Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:53 PM PDT by Calpernia
http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg
bad link, it’s still up.
Because this attorney has gotten a judge to have a trial over all this...they appear to be trying to discredit her. I am certainly glad she was smart enough to look for authentication.
Sorry, but the Governor of Hawaii did NOT vouch for the on-line COLB.
Neither has Dr. Fukino, BTW.
That would be great. Just seems to me to be a whole lot more unlikely that very prevalent 3-D folds can be so completely removed from an image...as apposed to 2-D words or images on a page.
Guess what? It says E.F. to me.
Are we hallucinating .. is it a hologram ? LOL
I have it up in one of my tabs right now.
‘Bill O’Reilly acting like a baffoon right now on his show in regards to this whole issue...lol.
What is his friggin problem? His researchers should be fired!’
I don’t think BOR(E) has researchers. During the election, he was usually days behind in the news cycle, compared to what was being posted to places like Free Republic and Hot Air. Unfortunately, I think he’s coasting now because he has no competition in his time slot.
Why would someone create a fake Kenyan BC using names and numbers similar to or the same as what they saw on an Australian BC? Why do that?
On that looooong thread someone had found an E.F. Lavender that went to Australia. He was some kind of clerk. How’s your sense of weird? LOL
O'Reilly should ask why he didn't release it before the election, before the "birthers" name was coined, and before people were allegedly "unhinged."
-PJ
I don’t know if anyone else has posted this, but it’s a genealogical line for David Jeffrey Bomford with the same parents as are listed on that birth certificate.
http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/treeconcise.htm
G.F. Lavender is on this BC.
http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg
Not bloody likely!
Not bloody likely!
Which came first? Chicken or the egg?
Have you posted pictures here before?
They are trying to discredit the attorney...with her trial coming up. I’m certainly happy she put this up for authentication. Then again maybe Stanley Ann Dunham had it forged and then gave it to her attorney...who the hack knows.
No. If you don’t know what resolution means you shouldn’t talk about it. The top image is smaller pixel dimensions, whereas the bottom image is enlarged and cropped (look at the red weave behind the paper). They are both the same low resolution (72 dpi), the top image is a PNG and the bottom is a JPG.
Neither of these images really matter though, all that matters is the paper document itself and where it came from.
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.