It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 72
182
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GingerR
Holy crap people really? The Kenyan FAKE one is so wrong! Did you not notice that the Republic of Kenya didn't exist on the date of the FAKE BC? Did you not notice the city it marks was NOT in Kenya at that date?

Any one? Any one?


Well, at least you are back on topic. Now you just have about 40 pages to read.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikey84
 


The Australian one has more markings of a real BC than the Kenyan..

I don't see anything debunking the Real Original (Australian) BC.

Besides it actually came from a genealogy site and has been there for quite some time...

Explanation of the Australian Template


One of my friends in the small community of Obama “birther”-debunkers passes on quite the discovery: a 1964 “certified copy of registration of birth” from Australia, easily available on Bomford.net, a genealogy site. There are striking similarities between this document and the one Orly Taitz is passing off as a “Kenyan birth certificate” for Barack Obama.


The original is on Bomford.net which is now out of downloads for this month because of folks like us...

www.bomford.net...



[edit on 4-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by squidboy
Please look at the lines in the negative of the Australian document I posted above.

They are not effected by the folds.

It looks like the Australian Document may be a fake too, the lines do not move with the folds. This is apparent in the negative. I just posted.

i188.photobucket.com...

Shouldn't the lines be disturbed?


[edit on 4-8-2009 by squidboy]


100% agree, it looks clear that the lines and text has been placed over the document as none of it matches the folds or creases.

Excellent find, I think that it can be said that the Australian one is definitely fake.

Now for the Kenyan one?

Mikey



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikey84
 


How do you debunk a nation that didn't exist with a city that was in a different nation? Clearly its a fake. Or did the Africans not know where they were, kind of like when we "found" America and the Native People didn't know where they were?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GingerR
 


Quit derailing the thread


Some people just no how to throw a wrench into the gears don't they.


Everyone was doing just fine going back and fourth finding evidence and talking out what they thought in a peaceful manner and all of a sudden you jump in with your CRACKPOT theories.

From what I have read not all "birthers" are racists and not all "non-birthers" see the ideas of the "birthers" as racist.

We are done with the race issue so let it die already.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GingerR
reply to post by Mikey84
 


How do you debunk a nation that didn't exist with a city that was in a different nation? Clearly its a fake. Or did the Africans not know where they were, kind of like when we "found" America and the Native People didn't know where they were?


Well go back and read the posts on “But Kenya was not a republic at the time of this birth cert” and you will see the explanations, I’m not your mummy, I’m not going to hold your hand through this.

It’s all there.

Several members explained it a long way back in the thread, go have a peak.

Mikey


[edit on 4/8/2009 by Mikey84]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


Inverted original:




At first glance it does look super imposed over the original, I am no image expert so you will have to look for yourself and make up your own conclusion. But in my opinion it doesn't look tampered with. Look at the e over the fold that I circled comapred to the other e's they don't match the e on the fold but the other e's match eachother, and the a on the fold that I circled appears to be drooping slightly on the left from the fold im guessing. Take a look



If you want to see what im talking about save the image to your hardrive zome in and inspect the areas that i've circled and compare. From what I see at first glance it does look super imposed but after further inspection you can tell that it has been folded by comparing the e's, but don't take my word for it, see for yourself and come to a conclusion.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Once again, unless they went in to the future, saw what was coming, went back, and changed the BC, its a nation that doesn't exist. With a city that wasn't in the country.

"I know the fake BC says you were born in New York City, Alabama, England, and we have a copy that says Honolulu, Hawaii, USA that is real, but that must be part of the conspiracy!"



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Mikey84
 


The Australian one has more markings of a real BC than the Kenyan..

I don't see anything debunking the Real Original (Australian) BC.

Besides it actually came from a genealogy site and has been there for quite some time...

Explanation of the Australian Template


One of my friends in the small community of Obama “birther”-debunkers passes on quite the discovery: a 1964 “certified copy of registration of birth” from Australia, easily available on Bomford.net, a genealogy site. There are striking similarities between this document and the one Orly Taitz is passing off as a “Kenyan birth certificate” for Barack Obama.


