Conspiracy of Silence

After you have watched this video Click here for a further brilliant exposé by James O'Keefe

What World Net Daily Have to say

Support Project Veritas

More on the Lakin Judgement

The Lakin Case - Update

Unsurprisingly an army judge has refused the defence request for sight of documentation which might reveal evidence or otherwise of President Obama's eligibility in the court martial of Lieutenant Colonel Terrance Lakin. As I explained in a previous posting Lakin has refused to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan until President Obama proves that he is eligible to serve as President.

Lakin's defence had asked to see copies of Obama's school records, which are amongst the library of documentation which the president is withholding abd also a deposition from Officials in Hawaii who claim to have seen Obama's original birth Certificate.

The judge in a judgment so disingenuous it would be laughable were it not so contemptible stated that the eligibility of Lakin's commander in chief is irrelevant to Lakin's court martial.

This is despite the fact that retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney sent a sworn affidavit to the Court Martial supporting Lakin’s motions that seek the president’s birth and school records.

The judgment was not surprising as it is becoming clear that there is no judge in America with the honour or courage to allow any defendant or plaintive to require the US president to prove his eligibility.

The dishonesty of the reporting of this case continues in this MSNBC report which includes the lie that "Hawaiian officials say they have records proving Obama was born there". Hawaiian officials have said no such thing, they have only stated that there is a birth certificate on file, they have NOT stated what it proves.

However, only a fool would expect honest reporting of this case in the Believer Media.

Blurring the truth - Part 1

Some while ago I posted a video of Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin explaining his reasons for refusing to be deployed to Afghanistan until US President Barrack Obama provide proof that he is eligible to serve in the role of president. That is to say, proves that he is a natural born citizen of America, as required by the US Constitution.

Lakin contends that, if Obama is not eligible to be president, then he does not have the legal authority to order soldiers to go to war, and in all likelihood kill people.

If that were the case then he, Lakin could be guilty of a criminal act, arguably a war crime in breach of international law were he to obey those orders.

A hearing is scheduled in Lakin's court-martial case this Thursday at which a ruling is expected on defense requests for the release of some of the documents which the president has so far withheld.

When posting the video, I did not express any personal view as to the merits of Lt. Col Lakin's argument, other than to say that he was a brave and honourable man, and certainly a bigger man than the rag taggle troop of media whores and pundits who are currently attacking him on tawdry, pretend news, sites such as the congenitally dishonest CNN and the progressively unwatchable MSNBC.

The posting received quite a lively response, including a number of comments from from people who took the view that Lt. Col Lakin's case had no merit, he was either deluded, racist or a coward, that Obama had already proved he was born in the US state of Hawaii and therefore had no case to answer.

The comments can be read by clicking here, and hope I am not misquoting anyone, however, as I read it the arguments were widely as follows:

• Obama has produced an official and legally binding document confirming that he was born in Hawaii
• Hawaiian officials have verified Obama was born in Hawaii
• This document has been verified by various independent non-political websites, such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com
• In 1961, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of baby Obama's birth
• A conspiracy of the type suggested would require too many people to be in on it for it to work
• If there was evidence that Obama was not eligible the Clinton team would have found it and exposed it.
• And (as of last month) the Whitehouse have issued a copy of Obama’s passport, showing he was born in Hawaii.

Most of these points (apart from the passport image, which has only just appeared) are addressed in a lengthy analysis of Obama's claims to eligibility by Douglas J Hagmann of NorthEast Intelligence Network these are compiled into two reports which are available in the following PDFs:

Investigative Report Part 1

Investigative Report Part 2

I fully acknowledge that Mr Hagmann is not an unbiased source, however, when you look into this matter it becomes clear that very few of the sources on either side are unbiased, including those who claim to be “independent”. Therefore, so as to judge this issue, one has to rely on the quality of the analysis, rather than any claimed neutrality on the part of the analyst.

