# Ilhan Omar - A thread about her marriage and immigration history. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2019, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347 "2019-07-20T12:32:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/442 "2019-09-06T19:31:19Z")
Finding the proper source or originals BTW is very similar to the insistence of appraisers in the show Antiques Roadshow. As soon as a piece on the chain of proper ownership for an item is missing the appraisers dismiss the item or reduce the item in value a lot, because chances are: the item is fraudulent or obtained illegally. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/443 "2019-09-06T19:55:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > About the imaging and 3d, how nice, so do I. But there is not even a need to look at the images until we do get the originals at full resolution. As I have seen the reports of the origin of this nonsense, it is cleat that the source of the original images depends on the anonymous source that posted that in [del]anti[/del] media. So where are the sources? The strong implication here is a simple one: what is that guy trying to hide? > > Perhaps what he was known all along to be. > > [How the Ilhan Omar Marriage Smear Went From an Anonymous Post on an Obscure Forum to Being Embraced by Trump](https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-ilhan-omar-marriage-smear-went-from-an-anonymous-post-on-an-obscure-forum-to-being-embraced-by-trump) [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21763136&postcount=199](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21763136&postcount=199) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/444 "2019-09-06T19:58:42Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Hey everybody, how’s things? I’m new to this conspiracy, or alleged crime, or whatever it is. Can anyone point me to a sane, credible source where I can review the allegations and evidence for them? That’d be great, I appreciate it! > (Concisely laid out would be a real plus!) [http://m.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/](http://m.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/) This is an article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the newspaper of record in Omar’s district and certainly a sane and credible source: as I noted upthread they have won 6 Pulitzer Prizes, including two as recently as 2013. > [@SteveG1](#): > > Oh, and fuck that article, whatever it says or doesn’t say. Really taking that “fighting ignorance” credo to heart, eh? :rolleyes: > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > He just really doesn’t like Ilhan Omar. He started two threads about her (on the same day). > > [I will be working to defeat Ilhan Omar in her next election, if she’s still around](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=872096) > > [Ilhan Omar can fuck right off](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=872092) Ding ding ding! > [@Kimstu](#): > > Of course they will. Look at how the “birther” crazies kept demanding more and more evidence of Obama’s US citizenship status. I never said they wouldn’t! :smack: Did you really miss my point that badly? I stated it pretty clearly: the crazies well never give up regardless of what evidence is proffered, but people who could go either way will no longer listen to the crazies once evidence is provided to definitively refute an allegation. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/445 "2019-09-06T20:30:51Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I stated it pretty clearly: the crazies well never give up regardless of what evidence is proffered, but people who could go either way will no longer listen to the crazies once evidence is provided to definitively refute an allegation. That’s what you call “making it go away”? Not so much. In any case, why would supposedly sensible people be “listening to the crazies” in the first place, if the crazies have not managed to provide any evidence in support of their allegations? Gossiping about what hypothetical “hinkiness” in a politician’s personal life **might** be true even if nobody’s come up with any evidence that it **is** true is the behavior of shallow-minded scandalmongers, not sensible people. When shallow-minded scandalmongers demand that the targets of scandal “refute” completely unsupported allegations, they generally just want to keep the shitkettle bubbling, not to have the issue definitively settled. The makers of the unsupported allegations will **never** concede that the issue is definitively settled if it involves admitting their allegations turned out to be untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/446 "2019-09-06T20:36:05Z")
Oh, and by the way: > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Stirring the shit-kettle isn’t just good for the right. I think it’s arguably even better for those of us Democrats who are trying to keep that wing of the party from gaining power and influence. Not if “those of you Democrats” are trying to get anyone to actually respect your position. _“Let’s attract more people to moderate centrist liberal-Democrat views by demonstrating that moderate centrist liberal Democrats are manipulative shitheels encouraging unsupported scandalmongering about left-wing progressive Democrats in order to damage their reputation and influence in the party!”