If the Kenyan government refused to authenticate or refute the document, wouldn't the next stop be a Kenyan court?
However, as I said before, she did have the obligation to prove that the document wasn't an obvious forgery first. A jewelers loop is sufficient to discern if a document is a product of ink jet or laser technology and this cursory inspection by a document examiner would seem to be the threshold of what might be expected as due diligence in this.
I would think another essential element of due diligence would have been to obtain an account of the document's provenance from the source of the document. That was the cause of my immediate skepticism when I first heard of the document. Who would have requested the certificate in 1964, I asked myself, and how did it subsequently fall into unfriendly hands? Not having a satisfactory answer, I started off assuming it was a forgery.
Also, it appears Orly never had anything to examine beyond the bad photo of the document that was posted on the web. Zooming in on digital images of limited resolution is no substitute for a loupe on a physical document, as numerous posters on these threads have learned. Is it an E or K?? LOL! Sheesh! Pixel abuse is no way to examine documents.
Unfortunately, if my memory serves, the current President of Kenya is one of our esteemed President's cousins who he helped into power by campaigning for him. Not looking for much justice in Kenya.
I would think another essential element of due diligence would have been to obtain an account of the document's provenance from the source of the document.
Orly's filing such as it was was for the resources to do just that.
That was the cause of my immediate skepticism when I first heard of the document. Who would have requested the certificate in 1964, I asked myself, and how did it subsequently fall into unfriendly hands? Not having a satisfactory answer, I started off assuming it was a forgery.
Actually this was answered very quickly, this document was dated to coincide with the divorce between Stanley Ann and Barack Obama, Sr. These proceedings started in January of 1964 and the Divorce decree was granted in March, so the timing was very convincing rather than being a problem.
Instead, most people keyed in on the issue of the Republic of Kenya thing that seemed premature because Kenya officially became a republic in December of 1964.
Frankly, much analysis went into many of these issues and came up with the only way to answer most of these questions was to get an actual copy of a similar document from the exact same period and location. Which would require someone to go to Kenya and find another Copy prepared in this time region, something that would cost thousands of dollars, take perhaps a week or more and be done at some risk.
Also, it appears Orly never had anything to examine beyond the bad photo of the document that was posted on the web.
This is a point of controversy. If this was clearly known at the beginning folks would have simply ignored it. The photo we had was purported to be of a document in Orly's possession. If this isn't the case, then we were misled.
Zooming in on digital images of limited resolution is no substitute for a loupe on a physical document, as numerous posters on these threads have learned. Is it an E or K?? LOL! Sheesh!
I wouldn't have spent 10 minutes thinking about it if I believed that Orly only had a photo of the document. A photo keeps you from examining the ink on the paper. You can do anything if you are allowed to keep a document examiner away from the paper.
Pixel abuse is no way to examine documents.
I agree, a big waste of time as far as authenticating something. It has its uses if your only purpose is to debunk.