This is not difficult, given that there is very little attempt at analysis on the part of Obama's defenders, (or the “believers" as one might call them) just a lot of arrogant jeering and name calling, whereas Douglas Hagman makes some very telling points and raises issues, especially in part 2, which have not been satisfactorily answered. Hagmann's reports make interesting reading, and I urge you to read them, whatever your take on this issue.

At this point I would like to make clear that I have no idea where Obama was born, he may well have been born in Hawaii as he claims, however, the fact remains that, despite claims to the contrary, this has not been conclusively proved.

A significant number of questions have been raised which cast doubt on Obama’s claims, and these questions have not been satisfactorily answered. In addition to this, there is some evidence that Obama and his supporters may have deliberately sought to mislead the public over this issue, which in itself is troubling. Meanwhile the president has spent at least one million dollars, some estimate the figure as two million, in efforts to prevent the release of documents which would answer the question.

This inevitably raises the suspicion that something is being hidden, and it is something which the president of America does not want the American people to know.

Why does this matter?

It matters because the person involved has been placed in the position of being the most powerful human being on the planet. He has at his disposal one of the mightiest arsenals of weapons ever assembled, weapons which destroy planet Earth many times over, and he has the power to order their use against any nation he chooses to. He is at the head of the worlds only current super-power and has at his command the means of impacting upon the well being, or otherwise of every nation and every individual alive today and upon their descendents .

Furthermore, the truth or otherwise of this matter reflects directly on the integrity of the leader of the free world, and surely that matters to us all.

To grant one man such power it is essential to at least know who he is. A few bits of circumstantial evidence suggesting he may be who he says he is are not good enough.

As Douglas Hagmann points out there is a difference between evidence and proof. What has been produced is evidence, what is in short supply is proof.

For instance, in a murder trial, evidence could be that you own a shoe with an imprint similar to the footprint left in blood a murder scene.

Proof on the other hand is demonstrating that the mark was left by your shoe and that your foot was in it at the time.

Obama's supporters point arrogantly at the shoe print, they have not, however, put Obama in the shoe.

According to Hagmann, Obama's refusal to produce the documents asked of him, would automatically exclude him from becoming the head of any major business corporation, do we really require less of the leader of the free world?

In the remaining part of this article I will comment on the various arguments in support of President Obama’s eligibility. As this runs to some length, the article continues on Sarah Maid of Albion II.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

An Island of Spice, Slaves and myths of Sovereignty

Apologies for returning again to the subject of President Obama's eligibility, but current events on the other side of the Atlantic, and the frantic efforts on the part of the President's supporters to vilify and ridicule those who dare to ask uncomfortable questions and to debunk, almost unseen, any scrap of evidence which might suggest that their idol may have been less than honest with them has been keeping me highly entertained this week.

As I indicated on Monday, I have no idea whether the document which has turned up purporting to be Barrak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate is the real deal or not, indeed there are certain aspects to it which are rather dubious, albeit, none of us are experts on this subject . It may still be genuine, but it would be unwise to bet the farm on the belief that it will definately turn out to be.

However, genuine or not, it remains an educational exercise to observe the behaviour of those seeking to debunk the document, and indeed to dismiss as "crank fofdder" the wider argument about Obama's eligibility to be President, by any means they can. The usual trick used by the left wing on both sides of the Atlantic is to mock and ridicule those who are merely seeking the truth on any matter in which they hold their own myths to be sacred truths, and this trick has been used with great ferocity by those attacking the so called “Birthers”.

However, it is hard to take seriously ridicule coming a group of people who are so pathetically desperate to believe every scrap of fraud reeking “evidence” of their beloved hero's unquestioned eligibility tossed to them by a progressively defensive Obama camp. It is not only their self imposed gullibility which damages their credibility, it is their hypocrisy and tendency for telling downright lies.

They continue to insist that Barry O “has produced a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate” in the full knowledge that the document he has produced is not a real birth certificate. They further claim that “Hawaiian officials have confirmed he was born there” whilst ignoring how carefully worded the statements of those Hawaiian officials used when addressing the subject. (What is an "original vital record" when its at home?)

