I suppose you should read this below. Page 8 Taitz's recent Fed court filing:
The operaterative word above is "Unauthenticated"
Posted on 08/04/2009 11:27:49 AM PDT by Plutarch
Orly Taitz, the Birther lawyer who released the document that was supposedly a copy of President Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, has now taken to her blog with an angry screed in response to the evidence that her find is in fact a poorly done forgery.
Referring to the discovery that the purportedly Kenyan document was almost certainly based on a copy of a birth certificate issued for an Australian man, David Jeffrey Bomford, Taitz writes, "Recently Obama’s thugs in main stream (sic) media came up with this Bomford report in order to stop my efforts in exposing and prosecuting Obama. Though typically I don’t have time to waste on each and every dumb obot, since it got to National TV and my children's friends called my children, I’ll spend a few minutes to debunk the obots." She continues...
Post and hide.
Geez, I work for a living, and post when I get a break in my busy schedule.
I was convinced the Australian BC was the template the second I saw it, as it is an actual scan with detail. The Kenyan BC was photographed, not scanned, and with low resolution and at an angle so as to hide its tell-tale traces of manipulation. The Australian BC apparently has been there for several years. So, if anyone wants to pursue the Australian BC is the forgery angle, have at it, but unless someone produces another genuine paper Kenyan BC from 1964 with the same printing, and the same registrars, etc., I'm not interested.
As for Salon, it is a left wing site, but so is the rest of the main stream media [sic], so what's the dif?
(And shouldn't Salon's sic's be in brackets [] rather than parenthesis? ()
As of TODAY! LOL!!!
Her B/C has neither been proven nor disproven so far.
Don't be discouraged by this babbling chorus of lies from Salon, Something Awful and so on. Flak, target etc.
Good for you. That indeed is the only way forward. All the digital fakery of the last few days is enough to give a man hives.
I admit that I don’t understand all the technobabble here about taking apart these images by pixels and layers, but I will note that immediately upon being presented with this thing it appears that the posters here began to do their very best to tear it apart and prove that it was fake -— exactly the same way we treated the Hawaiian image!!! There has been a lot of back and forth, with a different conclusion every few hours -— very difficult to understand and keep up with here.
I will say that other sites, especially those on the left, seemed to focus all efforts ONLY to deconstruct this image to PROVE that it is false, or discredit the image in some way, and NOT make any real effort to determine its legitimacy -— totally 100% opposite of the way the Hawaiian image was greeted by these same people. It seems that those on the left are the TRUE BELIEVERS, and we here are the SKEPTICS!!!
Since I KNOW for a FACT that Obama lied on his Bar Association application by stating, when asked for other names and aliases “NONE”, and have good reason to believe that his draft registration was forged at the worst of backdated at best -— it is not a leap of faith or common sense to believe that ONCE A LIAR, ALWAYS A LIAR.
Geez, so do I, maybe harder than you.
“I was convinced the Australian BC was the template the second I saw it, as it is an actual scan with detail”
Are you a forensics expert?
From the sound of things (Corsi interview today), WND probably had some other examples, but they were later than this one, then they got called on the 1964 Republic/Dominion issue. So now they have contacts in Kenya looking for examples that are appropriately early. Let’s see what they can come up with.
Would you mind elaborating on your last paragraph. I’m not doubting you, just seeking more info. Thanks.
I suppose you should read this below. Page 8 Taitz's recent Fed court filing:
The operaterative word above is "Unauthenticated"
The Australian BC has already been determined to be a forgery.
Yes, I am aware of that.
My point is that Orly should not allow yourself to now be baited into putting her reputation on the line on behalf of the Kenyan birth certificate.
She is coming close to that with her new comments in this article suggesting that the Bomford document was created to discredit the Kenyan document. She would be smarter to keep her distance from publicly making a judgment on either document and continue in court to try to get discovery of the Kenyan records.
If Mr. Bomford would show his actual birth certificate, perhaps the posted one could be easily discredited.
1. I just checked, and there’s still some strange obfuscated Javascript code at the end of the source for her blog. I emailed her and others about this and offered to help, and it’s still there. I suspect she was hacked and it’s a virus of some kind. It’s not a good sign that it’s still there. (If you visit, turn off Javascript first and then close your browswer and clear your cookies and cache afterwards).
2. The way to make lemonade out of this situation is to do what I’ve been trying to do for over a year: discredit the MSM over this issue. Instead of looking at Photoshop layers, how about actually doing something that would strike back at the MSM?
Orly is not putting her reputation behind the ‘kenyan’ bc. She is working on determining if it is authentic or not. WND backs that process.
Bottom line for both Orly and Wnd is that Zero has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide something in his background.
At this point in time we do not know what that something is, but $$ to donuts it would have prevent him from being elected president.
If Obama’s own claims are true, both parents were not citizens and his is not a natural born citizen, and thereby is not eligible to be president.
If she is now publicly affirmatively claiming the Bomford document is a fake created to discredit the purported Kenyan document, in my opinion she is making a serious tactical mistake which could come back to burn her and damage her credibility.
Yes, that's a fact. Here's one more fact...that can be used against Obama in court.
Obama's mom Stanley Ann lied to the Hawaiian court in her January 1964 divorce. She stated in her divorce papers that she 'was now and more than two years a resident' of Honolulu. The fact is she was living throughout late 1961 through 1962 as a resident of Washington state. The plaintiff establishes these facts that Obama and his mom lied to the court - without any doubt. Obama lied to the Illinois Bar and Stanley Ann lied to the court. An inform judge will make it much easier for a decision to go on to 'discovery'.
Well, I've not accused you of post, duck and hide.
Are you a forensics expert?
No; neither is hardly anyone else around here. If the posts concerning this Kenyan BC were restricted to forensics experts, there would be a few score posts, not 10,000. But most of the useful vetting was done by non-experts.
The aussie BC is fraudulent.
>> I wonder who did it? <<
Probably Bill Burkett, who gave it to Lucy Ramirez. Then Lucy passed it to Orly at a rodeo in Houston.
Yet, you already know that those are changes a hacker made.
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.