_ Like I said, how principled of you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/447 "2019-09-06T20:36:51Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21763136&postcount=199](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21763136&postcount=199) You lost me at the “Republican Troll”. You are really dumb about not knowing that trolling does happen world wide and it is not an exclusive republican thing? And all of what you posted there does not counter what I said about the chain of evidence, produce the original sources and full resolution images or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/448 "2019-09-07T01:42:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You lost me at the “Republican Troll”. You are really dumb about not knowing that trolling does happen world wide and it is not an exclusive republican thing? It would not bother me if you read what I wrote to say “political troll” or some other nomenclature where I wrote “Republican troll”. If we’re both looking at a picture of a blue Jeep and I tell you, “That is a blue Jeep, not orange”, and you tell me, “Actually, they said that it was chartreuse”, then the Jeep is still blue. I don’t really care what the mostly technically accurate nomenclature is for what he _isn’t_. Choose whatever term you feel fits best. > [@](#): > > And all of what you posted there does not counter what I said about the chain of evidence, produce the original sources and full resolution images or shut up. You would contend that, at a higher resolution, the screenshots of people swapping messages written in Somali would switch over to being in English? I am personally unaware of that compression technique and question its value to the tech community. I will also note that usually the best way to detect a fake is through inconsistent lighting and shadows. If the sun is on the left and the shadow is falling to the left, regardless of whatever resolution you’re at, that picture is still photomanipulated. I’ll also note that if you download an image and it is a full screen, high res picture which has clear signs of photomanipulation, then you have successfully identified a fake. Positing that the images have all been down-rezzed and re-compressed, a priori of actually looking, is not evidence that the images were faked. It’s just avoiding the topic. Likewise, I could decide that the local supermarket would _never_ carry eggs and thereby declare that it’s a waste of time to even go look and thereby be a lazy asshole who wants to get out of having to cook breakfast. My decision that the store has no eggs has no bearing on the reality. There is a difference between proving that an image is faked and handwaving. The handwaver may well turn out to have been correct, but he was still engaging in handwaving. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/449 "2019-09-07T03:19:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > It would not bother me if you read what I wrote to say “political troll” or some other nomenclature where I wrote “Republican troll”. If we’re both looking at a picture of a blue Jeep and I tell you, “That is a blue Jeep, not orange”, and you tell me, “Actually, they said that it was chartreuse”, then the Jeep is still blue. I don’t really care what the mostly technically accurate nomenclature is for what he _isn’t_. Choose whatever term you feel fits best. No term fits, lack of original images or revealed sources testifying where they got the images is not there, you were trolled in many languages. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You would contend that, at a higher resolution, the screenshots of people swapping messages written in Somali would switch over to being in English? I am personally unaware of that compression technique and question its value to the tech community. You are really deluded, I’m not referring to screenshots of internet posts, I’m talking about the original images and sources of them who are willing to come forward to establish their bona fides. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I will also note that usually the best way to detect a fake is through inconsistent lighting and shadows. If the sun is on the left and the shadow is falling to the left, regardless of whatever resolution you’re at, that picture is still photomanipulated. Stop teaching grandma to suck eggs, and that is not the requested information. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I’ll also note that if you download an image and it is a full screen, high res picture which has clear signs of photomanipulation, then you have successfully identified a fake. Positing that the images have all been down-rezzed and re-compressed, a priori of actually looking, is not evidence that the images were faked. It’s just avoiding the topic. Likewise, I could decide that the local supermarket would _never_ carry eggs and thereby declare that it’s a waste of time to even go look and thereby be a lazy asshole who wants to get out of having to cook breakfast. My decision that the store has no eggs has no bearing on the reality. More evidence about your delusion. You still think that I’m looking for original Facebook posts you can get images in the posts, but those are not the original images (If you can not get this I do doubt that you have proper knowledge of how images are processed and the need for originals with the people who took them available to testify), I’m referring to the original pictures that a person who took them can produce and after revealing who they are we can establish how trustworthy they are. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > There is a difference between proving that an image is faked and handwaving. The handwaver may well turn out to have been correct, but he was still engaging in handwaving. And that is coming from you really, if you can not see the difference between an internet post with an image and an original image with a person who has knowledge and possession of that original, one can not even begin to do any proper research or vetting, you might as well believe in the moon hoax were the ones that fell for the hoax denied also that checking the original images was needed when the hoaxers relied on **compressed** images full of artifacts to claim that there were UFO’s or other nonsense there. Remember too that there is a reason why the chain of possession is very, very important to establish how reliable or valuable an item is. > **[Antiques Roadshow | Appraisal: Buffalo Bill Photographs | Season 16 | Episode...](https://www.pbs.org/video/antiques-roadshow-appraisal-buffalo-bill-photographs/)** > > Appraisal: Buffalo Bill Photographs, from Vintage Houston. > **[Antiques Roadshow | Appraisal: 1938 Ansel Adams-signed Photograph | Season 20...](https://www.pbs.org/video/antiques-roadshow-appraisal-ansel-adams-photograph/)** > > Appraisal: 1938 Ansel Adams-signed Photograph, from Tucson, Hr 3. While modern examples are digital, one can still demonstrate that they have original images by showing the device