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

Some of you all fail at reading threads. From pages 75-this page of this thread, all I read are people who are jumping on the forgery bandwagon.

READ THE FRIGGIN PAGES BEFORE YOU POST!


The Kenyan document has not been proven a forgery. The forgery is apparently the Aussie document.

1.) The signature on the bottom is UNDERNEATH the typed text.

2.) It does not have the correct coat of arms

2.) When viewed in photoshop, it was shown to contain layers for different parts of the information.

What we need are similar documents from both locations very near the time date in question to compare. This would explain at least the similarity in the form question. The fact that the forms are nearly identical when blank must be explained.

Were the Kenyan and Australians using the same forms for some good reason?

Originally posted by Disinfo Agent

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
She flew to kenya?
in the 1960s it was against airline regulation to let a heavily pregnant woman fly...when did she supposedly fly there?
Check Mombassa entry records also....

[edit on 4-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]

What would she have been doing in Mombasa anyway? It was part of Zanzibar, not Kenya, in 1961, and it didn't get an international airport until the late 1970s. Plus it's on the exact opposite side of the country from where Obama Sr. was from - if they were flying in Nairobi would have been much closer.

Now now, I pointed out the exact same thing and all I got were insults, and told that "Kenya waited until 1964 too make the document" Like yeah cause you kno how countries always wait 3 years before making BCs.

Here is the ORIGINAL Kenyan Document BEFORE Taitz's site was HACKED.
obamabirthers.com...

Originally posted by GingerR

Originally posted by Disinfo Agent

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
She flew to kenya?
in the 1960s it was against airline regulation to let a heavily pregnant woman fly...when did she supposedly fly there?
Check Mombassa entry records also....

[edit on 4-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]

What would she have been doing in Mombasa anyway? It was part of Zanzibar, not Kenya, in 1961, and it didn't get an international airport until the late 1970s. Plus it's on the exact opposite side of the country from where Obama Sr. was from - if they were flying in Nairobi would have been much closer.

Now now, I pointed out the exact same thing and all I got were insults, and told that "Kenya waited until 1964 too make the document" Like yeah cause you kno how countries always wait 3 years before making BCs.

To me, this is the most damning aspect of the alleged BC. Right now, I'm not sure that I could believe in the legitimacy of this BC, knowing that Mombasa was part of Zanzibar in 1961, and on the opposite side of Kenya.


[edit on 4-8-2009 by theWCH]

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Some of you all fail at reading threads. From pages 75-this page of this thread, all I read are people who are jumping on the forgery bandwagon.

READ THE FRIGGIN PAGES BEFORE YOU POST!


The Kenyan document has not been proven a forgery. The forgery is apparently the Aussie document.

Maybe you should read ....


Because it has been proven a forgery...

It belongs to Jeff Bomford from Australia... The Australian BC is an honest BC. You can check the interview with the guy here

It's over... it's been solved.

Now we are just waiting for the next goose chase the Birthers send us on.

Taking a different tack.

Maybe one of our much vaunted ATS members with some time, patience and better research skills that me could provide us with some background information on Orly Taitz.

I'm asking for this because of a couple of reasons, namely;

1. Shes not a US national. Pardon me for being frank but I think most non-US nationals couldn't give a rats buttocks about whether Obama is legit or not, aside from the curiosity factor (which is what is keeping me here)

2. Having said (1) I can think of a very specific group of non US nationals who would be mightily interested in sticking the boot into Obama. (no nationalities mentioned, draw your own conclusions)

3. Someone started bankrolling this woman, and continues to do so.

4. Someone provided her with this document. It didn't come from out of the blue.

It strikes me, personally, that shes a patsy or stooge for someone else - and because of her "fringe" personality she is perfectly expendable because she could be written off as a kook as/when/if this all turns out to be a complete bunch of hooey.

As a student of all things propagandic, I must point out that spreading doubt is a powerful tool, so even IF this turns out to be a bunch of bull, damage has been done along the same lines as that carried out during the whole Iraq/WMD-9/11 "association by design" tack undertaken by the Neocon spin doctors.

So how about we find out about the public face of this campaign in some detail, and see where that leads us?

So it's no longer 47044 but 47644...and k f lavender.
So now...we have the question did someone hack or fake the aussie one...as the book and page numbers are the same.
Can anyone make out what the number at top right is? Of the original of course...lol

reply to post by MissysWorld


I wouldn't be so sure about that:

Exif:
Last Modified Date/Time 2009:08:04 03:29:01

Originally posted by oneclickaway
So it's no longer 47044 but 47644...and k f lavender.
So now...we have the question did someone hack or fake the aussie one...as the book and page numbers are the same.
Can anyone make out what the number at top right is? Of the original of course...lol

Check out This interview with the actual person the real BC belongs to

Also check out the first link in my sig if you want to look at the origs.

Either way... it's over. It is an Australian BC belonging to Jeff Bomford of Adelaide Australia. He had his BC on the net on his genealogy site.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Point me to the proof that it is a forgery.

The Australian man just verified that he had a BC up on the net. That is all.

If Taitz's site was hacked, who is to say that his was not?

