Forgery number one: “47,O44″ The Obots were laughing when then they joked: 47 years old, Big O, and 44th president.
Wrong: Orly’s document actually says 47,644. I have it shown here as “negative image” so you can see the original document (you have to look close) does say 47,644 and NOT 47,O44."
.
Looks even worse for Obama. He is obviously a fraud.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm
More information to consider.
The same left wing fanatics that savaged Sarah Palin and supported the false tand report by Dan Rathers are trying to spew their propoganda again.
But there IS something wrong in trying to cover up the validity of his citizenship.
Keep shredding Hillary, there on to it...
The argument that the signature is under the print is not a sure thing — if you write with translucent ink over an opaque ink, it can look like the opaque ink is occluding the translucent ink, especially in a crappy compressed, inverted/negative image.
Most of this positioning and silliness will become moot when period documents from Kenya and Australia are compared to this document.
All I can say is, Orly Taitz had better watch her backside, never be alone, don’t take any taxis, and put this document in a safe deposit box at the bank. Or she may and/or the document may suffer an unfortunate accident.
It is obvious that the ink has faded on the Australian one after 40 odd years and was written with a fountain pen, but the Obama one looks pristine and written with a ballpoint pen, which was considered déclassé in 1964. No Civil Servant of Britain or the ex Colonies at that time would consider signing an official document with a ballpoint pen. They would not even let you take examinations using a ballpoint pen.
Of course the typewritten font was more genuine on the Australian one for that era too.
Just taking a glance at the original it seems to me that it is printed in 8 1/2" by 11" paper, Standard American stock whereas European standard stock is A4, 210 x 297mm a little longer and a little narrower. So I doubt if this is a copy of the actual printed form from Kenya.
The Australian raised seal is off center, readable and initialed which would be normal for a hand stamped document. The other seal on the Obama document is perfectly centered, unreadable and not initialed which would be more likely on a fake.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
When the dates of the Republic were said to be December 1964 several people made snap judgments that the document was a hoax. Not so fast, let's make sure of what we know. When the document first came out, people were excited and want to accept it as real. Not so fast, let the evidence take you where it will.
Understand, it does not discredit us to have a hoax foisted upon us. It discredits us when we try to take each hoax and declare it real before we do the work to authenticate it. Slow and steady wins the race.
Two things I think we should remember: Ms. Taitz and Alan Keys are not a flakes, they are intelligent people. I don't expect them to put a document from just any source before the federal court and ask for these sorts of extraordinary measures. Secondly, we have time on our side and we don't need to make fools of ourselves by calling real or hoax prematurely. We are going to go through a lot of hoaxes before we get to the smoking gun. I do believe the smoking gun is out there though because if it weren't they would just show us the birth certificate and tell us to go away.
Don’t know if this Kenyan BC is real or faked. We’ll see what the courts say after authentication efforts and processes.
What I do know is that it is incredibly easy to fabricate a “birth certificate” that, at the very least, gives the appearance of being genuine.
So, with all the gyrations the left is making to “prove” that the Kenyan BC is fake, they’re simultaneously proving that any BC can be faked, including but especially the Hawaiian BC that’s been on the web since last year.
All this does for me is reinforce the need for BHO to authorize the release of the full, long-form BC from Hawaii.