[Seizethecarp]

“We’ve been led to believe this document is a fake, but if it isn’t, if what we see here was the initial attempt to lodge an application for a birth certificate which might give rise to a birth announcement in the Honolulu papers, then this is the first time he’s shown to have a birth year of 1936.”

I agree that this forgery is a good approximation of what such a filing would look like, but the talented forger knew that.

The forger neglected to remove stray marks in block 19a that were from signatures on the real BC that was used as a base onto which forged signatures were cut and pasted. On the web there are images of the original and the stray marks in 19a match perfectly.

Note that Madelyn’s name is misspelled, although people don’t always write all the letters in their name in a signature as it morphs over time.

[Fred Nerks]

To the best of my knowledge, it first appeared on FR here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2366539/posts?page=42#42 Not only is Madelyn incorrectly written, so is the name of the street, and we could never find any trace of the other names that were 'signatures'. I have also seen the 'template' to which you refer. Only problem is, which item you believe to be genuine. The template itself could be a cunning fake. I'm not offering a final judgement on either one. Posting for the record.

Freepers can make up their own minds.

[Fred Nerks]

How did the forger or either document decide the kenyan was 25 years old in 1961? The only reference to his age that I can recall was the article in the Honolulu paper which described him as a 25 year old student in 1959. Never mind, don't try to answer that, I'm posting it for the record. There are more things twixt heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy...

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2366539/posts?page=42#42

42 posted on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 1:14:37 AM

Live link