In any event, under any other administration, they would be the last to accept the word of a government official who effectively says “Trust me, you don't need to see the documents, but I have and they are cool!” but in this case they are more than ready to accept any unsubstantiated assurance.

Of course, together with the ridicule, they inevitably resort to allegations of racism, which they have already used widely against anyone who dares to question “the one's” divine right first to be elected and now use condemn anyone who does not believe in his right to rule without any criticism. “Racist” and “racism” as we know are the most multi-purpose words in the English language, and amongst their myriad of meanings we find that they now apply to anyone who fails to support the doctrine that when a non-white person aspires to the most powerful job in the world, he or she does not need to produce the sort of documentation which anyone else would have to produce if they wanted to become an insurance clerk.

Their most recent weapon, before they became obsessed with debunking the alleged birth certificate with all sorts of pretend history, was alleged discovery of birth notices in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers announcing that Mr & Mrs Obama had been blessed with a bouncing boy called Barrack, which they insisted was the ultimate proof of their great leader's US birth.

Are you buying that? On the day I can take a newspaper birth announcement to the bank as proof of identity, and get a loan, I will take that argument seriously. A birth notice proves nothing more than that someone has paid for three line of space in a newspaper. The anti-birthers obviously missed all those movies where the crooks told the kidnap victims parents to put an ad in the paper saying something like “the Iceman has risen” meaning “We've left the cash under the bridge”. They can be placed for all sorts of reasons without supporting evidence.

I could walk into a newspaper office tomorrow and place an announcement declaring that I was marrying the rather well appointed American actor Matthew McConaughey but that wouldn't make it a fact, however much I might wish it was.

When the fact that anyone can place a birth notice whether true or not, is pointed out to the Obama worshippers, they mockingly cry “For what reason? How did thy know he would be running for president 45 years later?”. Such a response, which I have seen given a number of times. is totally dishonest. We all can all think of reasons why someone in 1961, might want their child, or grandchild, to have the advantages and security of a US citizenship rather than a somewhat less advantageous African one, and so can they. Someone might have an even greater motive if they had just been introduced to the truth of an African tribal marriage, and the disturbing potential for unreliability of the little one's daddy.

But don't expect honesty from an Obama worshipper attacking a “birther”.

Returning to the birth certificate, after the argument about when Kenya started calling itself a Republic, which I addressed on Monday, the second main argument they use to discredit the document is the claim that Mombassa was part of Zanzibar at the time Obama was born.

This is not only a totally disingenuous argument, but it brings us to some rather interesting events of British History, which is, of course, no longer taught in our schools.

As we all know, Zanzibar is a tiny island off the coast of Kenya and Tanzania, until recently when it became a tourist destination (best visited in the cooler months) it was known mostly for its spices and for being used by Arab slavers to hold African slaves before they were transported North. Meanwhile Mombasa is a coastal town in Mainland Kenya, which, by the middle of the 20th Century, had become one of the trading ports in East Africa.

Over the centuries the “ownership” of both Zanzibar and sections of the east African coast, including the sea port of Mombasa, changed frequently, partly as a result of the Arab slave trade, with records of Arab involvement going back to at least the 12th Century, followed by a short lived Portuguese settlement after the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498.

Zanzibar’s claim to sovereignty over Mombasa dates back to the early 19th Century when it was nominally annexed by the Sultan of Zanzibar, after a brief period as a British Protectorate. However, that sovereignty became merely theoretical after 1896 when Mombasa and most of Kenya’s coastal region became part of the British Kenyan protectorate following the Anglo Zanzibar war.

The Anglo Zanzibar war is now most famous as a question in Trivial Pursuit, on account of being the shortest war in history, as hostilities lasted a total of 38 minutes.

