Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud), page 65

privacy

Pages: << 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 179 times

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 09:58 PM by Adonsa

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:01 PM by TrustMeIKnow

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
www.bomford.net...

This is where is link is located. You have scroll through a lot of names though. It's about 3/4 of the way down clcik the hot link "b".

"10d I0543 David Jeffrey Bomford, b 10 April 1959 at Adelaide, m 28 Nov 1981 at Somerton Park, South Australia I0546 Amanda Jane Sandover, b 1959, and had issue".

I am curious as to the signifigance of this as well.

Regardless, the Kenya BC is a hoax. Too many similarities between the two.

You guys may continue arguing basic issues but I can predict, right now and without any margin of error, that Obama will finish out this term without any real legal threat to his office.

That said, there are more important issues to focus on. Let's rather apply are collective efforts in other directions.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:03 PM by kinda kurious

Well of ALL the people to suspect fake, good old "Turd Blossom" ...............

Karl Rove responded to the circulation of the new paper on Twitter, saying "I believe this is likely a forgery."

Source

And I thought I'd NEVER agree with that guy. I suppose never say never.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:03 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by FlyersFan

FF, it looks like this is pretty much debunked. But I just wanted to say it was one hell of a thread.

Thanks.

Mike

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:05 PM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
Regardless, the Kenya BC is a hoax. Too many similarities between the two.

If someone could please create a definitive post that outlines the issues between the recently discovered Australian BC and the supposed Kenyan BC, I'll use it as an updated link in the opening post and move the thread back into the hoax forum. As it is now, the good stuff appears to be scattered across several posts.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:05 PM by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Yes, I see the link, but not sure why you think this link makes it "1000% official".

Are you talking about the aussie certificate of Kenya cert???

I'm now of the opinion that the Kenyan doc is the fake, but I don't see the significance of the link that you said makes it 1000%. What am I missing?

The link establishes the fact that this aussie BC exists and is real, unless you want to believe that the founder of that site, which is all about Bomford acestory, is in on the forgery. If you want to believe that then I really don't know what to say. This website has been around since 2005 and isn't affiliated in anything political.

If you want to believe in the unbelieveable coincidences between the two then I really don't know what to say either.

Edit to add:

There are also other BC photo's on that website of the Bomfords.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:07 PM by Got Questions?

Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by squidboy

Apparently some guy spent hours on Google Images trying to find a similar BC. Is it really that hard to believe?

politijab.com...

Not so fast! That guy Koyaan that posted that Aussie BC seems to be a graphic imaging expert. He's been all over the COLB debate. If anyone is capable of pulling off an imaging scam, I think he has the credentials for it. No accusations here, but just Google him.

koyaan.wordpress.com...

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:08 PM by j2000

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
reply to post by j2000

Do we really have to do this dance????????

Book number and page number...identical.
District Registrar and Signature of Reg last names...identical.
Number up top....identical.
Copy of Reg of Birth doc format...identical.

Um, I really don't what to say other then the Aussie BC is real and the Kenya BC used the the Aussie BC as a template. I really don't know what other conclusion you could come to.

I don't know if the Kenya one is real, but it's not the same as the one from AU. Unless you can explain how they took away one seal and put on another. How they got around the different folds from one to another.
That would be too many things to fool with.
If you are going to fake a BC then get one from that country.
If this lawyer was just making up crap and filling it in the court of law, they would have busted her a long time ago. Did you think about that?

How many times, if you were a lawyer, could you just make up crap and papers and file them in court against the President?

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:08 PM by zazzafrazz

And can I ask

How did theBamford Aussie BC come to light?
WHo found it and how?
Thats also of interest to me....

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:12 PM by sonnny1

reply to post by Electro38

What if this goes to court and it's determined not to be a real doc?

What will you all do then?

Will you keep looking for something else? Or will you just not accept the courts decision?

Its been seen time and time again,that courts,elected officials,even PRESIDENTS get it wrong.Just ask all the innocent people locked up for crimes they didnt commit.I for one wont just assume because some court says IT'S fake,I want to see OBAMA show us the LONG form of his BC,either his Hawaiian one,or his Kenyan one,or his Indonesian one.I have also posted in this thread that I am of mixed race,half and half,just like OUR President,so Race isnt an issue with me,but the TRUTH is. I dont care about DEMOCRATIC or REPUBLICAN either.People have seemed to derail the actual WANT and NEED of Proof,with rhetoric,and name calling.I want to star and flag the mods for stepping in!

Can anyone answer me this,why hasnt Mr. Obama shown the WORLD the long form BC?What is he hiding?

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:15 PM by kinda kurious

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

The names of the registrar and the district registrar were the SAME NAMES as given in the Kenya certificate save for the first initials, i.e. G.H. Lavender and J.H. Miller in the Bomford document versus E.H. Lavender and M.H. Miller in the Kenya document.

Also, the book number (44B) and page number (5733) were the exactly the same on both documents.

Source

Also, layout/terminolgy virtually identical save for country name, crest etc. It was theorized to have been used as "template" as opposed to drect Photoshop job. (Creases in pages don't match exactly nor do tattered edges. etc.)

Credit to GLDNGUN for original introduction to thread I believe.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:18 PM by Got Questions?

It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?

Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:19 PM by TrustMeIKnow

post by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
IF it's a fake, the forgerer may have used the following document as his template:

www.bomford.net...

