[Plutarch]

I did a Google news search, and came up with a story on Daily Kos. Looked through the posts to debunking information. You go through 20 smug clucking posts to find one with potentially valid points.

First, the hospital is Coast Provincial General Hospital (sometimes said to be Coast Province General Hospital), not Coast General Hospital.

Comments?

Second, Kenya was a Dominion the date this certificate was allegedly issued and would not become a republic for 8 months.

This has been extensively discussed. It seems plausible that some Government documents jumped the gun on having Republic on the letterhead, because Kenya was bound for complete independence, and it would have been costly to have Dominion on the letterheads for only a few months. However, until someone posts a Kenyan document during the interregnum with Republic, it is a big authenticity problem.

Third, Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar when Obama was born, not Kenya.

This has been discussed here as well. The coast area was under dispute.

Fourth, Obama's father's village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.

I don't think this is relevant. Caesar Augustus hadn't decreed every Kenyon to return to his home village to be taxed, as it was foretold for the Messiah's birth. Where the Obama's went in Kenya would be determined by travel convenience and obstetrical care, not by proximity to the paternal hut.

Fifth, the number 47O44-- 47 is Obama's age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44--he is the 44th president.

IMO, this is twaddle.

Sixth, EF Lavender is a laundry detergent.

An EF Lavender was also signing documents in Australia before laundry detergent had been invented. Was that Aussie document forged as well?

Seventh, would a nation with a large number of Muslims actually say "Christian name" (as opposed to name) on the birth certificate?

Things might have been different on the coastal strip, and Colonial Brits were probably less sensitive about these matters than a modern day forger. Such anachronistic language argues more for authenticity than forgery.

Eigth, his father (born in 1961) would have been 24 or 25 when he was born and not 26.

This has been discussed. Apparently the exact birth date isn't known. The forger could look up a Wikipedia entry as easily as this debunker, and so that the entry has this 'wrong' in comparison to Wikipedia may actually make more authentic.

Ninth, it was called the "Central Nyanza District," not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.

I've not seen this, if so it presents a serious challenge.

[True Republican Patriot]

AMEN! WELL DETAILED AND STATED!

[tyke]

| Fifth, the number 47O44-- 47 is Obama's age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44--he is the 44th president.

IMO, this is twaddle.

Actually this immediately struck me as the sort of thing you see on an April Fool's joke. You know, the snippet of information that should give the game away but most people will overlook. It's put there so the purveyor of the joke can point his finger and do the Nelson Muntz "Ha Ha" at you afterwards for not getting the joke.

[rocco55]

Regarding “Christian name”. This was how the British referred to a person’s FIRST name. It has nothing to do with religion. Notice “Barack II” is in that field (excluding his last name).

[Tedro]

In regards to the claims that BO seniors age is listed as 26:

Zoom in and examine the document carefully. It does indeed say 25. The angle of the picture makes it difficult to tell, but if you compare the number to the 5 and 6 in 5th August, 1961, you can tell that the loop made for the 5’s is much bigger than that of the sixes, and that the second digit of his age does match the 5 in the date of birth. Zoom in far enough and you can even see the straight line at the top of the 5.

[markomalley]

Comments?

What gives me some hope is that this is not a birth certificate. It is a "Certified Copy of Registration of Birth."

It gives a link to a page in a hard copy book (i.e., a register) that would contain the information quoted on the form we see.

For example, here is a page from an 1883 UK birth register:

I cannot picture that a 1961 register would be any different (computerization would not have come to an outlying colony in 1961 -- particularly one that the Brits knew they were going to be quitting in a couple of short years anyway)

The point is excising one entry from such a register would be impossible. Excising a whole page from such a register would be near to impossible. Excising a whole register from a set of registers would be really, really suspicious (and difficult to do, to boot).

[Uncle Chip]

Sixth, EF Lavender is a laundry detergent. An EF Lavender was also signing documents in Australia before laundry detergent had been invented. Was that Aussie document forged as well?

Exactly --

It seems to me that too many have just accepted that forged Obama certification on the Factcheck website as valid despite all the evidence to the contrary, and therefore when a valid document appears, they are unable to recognize it or objectively and logically analyze it for authenticity, or withhold judgment until all the facts of its authentication are in. Too many have been drinking the koolaid.