the image was taken, the time stamp, signatures or the usual higher resolution an image has before it is usually reduced in quality for a post on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/450 "2019-09-07T04:05:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No term fits, lack of original images or revealed sources testifying where they got the images is not there, you were trolled in many languages. I fail to see how you just switched topic from AhbdiJohnson to the topic of photomanipulation. While he did post a couple of pictures of the two of them in college together, the grand majority of what he posted were links and descriptions of what could be found at those links. He says, for example, that Omar’s dad has a second name and links to Facebook to demonstrate it. You have a mouse and keyboard. If you do not believe that her dad has a second name, you are completely capable of traversing to the man’s Facebook account. > **[Log into Facebook](https://m.facebook.com/nur.said.3386?fref=nf)** > > Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know. You might even look at the URL. > [@](#): > > More evidence about your delusion. You still think that I’m looking for original Facebook posts you can get images in the posts, but those are not the original images (If you can not get this I do doubt that you have proper knowledge of how images are processed and the need for originals with the people who took them available to testify), I’m referring to the original pictures that a person who took them can produce and after revealing who they are we can establish how trustworthy they are. My statement that Omar appeared likely to be guilty of something is based on things that I was able to independently verify. I stated what those things were. Everyone is free to repeat what I did and they will find the things that I said are there, assuming that they have not been deleted. I cannot verify the images, ergo, I cautioned about how much credence to given if using them and said that I could not independently verify them. It is, in theory, possible for the images to be proven to be falsified. If they are overly compressed or otherwise mauled than, yes, it _won’t_ be possible but you would have to try in order to make the determination. Nothing that you have said negates. I have not claimed that any nor every image can be proved to have been falsified. If I can’t prove that the images are genuine and you can’t prove that they’re faked, then they are exactly as I have described: **“I cannot independently verify the substance of what these images are said to contain.”** Now if I say that and the response that I am given is, “Those images are falsified.”, when I have not rested anything on the images, then I am of the opinion that _that person has neither read what I have written nor actually taken any look at jack doodle_, let alone having any place to declare that something was falsified. And as the person who is making the greater claim: “That is falsified” Where I made the lesser claim: “I cannot independently verify the content of those images.” I feel comfortable saying to the other person, “You are a lazy asshole, suffering from denialism who cannot even read simple statements like ‘There is wide open room for Omar to be innocent of everything’. You need to get your head out of your ass and either accept that there is such a thing as evidence in the world which is not conclusive of anything, there is evidence in the world of questionable provenance, and in that light it is possible for there to be a wide spectrum of explanations. But any hypothetical must at least explain the evidence which we can be certain of. And if you want to claim that a particular piece of questionable evidence is distinctly false, then you need to prove that claim. If you cannot, than you have to live with, ‘It is of questionable provenance and cannot be independently verified.’ You may hate that, but suck it up and learn to be an adult.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/451 "2019-09-07T04:30:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I fail to see how you just switched topic from AhbdiJohnson to the topic of photomanipulation. While he did post a couple of pictures of the two of them in college together, the grand majority of what he posted were links and descriptions of what could be found at those links. > > He says, for example, that Omar’s dad has a second name and links to Facebook to demonstrate it. You have a mouse and keyboard. If you do not believe that her dad has a second name, you are completely capable of traversing to the man’s Facebook account. > > [Facebook](https://m.facebook.com/nur.said.3386?fref=nf) > > You might even look at the URL. > My statement that Omar appeared likely to be guilty of something is based on things that I was able to independently verify. I stated what those things were. Everyone is free to repeat what I did and they will find the things that I said are there, assuming that they have not been deleted. > > I cannot verify the images, ergo, I cautioned about how much credence to given if using them and said that I could not independently verify them. > > It is, in theory, possible for the images to be proven to be falsified. If they are overly compressed or otherwise mauled than, yes, it _won’t_ be possible but you would have to try in order to make the determination. Nothing that you have said negates. I have not claimed that any nor every image can be proved to have been falsified. > > If I can’t prove that the images are genuine and you can’t prove that they’re faked, then they are exactly as I have described: **“I cannot independently verify the substance of what these images are said to contain.”** > > Now if I say that and the response that I am given is, “Those images are falsified.”, when I have not rested anything on the images, then I am of the opinion that _that person has neither read what I have written nor actually taken any look at jack doodle_, let alone having any place to declare that something was falsified. That is nice, nowhere I did say that they were falsified, only that to become evidence they need to be confirmed in context and with the testimony of the persons who took the original images. As one example of the Buffalo Bill images in the Antiques Roadshow shows, if there was no person claiming ownership and testifying about the origins of the pictures there would be no appraisal at all. And this is what we got now. