Posted on 08/04/2009 7:33:27 PM PDT by pissant
A document unveiled by a California attorney in her quest to determine President Obama's place of birth has been condemned as a forgery by critics who deride as nonsense the challenges that have been raised to the president based on the U.S. Constitution's demand that the Oval Office occupant be a "natural born" citizen.
But those on the other side, who would like to see the original documentation of Obama's birth place revealed, say there are factors that indicate the Kenyan birth document could be real.
WND reported when the document was submitted to a California court by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has managed several of the high-profile cases challenging Obama's eligibility to be president.
Then yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised the dispute to the floor of that august body, protesting in a speech added to the Congressional Record that the dispute was not worth one minute of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping to #316
He could actually have done them both and had the motivation to do it. But we'll have to wait and see.
Not good enough. He had to do it quickly. LOL
Woofie did you just find that?
This Bomford doc looks like someone having fun with Microsoft Word templates and the Courier font.
I'm not going to be surprised if there's a lot of planted crap.
Nothing should be regarded as proven until it's PROVEN. And I don't mean by some unnamed, anonymous "source."
It’s possible he just has a common name. :)
It's more than a simple error. It displays the profound ignorance of small town US junior newspaper reporters in the early 1960s writing about some country in Africa they probably had barely heard of.
which do you want proved?
lavender = registrar (”proof” is texasdarlin)
or
if lavender = registrar than fake?
Now, yo do realize that it is 3:10 a.m. where I am and I must hit the hay. Carry on and God bless.
Sorry, but the earliest indication I've seen of any KENYAN calling Kenya the "Republic of Kenya" is JUNE of 1964.
And it wasn't officially so until that December.
By the way, you do realize that government institutions don't necessarily change their forms within a week, don't you?
Yes, it's certainly possible that a Kenyan government form in February of 1964 could've INCORRECTLY referred to Kenya as "Republic of Kenya." It's POSSIBLE that an official 2009 government-issued birth certificate in the State of Texas could refer to Texas as "The Texas Union."
It just isn't likely.
Therefore, since it IS, highly, UNlikely, the burden of proof that it happened is on those who claim that it may have.
Note that I'm open to some other explanation as well, such as that the certificate was actually issued on a later date than that claimed on the certificate itself. I don't see how it's reasonably possible, but maybe someone can explain how it is.
I still can’t say whether the BH0 Kenyan BC is authentic or not however the Australian one is almost certainly fake.
I just have to ask myself - out of the billions and billions of BC’s on this planet, someone instantly recognized the BH0 BC was copied from the ONE BC which they possessed?
No way - Especially since it was “found” WITHIN 2 DAYS.
If you're "just trying to get to the truth," then why do you seem incapable of acknowledging that the December 1963 Constitution called Kenya "Kenya," that nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of any Kenyan even CALLING Kenya "the Republic of Kenya" prior to June of that year, and that the government itself didn't proclaim itself a Republic until December 1964?
I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your agenda. But there they are.
Never underestimate the spinelessness of our Republicans in public office.
Interesting.
I would think that this territory would've had its own name for itself, something other than "Kenya."
Of course, if they DID somehow call themselves "the Republic of Kenya," that would change the ball game.
No evidence so far, but I'm open to it.
I think BP2 RubyR already did the leg work on this subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306983/posts?page=224#224
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=5222#5222
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:bp2/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
Lead Technologies appears to have a corporate site at http://www.leadtools.com. A quick glance at what they offer on the main page suggests it all has to do with things like scanning and converting documents, NOT image manipulation like you would see with something like Photoshop.
“No evidence so far, but I’m open to it.”
Didn’t sound like it in your above posts. No CONCRETE evidence one way or another but don’t let that stop you.
I used a lead photo manipulation program awhile ago(can’t remember what is was, doesn’t matter)......it’s probably just scanner software. The metadata means nothing. It can be removed or changed to whatever the creator wants it to be. NEXT
That’s a link to a cached version of the south australia web site about “birth certificates” and “registration of birth”
Apparently, in South Australia, they give “birth certificates”
not documents called “certified copy of registration of birth”
at least they do today. Documents are sketchy.
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.