Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:53 PM PDT by Calpernia
There are now modified photos of the COLB that broke here yesterday. The changes are so slight, that no one is noticing them.
The original one posted in breaking news:
One of the modified ones:
The changes are so subtle, you can barely tell which one you are looking at.
This modified one is showing jokes like: The Font of the Certificate=Schmutz (A Schmutz is a chump, as in you are a chump) #5733=The number of the Certificate, is code for : "Problem with Windows REGISTRY", a sly reference to your claim that Obama does not appear on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry. 47O44=Easiest of all. BOH's age=47 0=O (if you look close you can tell that that is a Schmutz Font "Oh" not "Zero") EF Lavender is ORGANIC DISH SOAP
The original one does not say EF Lavender, it says KF Lavender. The original one shows the number is: 47,644.
Thanks. That looks like an excellent site to try to reach people in or from Kenya. I’d like to invite fellow FReepers to divide up the list of people on that site which is a listserv type list of people who worked or lived in Kenya, perhaps alphabetically. Some have email addresses and some can be contacted through the owner of the website.
Any Takers?
I found the document through a google image search. I put in “birth cert” adelaide and it came up on the first page. I don’t know anything more about it.
I am so glad that there are still some intelligent people left in this world !
——AUSTRALIAN BIRTH CERT PROVEN TO BE A FAKE ONE————
This guy David Bomford is a TOTAL FRAUD !
Here is why the Australian birth certificate was NOT used to make the Obama Kenyan birth cert.
1) The “d” in the top left hand corner is taller in the Australian B.C. than the Kenyan B.C.
2) The “N” in the top left hand corner is a different font !
3) The distance between the words District & Registry at the bottom are not the same !
3) South Australian birth certificates don’t look anything like a Kenyan one anyway !
4) The seal at the top of the page is cut off so you can’t see it very good. This is done on purpose. This is not the seal of the South Australia at that time and doesn’t match any known Australian seal. Funny !
5) The creases on the two documents don’t line up at all !
5) Here is what a real Australian Birth Cert really looks like: see link below !
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2308687/posts
THE DAVID BOMFORD THEORY IS A HOAX !
WND now says it’s likely a fake, providing what it says is a sample 1961-era BC.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135
http://www.fhu.com/articles/accuse_the_victim.html
It could well be that both Marx and Lenin said it, and Bill Clinton did it.
Thought it was Marx also but when I searched for it, it was attributed to Lenin...Yes, they probably both said it, one quoting the other.
Here’s another quote relavant to the townhall meetings:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I’m confused!! Hope I’m not the only one! I thought the document Orly has and is trying to authenticate is something supplied in 1964 when it was requested. It is something similar to the Hawaii form but has more info, but NEITHER is the actual birth certificate. So, isn’t what WND is supplying now actual birth certificates of 1961 and therefore not forms of the same kind as Orly’s???
Please correct my misunderstandings.
Does Kenya disclaim that ANY form like Orly’s exists??? It would seem that one would have to compare the same type of document as well as the year it was issued to avoid comparing apples with oranges.
Because ZerO, aka Barack Hussein Obama, through his best bud Odinga, has Kenya documents under lock and seal.
“South Australian birth certificates don’t look anything like a Kenyan one anyway !”
How do you know this? Have you seen a Kenyan certification other than the Taitz one?
The WND story is a mixture of some now discredited debunking claims (Mombasa not part of Kenya in 1961) and the sample shown is a “Return of Birth” — whether this is a later certification of a birth recorder in a register earlier is not clear (the photo is very poor), but it seems more like a report of a birth being sent in for recording in a registry book. The form is indeed very different from the Taitz document.
We still don’t have, from Kenya, a certification issued by the registry office, certifying to someone what’s in the registry book. When we see that it may very well be very different from the Taitz document and prove it false. But what WND through at the wall only further confuses things.
Typical of WND, though, I must say. They’ll certainly get traffic to their site from it.
“Does Kenya disclaim that ANY form like Orly’s exists??? It would seem that one would have to compare the same type of document as well as the year it was issued to avoid comparing apples with oranges.”
The state run media in Nairobi yesterday did say that Kenyan forms are nothing like the Taitz document. But their proof was what? The 44057 number and junk like that—DU talking points. Whoever wrote the Nairobi disclaimer probably hadn’t actually seen Kenya certificates of birth registry information. It was a hack piece that told us nothing we hadn’t already been told by DUmmies.
It may turn out that Kenyan certifications are radically different—I would expect them to be different. But so far, no one’s given proof that they are and WND doesn’t help.
So WND lied when they said they compared Orly’s copy with others they found and it matched?
So which one is the lie?
This story? Or the first story?
Both.
“The article doesn’t say that, but does say that “Moreover, the African nation was the Dominion of Kenya until December 1964, after declaring independence in 1961. Kenya was not officially the Republic of Kenya until some 10 months after the Feb. 17, 1964, date on which the Taitz document purportedly was certified.”
This is the sort of thing that discredits WND—the declaration of independence was Oct. 1963, not 1961; “Dominion” has been proposed as what Kenya called itself in the interim but I’ve not seen proof of that. WND’s own hard-to-read 1964 document simply has “Government of Kenya” on it.
They’re sloppy. They’ve obviously not followed the details of the research here on FR. They don’t know 1/10 of what the Freeper who’s followed these threads knows.
I don’t doubt that the Taitz doc may be a fake, but this article from WND is next to useless. And they probably know it—they just want the clicker to spin round and round and round.
AND THIS was the bombshell that Farah was Twittering about yesterday? After saying on Sunday that they had similar-appearing Kenyan documents?
Farah’s a goof.
So WND lied when they said they compared Orly’s copy with others they found and it matched?
So which one is the lie?
AND THIS was the bombshell that Farah was Twittering about yesterday? After saying on Sunday that they had similar-appearing Kenyan documents?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
