Kenyan document ignites firestorm over authenticity (Let's Discuss Bomford HERE)

WND ^ | 8/4/09 | Staff

[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.

[woofie]

Ping to #316

[Mr Ramsbotham]

If he’s a skeptic....wouldn’t he try to punk the Kenyan B.C. by creating a fake with similar form, names, and book numbers? Sounds more plausible.

He could actually have done them both and had the motivation to do it. But we'll have to wait and see.

[Electric Graffiti]

Not good enough. He had to do it quickly. LOL

Woofie did you just find that?

[Lexinom]

Yes, I was just noticing that! It was one of the observations, though to the contrary point, that I had made about Orly's Kenya BC - that the text does, in fact, follow the contours - and that there are occasional typewriter spacing errors, e.g. the "Od" in Oduya, and the "M." in "M.H. Miller".

This Bomford doc looks like someone having fun with Microsoft Word templates and the Courier font.

[john in springfield]

The posting is unsourced for now, and the yahoo question shouldn't have this same exact name/title with the "Record 4667" piece.. this says to me this is planted crap for us to vacuum, just my guess.

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."

[PureSolace]

It’s possible he just has a common name. :)

[john in springfield]

1961, That's more than two years before Kenya gained independence -- it was a colonial holding of Britain then. NO one thought of Kenya as a republic at the time. The newspaper account is simple error.

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.

[truthfreedom]

which do you want proved?
lavender = registrar (”proof” is texasdarlin)
or
if lavender = registrar than fake?

[WVNan]

Okay, I had to go back and look up all the leads. Post #71, 95,112.151...then on post #206 click the link and read down a few posts. I think it was 100. First hit on google for Bromford came up DU. All of this together spells fishy to me.

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.

[john in springfield]

There has been plenty of proof posted to make the argument of why it could have been called that in Feb 1964.

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.

[Nasher]

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.

[john in springfield]

"We're just trying to get to the truth"

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.

[john in springfield]

Of course if it is proved true, the GOP will jump all over it.....or would they be so balless as to say it was..... too late now?

Never underestimate the spinelessness of our Republicans in public office.

[john in springfield]

There’s still no support at all for the idea that the country of kenya considered itself a republic at the time, but for this 10 mile coastal strip yes. I haven’t heard or come across this province calling itself “Republic of Kenya” yet, but they did seek autonomy and wanted their flag side by side with the country one.

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.

[Electric Graffiti]

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

[john in springfield]

So a Lead Technologies product was used at some stage during the production of the document. That could very easily have been at the time the document was scanned - it doesn't show it's been edited. Or when it was converted from TIF to GIF, or any other such conversion.

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.

[Electric Graffiti]

“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.

[Electric Graffiti]

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

[truthfreedom]

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Shc35e97qv0J:https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/Requirements/BirthCertificates.aspx+%22south+australia%22+%22registration+of+birth%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

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.

[GLDNGUN]

I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your agenda. But there they are.

ROFL

Actually reading the threads will become your new best friend if you give it a try. But, hey, in the meantime, go ahead and make a fool of yourself, because you are about, oh, 48 hours, late to the party.