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > And as the person who is making the greater claim: “That is falsified” Where I made the lesser claim: “I cannot independently verify the content of those images.” I feel comfortable saying to the other person, “You are a lazy asshole, suffering from denialism who cannot even read simple statements like ‘There is wide open room for Omar to be innocent of everything’. You need to get your head out of your ass and either accept that there is such a thing as evidence in the world which is not conclusive of anything, there is evidence in the world of questionable provenance, and in that light it is possible for there to be a wide spectrum of explanations. But any hypothetical must at least explain the evidence which we can be certain of. And if you want to claim that a particular piece of questionable evidence is distinctly false, then you need to prove that claim. If you cannot, than you have to live with, ‘It is of questionable provenance and cannot be independently verified.’ You may hate that, but suck it up and learn to be an adult.” Let’s see, can you as an adult go to the Antiques Road show and use copies of a post on the internet and demand that an appraiser declare you have a real Rembrandt? Would they give even you the time of the day? What we have seen from you is that you would behave like a little kid indeed and demand at least candy from the appraisers, but it is more likely that the police will be taking your family from the premises and not appearing in the show at all. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/452 "2019-09-07T04:40:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is nice, nowhere I did say that they were falsified Great, then why are you complaining? If you did not make the claim and I didn’t make the claim, then move on. Others did make the claim. I have provided information for how one can, in theory, make an attempt to prove his claim. Yes, they will likely fail. Your information about the Antique Roadshow aside, if I give you a picture of myself standing on the surface of the sun, _it is a falsified image_. You can argue otherwise, but impossible things are impossible, and _particularly_ when there is no chain of evidence nor documentary record for that image. I do understand your point, but you are being silly and talking about proof not disproof. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/453 "2019-09-07T04:50:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Great, then why are you complaining? If you did not make the claim and I didn’t make the claim, then move on. That is what you need to do. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Others did make the claim. I have provided information for how one can, in theory, make an attempt to prove his claim. Yes, they will likely fail. They already did fail. The longer the anonymous ones that made the claim on the internet don’t come forward with how they came with the images and the dubious interpretations of them, the more one has to dismiss their “evidence” > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Your information about the Antique Roadshow aside, if I give you a picture of myself standing on the surface of the sun, _it is a falsified image_. You can argue otherwise, but impossible things are impossible, and _particularly_ when there is no chain of evidence nor documentary record for that image. > > I do understand your point, but you are being silly and talking about proof not disproof. No, you are being a willful ignorant that is spreading a conspiracy with even less evidence than the moon hoax. In this day and age, direct testimony from the ones that took the pictures and finding the originals is crucial, that they are hiding now does put the extreme burden on the accusers, not the accused. The process that a group like Antiques Road show does apply to give value to images and other items is a very good explanation of how inadequate and ridiculous is to demand that we give any attention to the sorry “evidence” presented by you and others so far. And you are the one still acting like a child. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/454 "2019-09-07T05:05:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > They already did fail. The longer the anonymous ones that made the claim on the internet don’t come forward with how they came with the images and the dubious interpretations of them the more one has to dismiss their “evidence” I’ve been in climate change debates with you. A statement that I have made in those debates is, “If you do not trust the Michael Mann hockey puck graph, then throw that information away. It doesn’t matter, because there’s the hockey puck graph created by China and Brazil and Canada and NASA and various other groups, based on other data and other models. Whether Michael Mann is reliable or not is irrelevant.” I say the same here. Discount the images. Throw them away. It does not affect anything. > [@](#): > > That is what you need to do. I did [move on]. As said, people kept calling me to come back and were derailing other threads. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/455 "2019-09-07T05:13:12Z")
