Posted on 08/04/2009 7:33:27 PM PDT by pissant
I’d say that “fruity” person is a classic overachiever who loves challenges and won’t take “no” for an answer.
If she seems a little stressed and uptight on camera, I’d say she has damn good reason, with everything that’s going on.
Similar phenomenon: Look at the “n” in Lavender. Or is it a “u”?
The K looks more like a K than a E to me.
THANKS!
“I dont know if this has been posted to any thread yet but I found this:http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/
For the final nail in this myths coffin, one particularly enterprising man, Steve Eddy, located the original Australian document on which the Kenyan certificate was apparently based.
So we now know that Koyaans real name is Steve Eddy.”
IT ALWAYS COMES OUT IN THE WASH!
I wouldn’t trust Koyaan. He’s a little two-bit liar.
Zoom in on the "D" in Deputy. Is it on top of the signature or under it?
Amen! Anybody who thinks FReepers ane one-trick ponies are sadly mistaken.
The "Deputy Registrar." is superimposed over the signature. I wonder how that happened?
Check out the contrasting pic in #549 same subject.
I don't think you have read the key points against the bamford BC
1. The type (both from form and 'typed' in) are not distorted at all were the folds in the document are present. The creases that are evident to still be present should have distorted them - instead they are not.
2. The signature at the bottom right goes under the typwritten material - See post 38 for a detailed look.
Thus you are mistaken in associating fraud with its alledged origion. The fraud is evident from the two points listed above.
Not surprising you won't research or accept any proof to the contrary. I think its now pretty clear which 'camp' you're falling into. Don't count on that check from Rahm though, you may be thrown under the bus very soon.
I did too...and I used to be a pretty good Amway “circle drawer.”
Yep, if Koyaan is behind the bomford document, its pretty clear Bomford is a forgery.
I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with you on this. If you blow up that image, you can very clearly see the handwritten “y” going over the S. It looks like the pen skipped out on a very small portion of the “s,” but otherwise, the handwritten “y” is on TOP of the “s.”
“. . . superimposed over he signature . . . . “
Yeah, saw that discussed yesterday. Actually, as much as I’m convinced that the Bomford BC was manufactured to discredit the Obama BC, I’m not getting worked up over the signature angle. The watery fountain pen ink might not have saturated where there was already printer’s ink on the form, and the denser black ink would show through easily. Actually, the “s” in Registrar does look like it got inked over a little.
I took a double take at it. Inconclusive at best.
Hey, you know what? I tried writing over black TONER on a PHOTOCOPY with a gel pen and the toner REALLY showed through the pen ink!! Try it!!
I posted something yesterday from the site that mentioned emails from 2007-2008. How could that be?
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.