Needless to say, Britain won the war, and as a result, from 1896 until 1963, Mombasa was run and administered by Britain as part of Kenya, by British officials and civil servants. The sultan formally presented the town to Britain in 1898, although technically Zanzibar retained sovereignty this was in name only and the coastal provence, including Mombasa became part of Kenya and run by the British. Anyone born in Mombasa in that period was automatically a Kenyan (and British) subject. Mombasa was ceded to the Republic of Kenya in December 1963, when both Kenya and Zanzibar became independent.

Hence British and Kenyan civil servants would have certified any such document both in 1961 when it was part of the colony of Kenya and in 1964 when it was part of the Republic of Kenya. The theoretical role of Zanzibar, which played no part in governance of Mombasa at any point in the 20th Century, is a total irrelevance. A Red Herring thrown into the mix by liars to discredit what they most fear,

However, like the truth about Britain's role in coastal East Africa during the 19th and early 20th century, and the degree to our presence there was motivated by the long war we fought against slavery, the facts are hidden and distorted so as to produce the dishonest version of history we are now required to believe in.

Only a fool would bet what they can not afford on the Kenyan birth certificate proving to be genuine but only an even greater fool would expect honesty from those currently seeking to discredit the document.

Calling all 45 year old Kenyans

Like everyone else, I have no way of knowing whether Obama's so called "Kenyan Birth Certificate" which has been filed by crusading California attorney Orly Taitz (who's blog Google is currently trying to block with the old "This site may damage your computer" warning) is genuine.


However, I suspect that certain sections of the left wing media have made a mistake by hastily seeking to debunk the document on the basis that it refers to the the "Republic of Kenya". They point out, many of them referring to Wikipedia when doing so, that the document, is dated February 1964, whereas Kenya did not declare itself as a Republic until December 1964, 10 months later.

However, as with so much left wing propaganda this claim shows a deal of contempt for its readers and depends on the belief that ordinary (non-media) people cannot, or do not, think.

Britain granted Kenya independence in December 1963 as part of a lengthy hand over period. Following the official relinquishing of British power in December 1963, there was a 12 month transition period, during which Kenya retained a protected status and was known as "The Dominion of Kenya". However, this was a formality, Kenya gained its independence with great excitement and (sadly unfulfilled) optimism in 1963, and the one year transition period was a device enabling the change over to take place. The declaration in December 1964 was the end of the process not the beginning.

Think of what is involved in the re-branding of even a relatively small company in 2009, and then translate that to the launching of a sovereign African state, albeit one which was, back then, as prosperous as South Korea, 45 years ago, when for instance government stationery was still produced by printing presses. Add to that the fact that all these arrangements were overseen by the British in the lead up to December 1963, and it is quite clear how much advance preparation would have been made.

We also can not forget both human psychology and, of course, the politics of the time, when surely it would have been politically untenable for official government documentation to still carry the statement "Crown colony" or, equally worse, "Dominion" after the country had declared itself a republic with great fanfare a few months after the Obama Certificate was signed. Meanwhile, prematurely declaring itself a Republic would have been widely applauded.

What I understand, and would like to be in a position to prove (or even disprove), is that Kenya began calling itself a republic as soon as it was independent and was styling itself a Republic as early as the beginning of 1964. The re-printing of stationery, such as that used to produce the Birth Certificate, had already been started under the British, who were very paternalistic when handing over their ex-colonies. Who would blame a newly independent nation from using it right away, rather than wasting huge amounts of money on producing documentation with a one year life span and which carried the demeaning title "Dominion"?

I know that a lot of African residents and ex-patriots do read this blog, if any of those are aged 44 to 45 and were born in Kenya in 1964 (preferably Mombasa) I would be grateful if they would look out their old birth certificate and tell me what it says at the bottom. (if you are older but were married in Kenya in 1964 do you still have your marriage certificate?) If you wish to do so, you can either respond to this post, or write to me at sarahmaidofalbion@gmail.com. I promise I will not publish anything without your consent, largely I just want to satisfy myself as to the facts.

