What's the price? I'll pay you up to $250,000,000 for it.
Posted on 08/04/2009 7:33:27 PM PDT by pissant
A document unveiled by a California attorney in her quest to determine President Obama's place of birth has been condemned as a forgery by critics who deride as nonsense the challenges that have been raised to the president based on the U.S. Constitution's demand that the Oval Office occupant be a "natural born" citizen.
But those on the other side, who would like to see the original documentation of Obama's birth place revealed, say there are factors that indicate the Kenyan birth document could be real.
WND reported when the document was submitted to a California court by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has managed several of the high-profile cases challenging Obama's eligibility to be president.
Then yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised the dispute to the floor of that august body, protesting in a speech added to the Congressional Record that the dispute was not worth one minute of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I've been suspicious of the Kenyan document since the night it was posted. And the more I read and learned, my skepticism got bigger, not smaller.
In my mind, the dynamic has been: "It's likely that someone put these numbers on this Kenyan document knowing that they can later be used to reveal it's a fake, thus making those who latch onto it (and their overall questioning of Obama's credentials from that time forward) look bad." A distraction from the real issues.
Now whether that's a good strategy or not, or whether or not it's merely brought the issue to the forefront, is debatable.
I actually couldn't immediately find such a thing, but looks like someone else did in post 372.
What's the price? I'll pay you up to $250,000,000 for it.
I don’t understand what this has to do with book / page.
Typically people try to defend a side on these various issues. I don’t know enough about the currency elements. I saw that others on this or other threads were debating it, but I just pretty much skimmed that. I don’t really want to think about every single possible issue.
Your argument about P making more sense in Australia that Kenya is a reasonable one. I think someone said earlier it might have something to do with partial printing in a centrally located place.
Here’s another one - why, on the Aussie doc, is the only line of typewriter type that isn’t lined up the line with Lavender?
All very mysterious.
|
you need to realize that some of us are not able to do much other than calls, e-mail and letters |
Why would this paint Orly Taitz as a fool?
It’s not that Orly is personally posting a fake. She is simply announcing, as she has announced her court actions before, a legal initiative whose purpose is to find out whether this BC she was given by an anonymous source who doesn’t want his name known because “he’s afraid for his life” is a fake or not.
Yeah. I see that. So, back in 1850, they used a book / page system. Today, most, if not all, printed birth documents do not seem to reflect that book / page system. So far, no verified printed documents in aussie have been found with the book / page data. If I were to just guess, I would say that the book / page system was modified at some time.
But I did say before that I saw no evidence, and now someone showed it, so I can’t say that. I guess I can still say that I haven’t seen valid aussie printed birth docs with it.
I would think starting in the 80s and early 90s, or maybe even the late 70s for large government entities, registrars switched to computerized records. Can't say for sure, because I haven't personally looked for post-1960s government records - except for recent government records which are now often electronically available through the internet.
Well, if it’s an Aussie fake, it’s done to discredit the Kenyan doc, if it’s an intentionally sloppy Kenyan fake, it’s done to discredit the “birthers”.
The “birthers” are doing pretty well here. The story is getting out some, yes, there’s mocking, but the story is getting out. People aren’t really saying they believe it’s real. They just want to know if its real. So, the “birthers” aren’t really doing anything crazy.
And, sure, I guess everyone should be fighting socialism all the time, but there are some that are interested in this issue, while others are more interested in other issues. If the bc issue was gone, it doesn’t mean that everyone interested in the bc issue automatically spends the same amount of time on something more worthwhile.
I wasn’t paying much attention to the bc thing until the pic came out. Most of the time I’d read the Palin threads.
I’ve spent more time here on Free Republic over the last 3 days than I normally do.
Would you indulge me and tell me how this is known? Because, on Sunday night, when the Bomford cert first emerged, a code was supplied which one could paste into the address bar of the Bomford website. That code was said to show when the last modification was made to the website. When I did that, I saw that the last modification was in 2007.
As I await your answer, I will look for those posts.
A photo editor would be used to incorporate the image to the web site, of course.
Well... I guess I’d have to agree!
Why is he mistaken? His explanation on the lossy JPEG, and admission of doing it himself, seems to make sense. What's missing in his explanation?
http://boards.ancestry.com/localities.oceania.australia.sa.general/2216.1/mb.ashx
In the district of Hindmarsh
in South Australia
They passed book 44 way way back in the 1800’s.
I’m calling it, the Aussie doc is a fake.
And the media just had to do a little bit of research on ancestry.com to find that out.
Wait, I spoke too soon.
4. The image in question was not cached with this site for the previous 2 year, it suddenly appeared days ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307517/posts?q=1&;page=51#65
see post 75 on thread
When we did that in real time on 8-3 (immediately after the Aussie cert became available)the “last modified” date of the Bomford website was shown to be 2006.
What is the evidence that the Bomford cert did NOT exist before 8-2-09?
WALTON Ruth Lillian
Date: 24.10.1926
Father: Frederick Robert Manchester Walton
Mother: Florence Annie DAHMES
Birth Place/Residence: Torrensville
District Code: Hin
Book: 181A / Page: 206
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ok, so, Book 181A was for Ruth Lillian Walton
she was born October 24, 1926
It appeared that Books 1-999 came first
then Books 1A-999A
then, maybe, Books 1B-999B?
Book/Page can be used to verify.
Jeffrey Bomford was book 44B page 5573
Book numbers tagged in alphabetical order? B (near the front of the alphabet) has a lower number(44) than W (181).
No guess about A/B.
Maybe and then again maybe not. Who knows! The only thing I'm sure of if its not a conservative media I don't trust them. They are all in bed with Obama.
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.