[Jim Robinson]

Well, I’ll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the “K. F. Lavender” and the number is “47,644.”

Someone’s working overtime.

[pissant]

Those KosKiddies are hard at work.

[Deo volente]

I see the “K” too in the first photo. I saved it as a JPEG and zoomed in. The “K” is there, no doubt about it. The second one has an “E”.

[MrDem]

So that says Orly’s site HAS BEEN hacked, so the doc can be replaced.

[PowerPro]

Would you be willing to post a link to it? I have the “wrong” copy here.

[SeattleBruce]

Well, I’ll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the “K. F. Lavender” and the number is “47,644.”

Someone’s working overtime.
+++++++++++++++

Are the WNDaily images incorrect?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

[Uncle Chip]

Well, I’ll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the “K. F. Lavender” and the number is “47,644.” Someone’s working overtime.

Yes -- the Earth Friendlies and Numerologists

[Danae]

Jim, Could you please post that predominately here and perhaps with the big thread link and the Fake or no Link? Thanks, it would sure clear up some confusion!

[Brytani]

Something is seriously wrong with this. The one I downloaded from Scribbed and from Orly’s site has EF and the 44 registration number.

I just checked her site and that is what she has up....

WTH?

[David]

Well, I’ll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the “K. F. Lavender” and the number is “47,644.” Someone’s working overtime."

The one that counts is the original which I assume is in Joe's possession.

On the other hand, Pissant's suggestion that it would be wise to advise Mr. Farrah that this has happened ins a good one.

[Heart of Georgia]

I also have one saved and it is clearly K. F. Lavender (or Lavonder).

[mojitojoe]

So is mine. They did that super fast. If you zoom in, it lools like the o they replaced the 6 with is not the same ink as the other numbers.

[Third Person]

Take it to ‘em Jim!!!!

[spacejunkie01]

“Better check out this link before you burn too many calories.
Bomford Australian Birth Certificate
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2099

If the Bomford Certificate is real then the one from Kenya is a fake. Impossible that both could be legit.”

The above was just posted on the “Who is EF Lavender” Thread...anyone have any input?

[TheThinker]

Well, I’ll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the “K. F. Lavender” and the number is “47,644.”

My gut feeling and my eyes say this document is authentic. The historical facets of this document seems to be in order so far. In its totality, it seems to me that this would be a very difficult forgery.

If this is a forgery, why would the Lefties try to change a perfectly good forgery that could be used to abuse Birthers and Republicans?

I also saw the Lefties baiting Republicans last week over the eligibility issue. Were they trying to entrap Pubbies who questioned Obama's eligibility by changing the information of this document?

[Windflier]

Well, I’ll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the “K. F. Lavender” and the number is “47,644.”

You made me curious enough to pull up my own copy, and I see the same thing as you do. It's exactly the same as what Calpernia reports.

Son of gun.....

[Swordmaker]

Jim, I posted the first copy of the Kenyan BC on FR in post #52 on the original thread. I still have the capture on my desktop and stored on my image hosting site. They are still the same, showing E.F. Lavender and 47,044.

The image I posted was never intended to be the subject of forensic examination. It has had too many graphical modification steps for that to be of any value. I captured it from the original Flash file linked by Orly's webpage at one specific resolution that filled the frame allowed, saved it as a PNG file on my Mac, then uploaded it to my file sharing site "ImageCave.com" which converted the PNG file to a 70% compressed JPEG for quick loading and display on the internet.

Here is that copy of the original I posted:

On this JPEG, the "E" does indeed appear to be a "K"... but I assure you that is an artifact of the process used to convert the huge PNG image file to a much smaller JPEG image file. Those conversions done to make the image more palatable for uploading and downloading for internet use are apparently the source of the blurring of the E to a K (or as some people claim a G) and the O to a 6. It stands to reason that detail will be lost when you go from an 879,641 byte PNG file to an 87,414 byte JPEG file. I don't think anyone is attempting to promulgate fraudulent copies... just copies that have been too manipulated from the original to be probative of anything.

This artifacting will be exaggerated as you magnify the JPEG and look at the simplified anti-aliasing that is created from the more complex anti-aliasing of the much more detailed PNG image.

One should always refer as closely to the original as one can get to be making these claims... and that original on Orly's site link is essentially IDENTICAL to the PNG capture I have on my desktop.

Can you help clear this up??? Let's either shut down the speculation about people creating deliberate bogus copies by TELLING people exactly what has happened? Swordmaker

[palmer]

Well, I'll be darned. The copy I saved after it was first posted definitely has the "K. F. Lavender" and the number is "47,644."

Hopefully someone has corrected your conclusion by now, but what apparantly happened was the copy you originally saved early Sunday AM was more compressed and had JPEG artifacts obscuring part of the 0 in 47,044 making it look like 47,644. The E/K difference is similar and shows up more often, but it has been verified by multiple reliable sources (e.g. Salamander) that the original is "E. F. Lavender" and "47,044".

I would add, as I have said many times, the Kenyan Certificate needs critical, skeptical analysis particularly the fonts used to create the printed form. In my opinion the typewritten fonts look legitimate (created on a real 1964 typewriter), but I have my doubts about the form iteself. I am not an expert at this, just an engineer.