One more thing, when I said “can you go to the Antiques Road show and use copies of a post on the internet and demand that an appraiser declare you have a real Rembrandt?” the point was not that the images were fake. (that could be found later after getting the originals and the contextual testimony of the ones who took the images) The point was that anyone can say the picture shows a real event, or a real Rembrandt, **and it would be meaningless** unless an intrepid guy can lead the authorities to the place [this Rembrandt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Storm_on_the_Sea_of_Galilee) is located as he would then report when and where a shot of that was taken. So it is crucial to get context, as in: original images together with a testimony from the owners/the ones that took the pictures telling us the status of the people who had their picture taken, when the images where taken, etc; to see if the dubious affirmations from an internet poster that refuses now to show how he got the images or source has any value. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/456 "2019-09-07T05:19:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I’ve been in climate change debates with you. A statement that I have made in those debates is, “If you do not trust the Michael Mann hockey puck graph, then throw that information away. It doesn’t matter, because there’s the hockey puck graph created by China and Brazil and Canada and NASA and various other groups, based on other data and other models. Whether Michael Mann is reliable or not is irrelevant.” > > I say the same here. Discount the images. Throw them away. It does not affect anything. Tell me about it, the sealioning never ends. And neither your childishness. Actually this shows that you do not know jack about how evidence works, one factor is that the less evidence is there then one has to give a theory like the Omar one you posted\*\* even less value. \*\* > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I did [move on]. As said, people kept calling me to come back and were derailing other threads. As it was clear, you are willing to ignore that when procedures, like the chain of possession and context from witnesses are missing, the Omar conspiracy theory is dumber than the moon hoax. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/457 "2019-09-07T05:23:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > One more thing, when I said “can you go to the Antiques Road show and use copies of a post on the internet and demand that an appraiser declare you have a real Rembrandt?” the point was not that the images were fake. (that could be found later after getting the originals and the contextual testimony of the ones who took the images) > > The point was that anyone can say the picture shows a real event, or a real Rembrandt, **and it would be meaningless** unless an intrepid guy can lead the authorities to the place [this Rembrandt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Storm_on_the_Sea_of_Galilee) is located as he would then report when and where a shot of that was taken. > > So it is crucial to get context, as in: original images together with a testimony from the owners/the ones that took the pictures telling us the status of the people who had their picture taken, when the images where taken, etc; to see if the dubious affirmations from an internet poster that refuses now to show how he got the images or source has any value. As I have said, if you read through what I actually did and said, rather than stopping at the first thing that you can think of to object to, you will find that my conclusions are based on things which _can_ be independently verified. I largely agree with what you say, but it is better addressed to the same people that I am addressing. My position was to take the things that I could not independently verify with a grain of salt. I made no claim that anything was real nor faked (though I did say that I could not detect any fakery in the images and that it seemed to beyond the capabilities of the people being discussed). Importantly, though, I based my conclusions on things that I was able to independently verify through sources free of AhbdiJohnson, Powerline, and Alpha News’ reach. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/458 "2019-09-07T05:28:13Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > As I have said, if you read through what I actually did and said, rather than stopping at the first thing that you can think of to object to, you will find that my conclusions are based on things which _can_ be independently verified. Nope, because they are not coming from direct evidence nor direct testimony. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I largely agree with what you say, but it is better addressed to the same people that I am addressing. > > My position was to take the things that I could not independently verify with a grain of salt. I made no claim that anything was real nor faked. I based my conclusions on things that I was able to independently verify through sources free of AhbdiJohnson, Powerline, and Alpha News’ reach. And still missing the point painfully, you have worthless evidence, regardless of how you did “verify it”, because in the end, you really did ignore proper procedure. You only verified that you took the bait from dubious sources, hook line and sinker. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/459 "2019-09-07T05:35:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, because they are not coming from direct evidence nor direct testimony. > **[Log into Facebook](https://m.facebook.com/nur.said.3386?fref=nf)** > > Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/460 "2019-09-07T05:39:53Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [Facebook](https://m.facebook.com/nur.said.3386?fref=nf) Same reply to that, where is his original image, his testimony from a credible source, location when the picture was taken and what was the status of the persons **then** that appeared in the picture? Not to mention that now you are falling for the same tactic of the ones that ensnared you by not providing proper context. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347/461 "2019-09-07T05:45:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Same reply to that, where is his original image, his testimony from a credible source, location when the picture was taken and what was the status of the persons **then** that appeared in the picture? I presume that you mean the profile photo. **The one with a like on it from Omar’s husband.** As said, I did independently verify this and it is not difficult to do so. [https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=fd61ab15-94d4-e011-a886-001ec94ffe7f](https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=fd61ab15-94d4-e011-a886-001ec94ffe7f) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ilhan-omar-a-thread-about-her-marriage-and-immigration-history/837347.md?page=24)