Posted on 08/06/2009 11:53:16 AM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com
It’s looking more and more like the forged “Kenyan birth certificate” released by Orly Taitz on Sunday was a prank by a supporter of President Obama. Politijab points to an anonymous blogger at FearlessBlogging, who has uploaded four photos of the original forgery and a mocking declaration:
Fine cotton business paper: $11Inkjet printer: $35
1940 Royal Model KMM manual typewriter: $10
2 Shilling coin: $1
Pilot Varsity fountain pen: $3
Punkin’ the Birthers: Priceless
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
I wasn't thinking. What with new fangled “internet” gimmick, Kenyan coinage is apparently very easy to obtain.
Hey newbie, lay off of the abuse button. This is a site for grownups. If you can’t stand the heat, find another website.
I will find another website immediately. But I wouldn’t be too hasty to call yourselves “grownups”. The maturity level here is more like terrible twos!
There’s really nothing there to address.
They’re showing the coin, and their own fake; so what?
Bye. See you later, you will be back under another name to troll again.
You said everything I think about this issuee much better than I ever could have.
Kudos to you
The word “Maiden,” mistyped as “Maieen” in the punked copy. See Post #356.
I noticed there were some additional replies from others about matching up the "seal" with the original pic on Orly's site. I had saved that one also and while the details are not as sharp, I still think you'll find it's a match. I made this one run a little slower:
Found the 2 shilling pic on the web HERE. After a good deal of twisting, turning, and resizing, and with the exception of the lighting direction, turned out fairly well.
Now, gotta run see what Beck's got going today...
After enlarging the Taitz doc to 400%, and studying it next to your coin, the most obvious difference that stands out is the absence of the thistle and the shamrock.
The next thing that I see is that where the crown is on the coin is completely different from the paper seal where I see what looks like possibly a bunch of grapes on the right, and like a face in semi-profile to the left.
I just cannot make any of the lettering at the circumfrence coincide except for possibly one letter N.
The G and R are also not evident.
OK - I just do not think it is obvious that the coin method would be able to reproduce what is seen on the Orly document, or any embossed seal. A paper embosser I believe will always produce more defined height variations.
The diameter of a British two shilling piece is listed as 28.52mm or around 1.123 inches. So the size is about correct but could be on the low side.
If the forger just wanted to generate a photograph image then I think using Photoshop tools would have been easier. JMO.
Thanks, I captured that one when you first posted it I was really well done. As I said earlier something so well centered, unreadable and no initials would likely be a fake.
This photo just showed you one of many printouts and shots of the ingredients used - not the final layout of the actual shot posted on the Internet.
The blanket was laid out differently for that shot so comparisons based on order of color bands are worthless back front sideways different parts of the cover. No doubt the final printout was not the one shown...
Gullible. I think not.
Many FReepers, myself included, thought that there was a possibility that this document was legitimate.
But that it needed to be scrutinized and verified very carefully.
And it turns out that it was forged from a 1960s era Australian birth certificate.
Nonetheless, the forgery was not readily obvious on its face (unlike Rathergate).
And the truth is that doubts about the document surfaced almost immediately (the “Republic of Kenya” question, etc.), and the Austrialian original showed up within some 36 hours.
And the topper: 0bama still has not released his long-form birth certificate. Until that happens, doubts will linger.
Points taken. One would probably have to have the three items side by side to make a good visual comparison. Even then, the lack of detail on Orly’s document/jpeg is difficult to work with. Speaking of, I remember when I saw the jpeg for the first time the night of its posting, wondering if this was a first generation pic, why the proliferation of jpeg artifacts. I suspect though if anyone(I probably won’t take the time) were to make an overlay of Orly’s jpeg over the high resolution “forgery”, the available details would match perfectly. JMHO, of course.
I didn’t say order of color bands; the order of the threads differs, as do the colors of the threads, and the count.
What is not plain to me is whether Orly has a paper copy of the doc, or a photo of a paper copy.
Initial comments led me to believe that the photo that we saw was done by or for Orly, and that it was deliberately done to a low resolution. IOW, the cloth background is Orly’s or her photographer’s property. (?)
“Isn’t it interesting that the folds on the docs in these pics are considerably different than the Taitz doc, and that the paper portrayed is nice and crisp and NEW.”
I usually lurk but I had to join in this conversation. The longer we talk about this the more the DUmmies are making fools of us!
The forger didn’t take the time to type it out, but it is obvious that the stain and extra folds were added in as the second step (the stain to cover up the typo of the word Maiden http://www.upload.mn/view/2vu1mtqgb7obp3yym18l.jpg). He shows us the typewriter. He shows the paper. What more proof do we need before we accept that it was a prank?
0 has comitted enough real crimes without us having to go around chasing birth certificates. Please guys lets focus on those things!
Fair enough.
I’ll let you know what happens if I am able to try this with a vise.
“You cannot use a web facsimile of a single side of an alleged document as proof of anything, especially in place of the tangible, physical document in a court of law.
Therefore, Obama’s web-released COLB is not proof of anything”
**********************
Correct! But if by some miracle a birther lawsuit is actually heard in a court of law, Obama will simply have the State of Hawaii mail a copy of the COLB straight to the court. At which point, YOU LOSE. Unless Polarik is right, and Hawaii has no documentation at all and a Vast Conspiracy is covering this up.
You need to come up with hard evidence to impeach the COLB. Internet rumors and unsubstantiated claims won’t do it.
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.