The details given above are as I understand what happened, as I believe it happened and certainly make more sense than either of the alternatives, which it is worth repeating are:

• The newly independent Kenya was content to carry on using Imperial branded documents
• They would produce short term documentation with a twelve month life span for use in all government offices, including those in provincial towns like Mombasa. Documentation, don't forget using a humiliating term like "Dominion"

However, there is a difference between what I believe, and what I can prove, and that is why I need your help.

Lets see if we can debunk the debunkers.

On a possibly connected issue, is it just me, or does it seem a suspicious to you that right after that document has appeared, Hilary Clinton should suddenly find a pressing reason to fly to Kenya and meanwhile the Kenya Constitution website is all of a sudden "being converted"?

Another "Change they can believe in"

Hawaiian paper filing system

The "change" in question, is yet another change of story by Obama and his supporters, previous stories having been shredded more rapidly than an Enron balance sheet in 2001.

It seems that the latest explanation going around for the fact that President Barry has not been able to produce a copy of his birth certificate is that the state of Hawaii discarded all paper records eight years ago, when they moved over to an electronic record keeping system.

This explanation is mentioned here by Right wing US Commentator Lou Dobbs at the beginning of a rather entertaining debate on the subject between Dobbs, Congressman Ted Poe, who is seeking to introduce legislation requiring Presidential election candidates to prove their Constitutional eligibly, and Roland Martin, an Obama supporting columnist, talk show host and author of "Speak Brother - A Black Man's View of America" who clearly believes that to win an argument one needs to shout louder than your opponent.

If what is being claimed is true, it would appear that Hawaii is claiming that it did not retain scanned or even microfilmed copies of the original documents, or official records of such fundamental information as hospital of birth, the occupations of a child's parents or the names of the attending doctor and midwife etc, who were present at (and witnessed) the birth. Information which would have appeared on any birth certificate issued to the parents of an American born child in the 1960's but missing from the "Certificate of Live Birth" produced by bodies friendly to Obama (albeit not by Obama himself, who has produced no paperwork whatsoever, other than cheques made payable to his lawyers).

Ignoring how devastating the loss of of such records would prove to future historians and genealogists, or indeed to those seeking the truth, it is not impossible to believe that a state would arbitrarily decide to shred such a vast historical archive, when so many electronic means of preserving it exist. However, the trouble is that, like so much in this Pantomime, the credibility of each new and improved story is undermined by the details of the one which came before it.

click view original

If readers cast their mind back to October 2008 they may recall the above news release issued by the Hawaiian Governor's office on behalf of the alarmingly named Dr. Chiyome Fukino the Director of Health for the state of Hawaii.

In the statement Dr. Chiyome Fukino confirms that she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. (Dr. Fukino continues that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently fgrom any others.)

In a separate statement it was argued that state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. - Which, of course, ignores the fact that Barry has a tangible interest in his own certificate, and, as president could demand its publication at any stage, if it exists, that way we would not have to rely on a document stating that another document exists, together with some scans of some 1961, birth announcements in which the print announcing little Barry's arrival is just a tad clearer than anything else on the page. (when people start producing "supporting evidence" whilst withholding the main evidence, you know they are hiding something)

However, putting that aside, if the latest story is to be believed, it would seem that in her statement, the good Hawaiian doctor was claiming to have personally verified a document which Hawaii had destroyed seven and a half years previously.

"Oh what a tangled web", as they say.

This issue is but one of many which go to the heart of the credibility of the man holding to most powerful job on the planet, yet who's background has been subjected to such limited scrutiny. Even if, as the latest excuse suggests, the original birth certificate was shredded in 2001 (coincidentally at the same time that the Enron shredders were doing over-time) that does not explain why the American president, who makes such an issue of his commitment to openness is so reluctant to be open about his own history.

Among the key documents and information which Obama continues to shield from the public are the following:

Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.

Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.

Release of his educational records, would of course bring to an end the rumour that he initially applied to study as a "foreign student", but yet again, Obama chooses not to disprove that rumour either. The reason can only be down to arrogance, or there is something he does not want us to know.

