Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Welcome to FR. You’ve picked an interesting time to sign on. Buckle up, it’s gonna be one heck of a ride!
Did he?
You'd think he'd at least mention it...
Aye, but it proves he's not just a bar of soap...
I posted this on the other thread, if it helps at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=1019#1019
I saved a copy of the bc from the page that is now gone. If you would tell me how to upload the image, I’ll post it. (New here and can’t find any information/help section as to how I can do that.)
“but it looks like the Aussie doc is the fake - created after the Kenyan doc surfaced. Koyann is banned and Technical Editor might be next to go.”
So then it might not be a fake?
Here is a story from the OC Register that states this all a little more clearly. There are a few details I haven’t seen mentioned in this 6000+ reply thread:
O.C. lawyer claims to have Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate
She wants swift legal action, fearing the original will be destroyed.
By MICHAEL MELLO
The Orange County Register
A Mission Viejo-based lawyer claims to be in possession of a copy of what she says is President Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.
Orly Taitz said the document could bring along a speedy resolution to a lawsuit she’s handling, challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve as the president. That is, even she admits, if it’s genuine.
The Hawaiian state health director reiterated last week that he’d examined the pertinent documents and that Obama was indeed born there.
Over the weekend, Orly Taitz filed a motion in federal court for expedited discovery. Among the pleas, Taitz asks Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make an official request to Kenyan authorities for authentication of the document.
“There are no ready means of authentication except by recovery of the original document,” the motion states, noting Taitz’s fear the original may be lost: “It is also apparent … that political pressure may be brought to bear to destroy all relevant evidence, whether such evidence exists within or outside the borders of the United States of America.”
Taitz did not say how she came across the copy.
A photo of the purported document posted to Taitz’s Web site shows a folded, typewritten document, embossed with a seal. It lists Obama’s birth on “4th August, 1961, at Coast General Hospital” in the coastal city of Mombasa.
The document itself has a Feb. 17, 1964 date and reads, “Republic of Kenya.” The date, Taitz said, is because it’s a certified copy, not an original.
The Obama-friendly group Media Matters says the document is a forgery. It says that while Kenya gained it’s independence in 1963, it did not become a republic until Dec. 12, 1964. Media Matters’ debate over that whether “Republic of Kenya” could have appeared on a Feb. 17, 1964 document can be seen here.
Among the parties to the lawsuit is Southern Baptist Pastor Wiley Drake of Buena Park, who ran as the vice-presidential candidate on the same ticket with the American Independent party candidate for president, Alan Keyes.
On the Web: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com
Staff writer Martin Wisckol contributed to this story.
Very good ...my initial impression was that the Bromford doc looked fake ...just a gut reaction ...but I have been all over the map on this
Mission Viejo attorney Orly Taitz has posted this photo on the Internet, purportedly showing President Obama's birth as taking place in Kenya. Taitz has filed a motion in federal court to get the document authenticated, and fears there are plots to destroy the original. STORY BY MICHAEL MELLO, PHOTO COURTESY OF ORLY TAITZ
I wasn’t sure at first, so I downloaded and magnified parts of it. Especially the folded areas.
Not only are the letters faded, but they seem to be proportionally spaced across the folded area instead of ‘curved’ or ‘bent’ to match the folds.
I’m not an expert at looking at docs and determining their authenticity, but some here say that there are a lot of problems with the aussie doc. When the text is viewed with magnification, it’s completely straight, aligned perfectly, etc., but the paper below it is wavy.
Almost obviously, both can’t be real. When we saw the aussie doc, we assumed that the aussie doc was real, and that would automatically make the kenyan doc fake. After a few hours of looking at the aussie doc, people are saying that the aussie doc looks faker than the kenyan doc. Which puts the kenyan doc back in action.
I have no idea what the truth is, but the kenyan doc is back in action.
You really need to read through the threads.
This has been shown to be false earlier.
In brief summation, Kenya became independent in 1964 but had already been using the Republic of Kenya in 1963.
I would go back and find it for you, but I’ve been up since 4AM YESTERDAY and I’m getting a little tired.
Not going to be on here much longer.
Not only are the letters faded = Not only are the letters NOT faded
Getting tired here.
"Not Found The requested URL /worcestershire/index.htm was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/1.3.39 Server at www.bomford.net Port 80"
I don’t think I said that I questioned the date when Kenya started using the term Republic. That disclaimer might have been in the OC article, but I don’t question it at all. I fully understand that this was a designation that came about gradually as Britain released its hold on its former colony.
I have read the whole thread and I am exhausted! I posted teh OC article because it explains the other people who are involved with Orly on this endeavor without going to her web site which may be compromised. It also included a good picture of the BC in question. Those have been compromised by hackers elsewhere. Can’t have too many original copies! ;)
Placemark.
Sorry..didn’t mean to imply you were questioning it.
Just responding to the article and wanted you to know it was already debunked.
Like I said. Getting tired here, so my thinking might not be working at it’s full 10 percent!
:)
We’ve been looking at the lettering and folds. Some people had a problem with the lettering and folds, but I didn’t see a problem, although I was focusing on the “typed” text.
Something kept drawing my eyes toward the paragraph at the bottom of both documents. The part that states, “I, XXX, Deputy Registrar of Births, Deaths”, etc. They do NOT match between the Kenyan and Aussie docs. The wording is the same except for the location but the justification does not match. I’m not sure if that matters, but that’s what I kept looking at for some reason.
Then I remembered that making a negative of an image can sometimes reveal a lot more detail. Think “Shroud of Turin”. So, I downloaded the Aussie BC to my desktop, opened the image in Paint (of all things), reversed the image, and looked at that bottom paragraph.
There it became glaringly obvious to me that the text is simply superimposed over an image of a folded piece of paper.
I highly recommend you try the same. Look at the entire image “reversed”, especially the bottom paragraph and how the entire text just goes right across the creases without any alteration. It’s almost comical.
Perhaps someone can post a “negative” of the Aussie BC for all to see what I’m talking about.
He did and didn’t he receive a purple star for being shot in the buttocks in the line of duty?
I thought it looked fake too, but how was it created? There are similarities and differences both in the "typewritten" text and in the "pre-printed" text of the two documents, and the paper texture is markedly different.
If the Bomford creator started with only the Taitz document or vice versa, we are looking at the product of some serious Photoshop or Gimp skills. Adding creases and folds is easy in Photoshop, but removing them without disturbing the affected text? If the Taitz document came from the Bomford, how were the vertical lines in the textured paper removed so cleanly?
If both documents were created from scratch from the same template, then these differences are easily explained. The forger could have just printed the basic form onto different types of paper, filled in each form with a different old typewriter, then folded away.
Is that what happened? The mystery continues.
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.