To: marron
I would have hoped that before they went public with this, they would have obtained another birth certificate from the same area and era for comparison, and that some effort would have been made to verify authenticity. If you had read the WND article, you would see that they DID compare it to another certificate from the same period and THEY MATCHED. And both were signed by E.F. Lavender!
To: Fractal Trader
If you had read the WND article, you would see that they DID compare it to another certificate from the same period and THEY MATCHED. And both were signed by E.F. Lavender! Good. Thanks. Good news.
63 posted on
08/02/2009 5:24:47 PM PDT by
marron
To: Fractal Trader
Would you kindly link that WND article...I can’t seem to find it.
74 posted on
08/02/2009 5:29:14 PM PDT by
Miss Didi
( "After all...tomorrow is another day." Scarlett O'Hara, Gone with the Wind)
To: Fractal Trader
If you had read the WND article, you would see that they DID compare it to another certificate from the same period and THEY MATCHED. And both were signed by E.F. Lavender!
Let's see.
1) The article doesn't say they compared it to a certificate from the SAME PERIOD. They might have compared with a 1965 document, which would explain why the comparison document had "Republic of Kenya" heading and seal...
2) You say both certificates were signed by E.F. Lavender. That's not correct. The Article only shows a single certificate, two pictures of the same certificate. The article doesn't state who the registrar was for the comparison certificate. No image is provided for the second, comparison certificate.
3) WND needs to provide a picture a comparison document dated before december 12 1964 that has "republic of kenya" heading or seal. If they can't (and I really doubt they can!) then this document is presumably a big fake.
115 posted on
08/02/2009 5:45:47 PM PDT by
Mount Athos
(A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
To: Fractal Trader
I don’t get the feeling that ‘E.F. Lavender’ is a person but that it is more like a district or registar name..perhaps named after a person back in the day.
186 posted on
08/02/2009 6:18:10 PM PDT by
penelopesire
("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
To: Fractal Trader
Which means that the “E.F. Lavender” signature in no way calls this latest document into question.
And the number: If it weren’t 47044, it would be something else—and somebody could come up with reasons that it COULDN’T be a coincidence.
I’m not convinced this is an “obvious forgery” yet.
To: Fractal Trader
you had read the WND article, you would see that they DID compare it to another certificate from the same period and THEY MATCHED. And both were signed by E.F. Lavender!
_____________
Do you have a link? I don’t see where WND said that. thanks
272 posted on
08/02/2009 6:55:00 PM PDT by
mojitojoe
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for the people to remain silent.)
To: Fractal Trader
“If you had read the WND article, you would see that they DID compare it to another certificate from the same period and THEY MATCHED. And both were signed by E.F. Lavender! “
I went back and reread the entire article. I can’t find the part where it says the comparison birth certificates were signed by Lavender. Am I missing something?
469 posted on
08/02/2009 8:44:46 PM PDT by
Marie
(Alan Keyes for President!)
To: Fractal Trader
If you had read the WND article, you would see that they DID compare it to another certificate from the same period and THEY MATCHED. And both were signed by E.F. Lavender!But that can't be true, can it? After all, that can't be a real person's name. Right?
1,142 posted on
08/05/2009 11:13:35 AM PDT by
TBP
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson