Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
And then one of our moderators spotted this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
It has several clues, but also there's this question:
Who is E. F. Lavender?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+friendly+lavender&aq=f&oq=&aqi
Earth Friendly Lavender detergent?
Cool. That's good. Sofar, I've found two E. Lavenders addresses in the U.K. Searching by County is the easiest way to do it. I should have a list by the end of the day.
what am I looking for? All I see is a bunch of gutter talk.
Sorry,, I am on cell for the night
Lets play devil’s advocate. Lets say he does have a valid BC out there. Why wouldn’t he let us use this as a distraction. He could milk it for all its worth, then in 3 years, produce it and say “see I told you so”.
WND makes no mention of a second document signed by E.F. Lavender. The pics are all of the alleged BHO BC.
The explanation requires a proper definition of the word "entry."
Think of a form as having two components: (1) standard boilerplate headings and verbiage that never vary, and (2) manually inputted information that is entered in the appropriate spaces and blocks on the form.
If you read the document carefully, the attestation of the registrar is that it is a certified "true copy of the entry recorded in the Birth Register."
In other words, it is a true copy of the "entry" in the birth register. It is not necessarily a copy of the actual document in which the information was originally entered.
It would work this way: suppose there is an original document on file, and it is in the proper expected form for 1961(that is, not on "Republic of Kenya" form heading). Its "entry" might logically and arguably mean all the information that was entered--inputted manually--on the form, not the form itself.
In 1964, to make a certified true copy of the "entry" from the original form the registrar would take the then-current form (showing "Republic of Kenya" form heading inasmuch as the Republic of Kenya was then in existence and its forms would be used) and copy the entry (the manually entered information) from the original form onto the new form.
The resulting certified true copy would therefore comprise the original entry (manually inputted information)from the old pre-Republic of Kenya form copied onto a post-Republic of Kenya form.
This isn't necessarily the correct interpretation. But I believe it is a plausible and logical explanation.
Looks like the DUers are trying to get a brain.
Even Dan Rather had the sense to keep his scam quiet.
However, what if Obama renounced his citizenship, even if this was done while a minor, as part of his adoption process in Jakarta, Indonesia?
However, what if Obama renounced his citizenship, even if this was done while a minor, as part of his adoption process in Jakarta, Indonesia?
I’m going through the U.K. phonebook right now. Many Lavenders listed but found two E. Lavenders.
Yes, the whole region was British-controlled but at the time Obama was born Mombasa was not technically part of Kenya. The whole idea of Obama’s parents leaving Hawaii while she was pregnant never made much sense to me anyway. But it only made sense to me if I could believe that maybe Obama Sr. was bound and determined that his son be born in his home country of Kenya. That’s the only explanation I could think of for making such a risky trip halfway around the world with a young, pregnant wife. So why go through all that and then have the baby somewhere that was NOT technically part of Kenya?
The best approach to all these documents is to assume they are created by smart, bored teenagers. If there are world leaders creating forgeries then we will never unravel them. But we have a chance with a Dan Rather level forgery, so we need check for those kinds of mistakes.
In other words, go over every artifact, dot, dash, font, word and sentence in detail. Try to find problems with the thing. If we can't, then assume it is real. So far, we have not done that with this document.
I am not worried about the difference in darkness between a typewriter ribbon and the ink pen used for Mr. Oduya's signature.
I am convinced the PAPER is real - even if a hoax it is much simpler to create this using a typewriter than on photoshop. Just look at the way the text follows the contours of the paper, and the lighting along the page and text.
Some have brought up the number 47,044 as a possible flag. I believe this number is plausible for reasons set forth here.
The hoax/authenticity probability hinges on the ability to verify the official capacities of E. F. Lavender, Mr. Miller, and Joshua Simon Oduya in early 1964 in the district designated under "District".
Where do those numbers appear? I’m not seeing them.
Rabbit hole.
This thread is about this document. Whether BO was an Indonesian citizen is relevant to the overall question of his natural born citizenship and eligibility but it has no relevance here. There’s no need to complicate things.
“I like how some skeptics are claiming EF Lavender is a name of a soap.”
We can play name games all day long. Like Barney Frank is the name of a hotdog, or Bush and Quayle was the name of a hunting magazine? I could go on and on. I don’t have a problem with that name, even though, I too am skeptical of the entire document since I hate to be made a fool of.
Jim,
See post 86.
It appears that EF Lavender may have been a real person who went on from his posting in Kenya to one in Australia.
Law Clerk’s Society? A law clerk sounds like the same sort of job as a Registrar might hold down.
I would not be quick to dismiss this document.
Interesting that they feel the need for all the misdirection and creating fake Kenyon birth certificates.
Why?
Who is going to burn you?
“O=10
“B=2
“A=1
“M=8
“A=1”
Not sure what ‘code’ you are trying to refer to. If you mean numbers by alphabet order, it would be this:
O=15
B=2
A=1
M=13
A=1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.