Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:53 PM PDT by Calpernia
You need to slow down and realize that this place is a community of sharp, engaged minds, who are pooling their collective wits to puzzle out the truth.
We're ALL waiting for Zero to cough up the real goods, but if, and until that happens, we will tenaciously chase down every single important-looking lead to the truth.
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
The filing in Pacer says she only has the picture that was submitted to the courts. Did she obtain the document since?
I guess it’s a nice trick for those who can’t see, but I see no K in this “comparison” (Adammon’s). Odd how an E which has a continuous top and bottom line can be turned into a letter, K, merely by squashing it, that shows (because it has) an obvious break in both those lines - along with the darkened dot edges common to the K. Must be following the “look at the right hand ... don’t watch the left” approach of our Usurp guy!
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 03:18:21 AM · 1,390 of 1,860
PA Engineer to Swordmaker; Jim Robinson
Hold the Presses! My daughter just showed me something.
She had me open both the Australian and Kenyan documents in Photoshop Elements. From there she had me under the Image menu “Divide Scanned Photos”. Nothing appeared on the Kenyan document, however six layers pealed away from the Australian one.
These layers all showed distortion.
Layer 1 - Date and Place of Birth
Layer 2 - Father (followed by) Name, Surname, Age and B
Layer 3 - Name, Surname and Birthplace
Layer 4 - Issue { Living Deceased
Layer 5 - Signature, Description Informant
Layer 6 - The entire right section of the page, specifically the inserted text fields and bottom right quadrant
Will post these late tomorrow afternoon. The interesting thing about Photoshop elements is that on edited photos it will pull them apart. On unedited photos there will be no layering. All of the separated layers exhibited a great deal of pixel distortion around the letters.
I believe the Australian certificate is a fraud. I can not confirm the authenticity of the Kenyan document.
(anymore info today? Thanks!)
Way to go mikizee. Well, since you’re on a search for truth, can you verify this information on the Bomford doc?
1) Was G.F. Lavender a Registrar in South Australia in 1959?
2) Was J.H. Miller a District Registrar in South Australia in 1959?
3) Can you take a look at the “Birth Register of this State,
Book 44B, Page 5733” and find a reference to Bomford there?
Since you’ve said that “all the info on it checks out” I’d like to see the research you’ve done to verify 1-3.
I expect that you might have forgotten to make sure that 1-3 “checks out”
Thanks
I haven’t a clue...can barely cut and paste, lol.
I was inquiring about a post I read last night, from PA Engineer...you should ask him.
Probably just says “Stolen by Gypsies”.
If she (Orly) only has a computer image of the document then who’s to say that the originally posted image was changed without her notice and that is the one she’s been running with since. The only thing that can be used as a base would be a paper document or how else could these computers images ever be 100% verified??
No problem, hahah :) Getting feisty on this thread, maybe it’s time for me to read some boring Creation vs Evolution threads, that might calm me down ;)
I am trying to practice explaining the problem better. There are unknowns like how the lower quality JPG was created, but swordmaker may know how.
This is not a good development. If that is all she has, and there is no original, the rest of this debate is moot.
She submitted an image?
Where is this mentioned? Obviously, all of her court documents that were scanned and posted to the web are images of what she submitted.
Again, someone needs to confim what is indicated on whatever piece of paper she submitted.
Obots have no way to alter the originals, but they can be very effective in squashing a story by spreading chaos and misinformation.
I get this all the time when I scan bills at home. The initial scan goes through and it shows me three or four different scannable sections on one page. I might scan the same page again, and the whole page is treated as one section (no divides). There's no real rhyme or reason except that the scanner thinks there is more than one document on the unit.
If I could I would. But I have no idea where they would be, and I don’t have a scanner!
Well, if you have the same one and your parents have the same one, why don’t you post them? Frankly, I don’t believe you. Plenty of Australian birth certificates were posted on this thread from different dates and historical periods. They looked nothing like the Bomford form.
“I saw her interviewed. She’s a nut.”
What a stupid comment! It characterizes you much worse than what you called her. She is a courageous person and a patriot, passionate about foghting for the truth.
The 14th amendment doesn’t mention natural born citizen because it has NOTHING to do with NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. VERY BASIC, article II, section 1, clause 5, is where NBC is codified. There and there only because that is all it applies to. It is a UNIQUE status as citizen ONLY required if you want to be president. It gives you no more citizenship than any other citizen UNLESS you want to be president, and then it is IMPARITIVE. What can’t you people get about UNIQUE, SPECIAL, ONLY APPLIES TO PRESIDENT, NOT THE SAME as “citizen at birth”, “native born citizen”, “naturalized citizen”, “citizen”, IT STANDS ALONE as a REQUIREMENT for president. It has it’s own clause in the constitution for gods sake. Obama’s father was a foreign national when Obama was born so Obama CAN NOT BE a natural born citizen. PERIOD, no matter where he was born
If all she has is a computer image, she will get laughed out of court - and this thread demonstrates why.
She needs the original doc. No ifs ands or buts.
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.
