posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Uniceft17
I don't see what WND expects us to do with this?
Do they expect us to believe this at face value? Obviously their is an agenda here, they are so willing to believe the Kenyan BC is authetic and the
Hawii one isn't? Where is the logic in that.
WND is not the source of this document. They are just, for better or for worse, the only sort of news outlet willing to break a story like this. Mass
media won't touch anything like this until it becomes something they know millions of people are already looking into.
A California lawyer is asking a court to examine and verify (or not verify) the document. Why would anyone knowingly take a fake to a court? That's
the last place anyone with a document they knew was fake would ever want to take it. Now perhaps someone has hoodwinked Orly Taitz the lawyer, to
further discredit this line of inquiry, but Taitz is not knowingly defrauding anyone, or asking anyone to believe this is real without checking.
She's asking a court to verify it one way or the other. And that's the most difficult and responsible thing to do with it.
Where did the document come from? Supposedly, from the law firm or court record of his parent's divorce: if that's true then of course it should
definitely be examined and verified or not.
Yes, there are questions about the status of Kenya and such...but so far no definite knockout blow on this document. It takes a thorough process of
investigation to establish things like whether or not Kenya was using 'republic' on some birth certificates issued in the interim period, etc. You
can argue plausibly one way or the other, but it's pointless for any sort of reliable judgment on authenticity. You have to do the research that is
required to establish what was actually being done at the time, given the transitionary time period. Logic is going to provide you with good questions
to ask, but answers will have to be material, based on physical evidence of what was being done at the time.
Or perhaps you don't, if you can come up with some better knock out blow that makes it moot, such as ink or paper that didn't exist until the 1990s.
But internet people can only guess at that sort of thing, it takes a forensic document examiner to make a professional judgment of that sort for a