It was already shown that the Aussie BC had many layers in it, where it should not if it was just a scan.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Maybe you should read ....
Because it has been proven a forgery... It belongs to Jeff Bomford from Australia... The Australian BC is an honest BC. You can check the interview with the guy here It's over... it's been solved. Now we are just waiting for the next goose chase the Birthers send us on.

You should really learn to pay attention... Here is what is being discussed. That the Aussie BC, when viewed in photoshop, has 6 layers....Kinda weird....

Here's something else I learned - open both the Australian and Kenyan documents in Photoshop Elements. From there under the Image menu "Divide Scanned Photos". Nothing should appear on the Kenyan document, however six layers should peal away from the Australian one! These layers should all show distortion:
Layer 1 - Date and Place of Birth
Layer 2 - Father (followed by) Name, Surname, Age and B
Layer 3 - Name, Surname and Birthplace
Layer 4 - Issue [ Living Deceased
Layer 5 - Signature, Description Informant
Layer 6 - The entire right section of the page, specifically the inserted text fields and bottom right quadrant

Mushrooms grow best in darkness upon piles of manure...internet forums afford anonymity and sufficient shade.

They sprout quickly and with great momentum, thus the adjective "mushroom" or "mushrooming".

When exposed to direct sunshine or light a mushroom will collapse as quickly as it grew.

I think the "birther" movement is on the verge of a great disappointment as their "evidence" and "cause" creeps into the awareness of the general public.

It is required of a democracy to question their leaders. Questions are good and necessary. "We, the people" are without a doubt the most critical and vital of the checks and balances.

But selective consideration of evidence, championing of indisputably disproved lies..(e.g. his grandmother/ambassador said he was born in Kenya, or they are building a monument to him there), an unwillingness to approach any claim with a modicum of objectivity as long as it serves a given world view and a repeated willful ignorance when it comes to independently researching....

There is nothing admirable or democratic in that kind of discourse...

It is extreme partisan rhetoric at best...glaring right wing propaganda at worst.

The difference between rhetoric and propaganda is that rhetoric favors ideology over objectivity while propaganda values ideology over the truth.

I do not believe all folks in the "birther" camp are the same. Some are racists, some could not care less about race, but are concerned with politics and policy, some are not very bright, some are highly intelligent.

Some simply do not know why they oppose President Obama...but I am confident in saying that among all "birthers", only a minority in their hearts of hearts genuinely believe him not be eligible to be President...they just desperately wish it so.

I have a hard time respecting those willing to value ideology above the truth.

reply to post by theWCH


Go back to the first page and follow the link given. You will find your answer

reply to post by neformore


nerformore...

I'm right there with you.


For the life of me I can't understand who is behind her. Some have posited the Israeli gov. And even though they may support her politically, the forgery she put forward was so horribly done given how quick it was resolved.

Having had worked with/against mossad cyber agents, I know that they don't mess around. They would have started with an actual Kenya Birth Certificate from 1961 and went from there as opposed to some BC found on Jeff Bomfords personal site


So a couple of things.

1. Is this a distraction?
2. Simply a hodowinking of taitz?
3. Perhaps there is another to come later and this is to discredit any furthers?

I dunno... but it smells.

From what I have gathered today, people are saying that immediately after this Kenya BC was put on Taitz's site, her site was Hacked. In my view, that could be why many were not able to get on her site, and why GOOGLE had it as "Malicious" software.. The site was being hacked and this "Malicious" explanation was being by Google...
It was being hacked by those who replaced her BC with thiers..Just so people would all say "OK", and drop the subject..
Here is Taitz's latest blog on the subject..

www.orlytaitzesq.com...

The formats of the two certificates are not exactly identical (notice one of the fields in the Australian one is missing in the supposed Kenyan certificate. What hoaxer intent on creating a bogus Obama certificate based upon the Bomford one would bother to change the design, thereby giving himself/herself more fabrication work that risked being detected? All he/she needed to do was to wipe out the Australian names and write in the Kenyan ones.

This does not add up. I would say it is more likely that the Australian one is bogus, created probably some time ago from scratch to look like the Kenyan one, whenever it was leaked out, than that the latter was made from the former.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Is that EXIF data present on both images from the birther site?

If I remember correctly there are 2 there, one unenhanced and another that was contrasted...

If it is then that would help put those to rest..

reply to post by theWCH

To me, this is the most damning aspect of the alleged BC. Right now, I'm not sure that I could believe in the legitimacy of this BC, knowing that Mombasa was part of Zanzibar in 1961, and on the opposite side of Kenya.

Look up the history...it was not part of Zanzibar. Technically a small part of the shoreline was nominally held by Zanzibar but had been given over to the British protectorate by Zanzibar in 1920? (I may be wrong on the date)...and it became part of the British protectorate of Kenya. When Kenya attained independence it became legally part of Kenya. Nobody has any idea why they went to Mombasa rather than Nairobi...but what has that got to do with the price of bread.

I can't believe there are people out there who are that stupid to believe this # in the first place. This so-called "birth certificate" the paper it was written on is only five years old. Kenya wasn't a republic until 1964 I believe and President Obama was born 1961. He was 47 when he was sworn into office. The person who they said signed this fake # is the name of a popular soap in Kenya. Dumbasses.