The original is on Bomford.net which is now out of downloads for this month because of folks like us...

www.bomford.net...

[edit on 4-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]


The image is NOT in indexed in the Wayback Machine so there's no way to determine how long that image was there.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 
They were all British they probabily all are similar, the Brits issued them standard form, then they were just copied just change letter head.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


Inverted original:




At first glance it does look super imposed over the original, I am no image expert so you will have to look for yourself and make up your own conclusion. But in my opinion it doesn't look tampered with. Look at the e over the fold that I circled comapred to the other e's they don't match the e on the fold but the other e's match eachother, and the a on the fold that I circled appears to be drooping slightly on the left from the fold im guessing. Take a look



If you want to see what im talking about save the image to your hardrive zome in and inspect the areas that i've circled and compare. From what I see at first glance it does look super imposed but after further inspection you can tell that it has been folded by comparing the e's, but don't take my word for it, see for yourself and come to a conclusion.


Just saved me the headache of making those images.

I still think it looks imposed. The heavy creased areas, the letters should be more disturbed not as straight. Also, double check the lines on the page (the black lines in the original, white in the inverted) They are also hardly effected by the folds. They look almost like an effect was used on them to kinda portray a crease, but it's not 100 percent accurate (some of the folds are heavy and would effect the type (fold a news paper alot and see what happens).



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GingerR
 


Come on now.

If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread please find somewhere else to start fights.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
The image is NOT in indexed in the Wayback Machine so there's no way to determine how long that image was there.


Brilliant idea to check the wayback machine! Too bad it's not there but that could have helped answer some questions if it was!

Maybe the site administrator will reply to the e-mail the ATS member sent inquiring about the image.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Breeze
 


What? The ROK DID NOT EXIST when the clear fraud was made. The city? WASN'T IN THE COUNTRY. How much more proof do you need?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Here's another image of 2 of the same letters from the paragraph in question.

The first e is from the fold in the on the third line of the paragraph, the second e is from the same paragraph only it isn't over a fold, it this picture you can clearly tell that it isn't super imposed over the paper, but actually on the paper.





posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Yikes ok- It seems now there is a possibility of the aussie BC being a hoax. There are some good arguments that it could well be the case. I'm now back to being 50/50 on the subject. Now I don't support Obama but as another poster stated, what about this?

thebruceblog.wordpress.com...

If this is a newspaper clipping from hawaii of Obamas birth? Then I'm lost.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


I do see the "e" you are talking about, but that's the only letter in that whole area that seems to be possibly affected by a crease. Look at the crease to the right that runs through "South Australia" and the text below it. That crease looks like the Grand Canyon, yet doesn't seem to alter the text. Looks very odd and un-natural.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
Here's another image of 2 of the same letters from the paragraph in question.

The first e is from the fold in the on the third line of the paragraph, the second e is from the same paragraph only it isn't over a fold, it this picture you can clearly tell that it isn't super imposed over the paper, but actually on the paper.




good picture.

But again, it has an effect/ maniupulated sort of feeling to it. Like someone tried to make it look like it was curled. But again, it looks weird.

What about the lines. Should they be perfectly straight over the folds?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 
I don't know nothing, don't look right, but if I was smart Graphic Design Guy I could put a few tweaks in just to throw people off if the started to catch on.

I'm just ameture and I can do things with computer and printer that I don't really want to talk about, either my Dog or my wife might get mad.




[edit on 4-8-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


Except the Republic of Kenya didn't exist, the city wasn't in Kenya any ways, and other flaws that prove its a fake.

People must remember that. Above all else, Nation didn't exist, City wasn't in the nation, that didn't exist at the time. Also, the Aussie one is from a website that has nothing too do with this, it was just there. The Kenyan one is as fake as the Canadian SS card signed by a cartoon character.



new topics




 
182
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join