hate, working on Macs. They were very slow then. Any major change could mean looking at that effing wait-for-it symbol for half an hour.
Aside from that...
You have proven yourself a complete idiot. I'm now inclined to delete on sight your insane ramblings, which have lost the power to amuse.
"BASIC QUESTION: Is the type "pixelated" or not? If the answer is yes, which it should be, then explain how this occurs with any prinitng method available circa 1961."
IT WAS NOT CREATED IN 1961, YOU MELON-FUCKING MORON!
I never said that it was.
I went on and on and on and ON at great length, saying the exact opposite.
HOW COULD YOU HAVE MISSED WHAT I SAID? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BE SO FUCKING STUPID?
If you are not going to read my words, why on earth would you come here?
I said that the document was created on computer in 2007 -- NOT by a faker, but by the state of Hawaii. Other states and Canadian provinces do the same thing, and for good reason.
I discuss this at length in my previous comment.
Ah...hell. I was just about to repeat everything I said before -- but why should I?
If you were too fucking stupid or lazy to follow my argument before, then you will be too fucking stupid or lazy to read what I have to say now.
Consider yourself banned, Moron-Boy. Go to some other site -- your words will never again appear here.
Post a Comment