Apparently it ss a scanned image of a “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” dated in 1964 for a David Jeffrey Bomford on a genealogy website for the Bomford family; however, David Jeffrey Bomford wasn’t born in Kenya, he was born in South Australia.

A closer look reveals more disturbing info.

The names of the registrar and the district registrar are nearly the same names used in the Kenya certificate except for the first initials, (G.H. Lavender and J.H. Miller in the Bomford BC vs. E.H. Lavender and M.H. Miller in the Kenya BC).

Also, the book number (44B) and page number (5733) are the same on both BCs.

If this Bomford certificate is the real deal, then I'll be the first to admit that the Kenya BC is very likely fake and that whomever forged it used the Bomford certificate for their template.

The following quote substantiates that the Oz BC is indeed real and has been around for awhile since the name on the Oz BC is recorded...

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
www.bomford.net...

This is where is link is located. You have scroll through a lot of names though. It's about 3/4 of the way down clcik the hot link "b".

"10d I0543 David Jeffrey Bomford, b 10 April 1959 at Adelaide, m 28 Nov 1981 at Somerton Park, South Australia I0546 Amanda Jane Sandover, b 1959, and had issue".

...in the geneaology of a site that whose existence predates this issue...even Obama's Presidency... this post:

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by redhatty

A quick WHO IS check reveals the site was created in 2005.

Sorry for all of the quotes but it seems that there is pretty much no doubt save for the all general ones that occur through using the internet as a medium.

Oh...and if my synopsis is wrong could someone correct. I have been trying to piece this together since work and may have a link wrong...

Edit To Add - I should recieve no credit for this (unless I messed it up

); it was all the names listed above...

[edit on 3-8-2009 by TrustMeIKnow]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:19 PM by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Yes, I see the link, but not sure why you think this link makes it "1000% official".

Are you talking about the aussie certificate of Kenya cert???

I'm now of the opinion that the Kenyan doc is the fake, but I don't see the significance of the link that you said makes it 1000%. What am I missing?

The link establishes the fact that this aussie BC exists and is real, unless you want to believe that the founder of that site, which is all about Bomford acestory, is in on the forgery. If you want to believe that then I really don't know what to say. This website has been around since 2005 and isn't affiliated in anything political.

If you want to believe in the unbelieveable coincidences between the two then I really don't know what to say either.

Edit to add:

There are also other BC photo's on that website of the Bomfords.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

As I already said, I'm now of the opinion that the Kenyan BC is the fake; however, an internal link in the Bomford isn't the clincher by any means.

So what if there's an internal link?

If I thought the Aussie BC was the fake, it wouldn't mean that the site owner was in on it or that any other part of the site is a forgery. If I thought the Aussice BC was the fake, I would assume that there was an Aussie BC there all along, but that a hacker removed the original image, took the birth info and used it in an edited version of the Kenyan BC, then uploaded it to the Bomford server, using the same file name as the image that it was replacing.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:21 PM by DrMattMaddix

I'd pose the argument beyond the accusation or supposition, stated in a previous post, that this Australian BC is a fake.

In 1957 (without further research) I believe that they were both under British rule at that time, and as such, likely had the same source forms from the British Crown?

Just my opinion that needs further research but I wanted to get this in quick so there's pause to consider this idea.

Happy BDay, Bro!

[edit on 8·3·09 by DrMattMaddix]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:22 PM by TrustMeIKnow

Originally posted by Got Questions?
It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?

Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.

Those are exactly the generalized doubts that can be instilled to perpetuate this. They are weak in my opinion.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:28 PM by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
I'd pose the argument beyond the accusation or supposition, stated in a previous post, that this Australian BC is a fake.

In 1957 (without further research) I believe that they were both under British rule at that time, and as such, likely had the same source forms from the British Crown?

Just my opinion that needs further research but I wanted to get this in quick so there's pause to consider this idea.

Happy BDay, Bro!

[edit on 8·3·09 by DrMattMaddix]

That may well be the case. It's not so much the forms being almost identical, it's the use of the same exact last names and document numbers. That's way too much of a coincidence for me; however, nobody seems to be able to find a matching Kenyan OR Oz BC. Maybe they are both fakes! LOL

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:32 PM by Got Questions?

Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow

Originally posted by Got Questions?
It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?

Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.

Those are exactly the generalized doubts that can be instilled to perpetuate this. They are weak in my opinion.

I'm just too suspicious to think the Aussie BC is a slam-dunk.
1. This came to light within 24hrs of the Kenyan BC coming out.
2. The apparent originator of this Aussie BC find appears to be an imaging expert.
3. Hacking & planting is not IMO outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.

FWIW

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:32 PM by oneclickaway

reply to post by Got Questions?

Not so fast! That guy Koyaan that posted that Aussie BC seems to be a graphic imaging expert. He's been all over the COLB debate. If anyone is capable of pulling off an imaging scam, I think he has the credentials for it. No accusations here, but just Google him.

Indeed...and how convenient is that...he's a bit of an expert and always in dispute it seems.....hmmmmmm

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:35 PM by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by Got Questions?

Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow

Originally posted by Got Questions?
It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?

Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.

Those are exactly the generalized doubts that can be instilled to perpetuate this. They are weak in my opinion.

I'm just too suspicious to think the Aussie BC is a slam-dunk.
1. This came to light within 24hrs of the Kenyan BC coming out.
2. The apparent originator of this Aussie BC find appears to be an imaging expert.
3. Hacking & planting is not IMO outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.

FWIW