Posted on 08/04/2009 7:33:27 PM PDT by pissant
Corsi is now saying that it is “probably not authentic”.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135
Shows some Kenyan birth certificates from the period that are very different from Taitz’s.
Yea I agree page 5733 seems way too high. I have been trying to find some sort of copy of one of those books. I don’t understand why the actual book registry would be restricted but apparently it is.
In the old days newspaper men/women would be doing all this research ...does anyone believe that is going on in this situation?
I posted a cartoon from Mad Magazine a while back....Spy vs Spy. If any one remembers it was an on going joke about action vs counter action vs counter counter action etc etc.
That is what is happening here ...dis information , vs info vs dis dis info .
One question is whats the point ?.. The left is rooting for its side and we are rooting for ours ...however the right has nothing to gain by lying about anything. In fact a lie hurts our cause...and may be fatal
Im still not sure what good it really does for the left to lie
maybe all they want is to denigrate a bunch of folks.
but if they are lying I want that exposed ...The value of that exposure is great, as it will weaken their ability to get their political agenda passed.
So what will be the ultimate outcome ...who gets to determine what is real and what isnt ..Does it get down to your exoerts vs our experts
Any thought?
If the Obama Kenya BC is fake I would say this ...the same people created both the Kenya and the Aussie doc at the same time and planted them (my guess is Bomford did it)
They were both necessary to cancel each other out and while the Aussie one might have more valid info I bet its still fake
Fine cotton business paper: $11 Inkjet printer: $35 1940 Royal Model KMM manual typewriter: $10 2 Shilling coin: $1 Pilot Varsity fountain pen: $3 Punkin’ the Birthers: Priceless
Except for the violation of privacy laws in somebody putting this into the public domain without David Bomford's knowledge. At the very least the man should hire a lawyer.
I know you want the Kenyan one to be real, but you have to go with where the facts lead you.
Yes, but I admit its starting to look suspect. As I posted earlier, its beginning to look to me as if they might both be suspect. Or at least there was criminal activity regarding both of them.
I feel like Bomford was in on this.
That does seem to be a very unsolved mystery at this point, doesn't it?
In the normal course of things, you would think that would have to have been done by a close family member, or by Bomford himself.
It is indeed odd.
Someone now claiming credit for faking the Kenyan one.
This claim appears very credible to me. I stated a few posts back that it increasingly looked to me like the seal on the Kenyan one was done with a coin, of approximately 28mm diameter. But I couldn’t identify a specific coin to suspect.
Person claiming credit says he used a 2 shilling coin, which has a diameter of 28.5mm.
I haven’t really compared the seal image with that of a 2 shilling coin yet, but from just a very quick glance on my way out the door, I’m thinking we might have a match.
Given the similarity of the two SA birth certificates, and the huge difference between the two Kenyan ones alone, it’s safe to say that the Australian one is real while the Kenyan one is fake.
I live in adelaide, and I have seen my parent’s certificates, and from memory they looked the same.
I really don’t think that bomford is in on it at all. I know you guys have invested a lot of time on this, but outside of your circles this really isn’t a big news story. Kind of non existent. Definitely not big enough for people over the other side of the world to be involved! Especially adelaide!! Adelaide is such a sleepy little city.
I only took an interest when I heard the bomford interview on abc radio here.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And to say that somehow, to discredit the birthers movement, a bomford in Kentucky enlisted a relative to spend the time in forging a BC that looks almost idetical to other south Australian BCs, with all information on it that is relevant to the time, (ie naming hospitals that have been closed, old SA coat of arms, addresses that now exist redefined suburb boundries) really is a bit far fetched. To suggest that the Kenyan one is forged to try and either ‘punk’ and make fun of the birthers movement, or be created from within the movement really does make more logical sense.
As I said I live in Adelaide so any questions you have about the city, please ask!
I think we have been lead down the road with no end on this issue. But I applaud the hard work some have invested in all the variations of documents popping up. If Butt Head and others did not do similar work, Dan Blather and his crony just may have got away with their forgery attempt.
I see no reason why the registry office could not confirm that in 1959 Book 44B was being used, up to the Page 6400 block for example, and that G.F. Lavender was the Registrar (presumably for all of South Australia) and J.H. Miller the District Registrar (presumably for Hindmarsh). It's conceivable that Freedom of Information laws if you have them down there would provide for release of that information upon request, or that libraries might have at least the Registrar information. But mainly I don't see why those in charge of the registry office couldn't just provide that information.
Depending on the answer, it leads to a potentially very different analysis and understanding of what happened. The answer also has to come through official channels or some demonstrably impartial source. For example the ancestry.com posts cannot credibly be challenged and so those prove that somewhere around Book 44B makes sense. There was also a reference from 1915 to an E.F. Lavender that a poster I believe it was elsewhere on this site mentioned a while back:
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/printArticleJpg/1536351/3?print=n
So he could be the father of G.F. Lavender, G.F. following in his footsteps because the occupation is very similar. It's only that Page 5733 that really makes no sense, but maybe their system changed and it means Vol 5 Page 733 of the B series of Books for example. I'm almost certain we'll find there is some explanation like that and it's just a matter of getting official confirmation. This would also make Bomford even less of a suspect, since the perpetrator of the hoax simply used his original as a template and then tipped off someone to trigger the debunking.
If we get confirmation that all four fields are legit, it's virtually 100% certain that the Obama document was designed to be debunked after the bait was taken and it was filed in the court case. The anonymous person claiming credit for punking the birthers may or may not be the one who did it, but whoever did it wanted to be able to right away or as soon as necessary debunk it. The reason they pulled the debunking trigger so quickly was probably because the little things they thought were implausible proved to not be, and so there was a danger it might acquire too much plausibility.
This keeps coming up, even four years later! Obama bought it up again in jest at his Press Club address.
What they were looking for was an Ëmpire Certificate”. These were used throughout the British Empire up until 1959. David was unlucky that his was the one found and used to create the fake. It was his lack of knowledge about how easy it is to find anything on the net, which led to his certificate being found and used in this way. His Family is very small and he believed that it was safe to put his certificate up on his own genealogical site.There were also two interviews, one by the ABC and one by Channel 7 Australia, both used pseudo black-mail to get him to agree to the interview. An interesting subject with many views.
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.