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

Originally posted by ag2000
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....

Actually that's just wishful thinking on those peoples parts.

If you look at the actual image that was on the site, which I have uploaded and you can find at the first link in my sig, you will notice it isn't a Photoshop doc at all. It's a LEAD Technologies document, more specifically created from a TWAIN source, or scanner.

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

Yet another myth. No such thing occurs. Because ITS NOT A PHOTOSHOP DOC. It's a Lead Technologies doc, it says that right in the image.

strings DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg | less

You will see something similar to this:

JFIF
LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

Stop parroting myths.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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.

Oh and HIS BC just HAPPENED to have the same names of the officials and book numbers as the forged Kenyan doc?


Yeah.. right.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by ag2000


That's not the same thing as having 6 layers. Divide action makes those layers. Jpegs themselves dont support layers to begin with.

Also, keep in mind that the Kenyan BC was not necessarily made using the Bomford BC as a template - if that's the standard form for South Australian birth certificates then anyone with one of those could have scanned it in and photoshopped it.

So small differences in how the document is folded or smudged or whatever are not really relevant...

reply to post by neformore


If you want to really turn this whole thing on it's head, then Obama is benefiting significantly. This issue is distracting a large fraction of the right-wing (and Glenn Beck is now calling for people to ignore the birth debate and focus on the actual issues and policy proposals).

Meanwhile, I'm not sure how things are outside of the USA, but in the States the vast majority of the population is convinced that conspiracy theorists are all loony. So, I think I read that 43% of republicans don't think that Obama is an American citizen? That means that 43% of republicans are regarded as insane (or racist) by the vast majority of swing-voters and democrats.

Although I don't think that Obama would go through the trouble of hiring a lawyer to hurl accusations at him, I wouldn't be shocked if, 50 years from now, we find out that his camp originally put the rumors out there.


[edit on 4-8-2009 by theWCH]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


The thing with this is that its going/gone viral. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to be real.

All it has to do is cast doubts, get people talking and spead.

Kind of like swine flu, but in politics.

And like swine flu, you have to find out all about it, because it could either be very dangerous, or a damp squib.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


It was from this file which was supposed to be the original before the site got hacked. If that's true then why would someone edit the file well after that and then repost it? Why not just repost it?

Originally posted by Disinfo Agent
Also, keep in mind that the Kenyan BC was not necessarily made using the Bomford BC as a template - if that's the standard form for South Australian birth certificates then anyone with one of those could have scanned it in and photoshopped it.

So small differences in how the document is folded or smudged or whatever are not really relevant...

Actually, it had the same Book and file number as well. These are unique to each document. So yes, Bomfords *was* the template.

Please read the first two links in my sig if you need more info on this.

reply to post by theWCH


Even more of a compelling reason to find out where the money and motive is coming from?

Either way round, people are just looking at the puppet. We need to be looking at the man behind the curtain, because (forgive me) we're not in Kansas any more with this one.

Also, why in a Muslim country do they ask for the Christian name? That's like being born in the Vatican and asked for your Buddist name.

Next, it is a forgery. Only the Birthers will believe Kenya waits 3 years before making BCs, and that's why the country that didn't exist in 61 is on there in a city that wasn't in the nation that didn't exist.

reply to post by LittlePinky82


One again . . . read the first post in this thread before spouting off

reply to post by GingerR


Did you not read your homework last night?

[edit on 8/4/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by neformore


Nerfermore

Yep... it just has to be good enough to work itself into the 24 hour news cycle.

Once done, believers will latch on to it and run, no matter what happens later. And when proved to be a fake, as it has been, they will simply continue to believe.

I believe someone could manipulate these fringe elements to the benefit of Obama by using this process.

Although, I still think Taitz was duped by someone looking for a laugh, it's a serious issue that people who are more than willing to throw manure at a public figure without hesitation can actually work against their own cause by being duped into jumping on a bandwagon aimed for a cliff.