Many leaders before Obama have either promised change or have brought "change" to their countries, amongst them Hitler, Mau Zedong, Pol Pot and, of course Robert Muggabe., very little of which was the change which their besotted supporters were expecting. It seems that whatever changes Obama has planned for America, and I fear that they are significant, the ever changing excuses and cover stories are already coming thick and fast

_______________________
Update:

From the "Comments" section:

Seattle said...

It's as simple as asking why did "the One" block ALL of his records on his first day at office. Because if Hawaii "discarded" the original birth certificate, then all of the schools, colleges and universities he attended should have copies, am I right? It's so OBVIOUS what's happening here, it boggles the mind...

Judge dismisses soldier's suit "because he no longer has to go"

A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.

Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook's suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook's suit is moot in that he already has been told he doesn't have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.

Continue reading here

In Britain the expression is "what a cop out!"

If anyone wanted proof that there are questions over Obama's eligibility this comes very close, even the Army isn't confident enough to test it. Clearly any soldier who doesn't want to go to Afghanistan now knows what to do!

Related: Despite the above, it would appear that the Pentagon have taken revenge against Major Cook for daring to question Obama's eligibility. What nasty, small minded people there are in power these days.

Seems they didn't get the memo!

Click to view larger version

The Western media may be unanimously stifling all mention of questions about President Obama's true place of birth, and sticking firmly to the line that he was born in Hawaii. (albeit , the official line as to which hospital chanhes from time to time) However, the Obama team are having less success in controlling the African Media, which has been recently drifting off script.

For instance this article in last week's Ghana Graphic contains the following statement, which would certainly constitute blasphemy were it to appear in the US press.

For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth.

I have taken a screen shot (above) in case it disappears.

I guess it is difficult to blame the Africans, who are obviously less concerned with constitutional technicalities than they are with celebrating their home boy's success.

Back in America and in further developments on the same theme, some of you may have read about Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, a US Army reserve major, who is refusing orders to go to Afghanistan on the grounds that President Barrack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of U.S Armed Forces. Major Cook contends that, were he to obey Obama's order and fight in the war, he would be in breach of International law.

In a report published by NewsNetDaily yesterday it is claimed that, rather than fighting Major Cook's claim, the US army have withdrawn the order sending him to Afghanistan. If their report is correct, and their track record on this issue is good, this is a very interesting development.

If this continues, we may finally reach the point where Barry's birth certificate becomes almost s much of an embarrassment as his baseball skills .......... well I did say "almost" as embarrassing!

Obama's "Fight the Smears.com" sight disappears

Interestingly the Obama friendly site Fightthesmears.com appears to have disappeared into a black hole in cyberspace, in fact so "disappeared" is Fightthesmears.com that no record of it can now be found amongst the archived internet pages on WayBack Machine.

Many will remember that Fightthesmears.com was the website set up during the 2008 presidential campaign for the purpose of discrediting unfaltering stories about Senator Obama and his interesting wife. Among the stories which Fightthesmears.com sought, not always totally convincingly to discredit were:

• That Obama was receiving overseas funding
• That Obama had close ties to one time Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayres,
• That Michelle Obama had at one time embraced black separatist views
• That Obama is a Muslim
• That Obama had ties to Kenyan politicians and also the ACORN organisation
• That Obama supported late term "born alive" abortions
  

It was also the site on which the reduced size copy of a Hawaiian certificate of live birth was published under the pretense that it was a birth certificate and therefore evidence of Obama's eligibility. (It was interesting that such documents only ever appeared on Obama friendly sites such as Fightthesmears.com and FactCheck.org but never on a site directly linked to the president or first family - presumably on legal advice)

The fact that a website set up specifically to debunk rumours which are still circulating about Obama, and which contained the official "evidence" debunking these rumours, appears to have been suddenly, and very thoroughly, deleted may mean absolutely nothing, but it does seem odd, don't you think?