I think this is why folks like GB and other conservative talk show hosts never touched this. Even Michael Savage said he agreed with Taitz politics (of course he would...) but that the BC issue is not his issue.

These folks realize how easy it would be to become supporters of Obama bby indirectly jumping on the suicidal bandwagon.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Actually, it had the same Book and file number as well. These are unique to each document. So yes, Bomfords *was* the template.

Please read the first two links in my sig if you need more info on this.

Ah, true! That's pretty impressive then given that the Bomford document had the top cut off.

Photoshop's a wonderful thing, I guess!

Originally posted by Disinfo Agent

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Actually, it had the same Book and file number as well. These are unique to each document. So yes, Bomfords *was* the template.

Please read the first two links in my sig if you need more info on this.

Ah, true! That's pretty impressive then given that the Bomford document had the top cut off.

Photoshop's a wonderful thing, I guess!

Even though the top was cut off, it still showed the same book and file number, which was not cut off.

Once again... no Photoshop.


Here are the top left from both docs...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/f871e709bdfd7028.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/1dbe7bab7d34e980.png[/atsimg]


And here are the top right of both... see the same TYPED in unique number?


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/22bfd45a4519e570.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/67793198dd919934.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 4-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Oh, so GLDNGUN lied about the layers

I trust him more than you. He has debunked then un-debunked twice now.

All you are doing is mocking everyone and cry foul every time someone comes up with something new to add.

Go play with SouthernGuardian

reply to post by PsykoOps


Thanks, and yes it does make one wonder immediately about the authenticity of this supposed original..

I do agree with nef though, that something bigger is happening here besides an alleged BC...

Who benefits from this distraction, what is the purpose, why now, when will it end...

How do we (members) try and untangle this mess and find the core issue of this?

My brain is mush at the moment so I will be of no help for awhile

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Disinfo Agent

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Actually, it had the same Book and file number as well. These are unique to each document. So yes, Bomfords *was* the template.

Please read the first two links in my sig if you need more info on this.

Ah, true! That's pretty impressive then given that the Bomford document had the top cut off.

Photoshop's a wonderful thing, I guess!

Even though the top was cut off, it still showed the same book and file number, which was not cut off.

Once again... no Photoshop.

What do you mean "no Photoshop?" It was clearly photoshopped (or GIMPed or Paintshopped or whatever) to change the coat of arms, add different info, etc.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I read the Birther response. The reason a nation that didn't exist is on the BC is because it was made 3 years later. Which makes no sense, unless you are a Birther.

And right now it pretty much goes like this on the ignoramus scale

1. Creationist
2. Flat Earth
3. Birther
4. Moon made of cheese
5. Demons cause illness

Originally posted by skeetontheconspiracy
Perhaps the truth might be coming out sooner htan we hoped.

Perhaps we should all be receptive to the truth instead of hoping for our own version if it to come to light.

Dropping out.

-Eleph

reply to post by GingerR

That's just an obnoxious post. :shk:

Originally posted by GingerR
why in a Muslim country do they ask for the Christian name? That's like being born in the Vatican and asked for your Buddist name.

It was under English rule.

Originally posted by No Porch Joe
Not reliable?!?

No factcheck is not reliable due to the reasons I gave.

But some crappy photo of a folded-up and slightly torn piece of paper of dubious origin is?

And where, in my opening post, did you see anywhere that I said the 'slightly torn piece of paper of dubious origin' was 'reliable' or even authentic? No where.

Wow, you guys are determined to remain hysteric morons!

Actually, YOU are the one acting like a 'hysteric moron'. Get a grip.

Originally posted by neformore
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.

If the 'kenyan birth certificate' is fake then it's a criminal act, right?
I had never heard of this woman before yesterday. Or at least if I had
I had totally forgotten about her. We should dig in and find out who
would benefit from pushing this.

I highly doubt it came from the Clinton camp. They would have pulled
this during the build up to the elections, not now. IMHO.

Keyes? I'm thinking just 'useful tool'.




[edit on 8/4/2009 by FlyersFan]