Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Can any of the folks who don't think it's a forgery explain why the WND is saying it most likely is?

www.wnd.com...

Notice how Mombassa wasn't EVEN PART of Kenya in 1961...

Why don't you tell us? Also, Mombasa was part of Kenya in 1964 when that was signed as being part of the Republic of Kenya...it was also part of the British Protectorate of Kenya before that date. It was given over to the British protectorate in 1920 I think. Zanzibar had nominal claim over a ten mile stretch of coast and when independence was granted it came under Kenyan control. This has been cited many times.
So next question maybe you would like to do some research yourself for once?

So let's recap for today...

Photos were released which show how the KBC could have been forged

Old Typewriter and coin used for seal

And WND showed us all how stupid we are at geography. Not to mention they talked to Kenyan officials... and found that NO BIRTH CERTS had anything near what was on the KBC

Good job WND!

I can't believe I just said that...

But that's about it... in a nutshell, everything about this has been debunked..

Birthers... you can now go back to calling for his Hawaii BC upon which you think BHO is hiding something...

reply to post by oneclickaway


Heh... yeah the person who supposedly certified this one was true when the copy was asked for signed it in 1964... but Mombassa wasn't part of Kenya until 1963...

But that's not the reason WND claimed forgery...

Check their story and find out for yourself mister research :-)

www.wnd.com...


Oh I know you wont go.. so here it is :-)

NEW YORK – The Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND's investigative operatives in Africa, though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.

WND obtained several samples of Kenyan birth certificates in use around Aug. 4, 1961, the date of Obama's birth, showing differences from the Taitz document.

WND reported Sunday on the document Taitz has been trying to authenticate.

She filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California requesting the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction. She also asked for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and is seeking a subpoena for a deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND then. "I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate]."

The document she revealed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/5268fccd2a9da8d0.jpg[/atsimg]

But an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate obtained by WND shows distinct differences.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/6dc9009734472261.jpg[/atsimg]

The verified 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate is described at the top as a "Government of Kenya" document. It includes: Where Born; Name or names; Sex; Father's occupation and rank; Father's nationality; Name and maiden name for mother; Mother's Occupation; Mother's nationality; Signature, description and residence of information; Date of birth; Date of registration; Baptismal name if added or altered after registration of birth; Reference to register.


Kenyan government officials interviewed by WND sources in Kenya have pointed out a key difference in the Taitz document. In 1961, Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar, not the Coast Province of Kenya. The area was later ceded to Kenya.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
I wouldn't be so sure it's all over at all. If you think that things cannot be expertly forged you would be very wrong.
Comparing the new typewriter photo to either of the Orly certificates - either the EFL 47044...Or the KFL 47644 there are lots of discrepancies.
The ones I can see are-
1.The smudge covering the word maiden, which is missing as has already been pointed out on the typewriter photo.

What was on it, is now gone on the typewriter shot and has left a mark. The mark above the "smudge" on the Orly's BC is also present on the typewriter one.

2.The staple marks are different at the top left of page on the typewriter photo.

Um, no it is not. If you are referring to stample drag damage seen on the typewriter image, you would understand that it is also on the Orly's version as well, just not as prominent. The holes match 100%

3. The crease at the top on the word 'Province' is too close to the 'P' on the typewriter photo.

Nitpicking to an unbelieveable degree. The paper has been re-adjusted, the lighting is different, and it's taken from a different angle.

4. All the creases are very flat indeed and thin on the typewriter photo. If they were so pronounced on the angled Orly shots they should be even more pronounced on the standing sheet on the typewriter photo.

That's what you say. They could have re-adjusted to paper to make it stand the way they wanted to to take the picture. Otherwise same answer as no. 3.

Hoped I addressed all the other "issues" you had.

Edit to add:

I'd also like to point out the smudge above the M on Miller is exactly the same on both.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

reply to post by kinda kurious

Sorry, I missed your kind reply. I was working on a little present for you....

That is the kenyan certificate....you and I were actually talking about the signature on the AUSTRALIAN certificate...remember?

I am going to bed before I say something I regret.

reply to post by oneclickaway


TO be honest.. it was clear to me what KindaK was talking about... but you never gave any specifics until now. So how could you blame him?

Either way... it makes no difference, because you were trying to debunk the aussie cert while KK was debunking what you were saying as he actually thought you were talking about differences in the KBC.

You're right though.. you should go to bed, as your posts are getting very incoherent.

Try using some illustrations like the rest of us are.

It helps to frame your point better if you are interested in making one, and it also helps you to find your own mistakes in what you are trying to convey.



[edit on 6-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by oneclickaway
I am going to bed before I say something I regret.

Sweet Dreams................................................
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1dc4dd83a2dc.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Someone else posted one on the other thread too.. pretty funny actually no matter where you are on the issue

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b04ebd35cee6.jpg[/atsimg]

There are sooo many discrepancies on the Kenyan BC I can't believe anyone still holds hope it's real.

I went to the Bomford site before it was disabled to find the link to the South Australian BC just to make sure it was actually there. It took me 15 minutes to find the link as it was buried deep in that family tree listing. The similarities are just to much to ignore.

To think it just happens to be in the same book, 44b and same page, 5733 in both the Kenyan and South Australia records is beyond any odds.

I'm sayin Orly Taitz has a fake on her hands.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Notice how Mombassa wasn't EVEN PART of Kenya in 1961...

Except that this particular document wasn't created in 1961, it was created in 1964. So it doesn't really matter where Mombasa was in 61 I don't think.

reply to post by hangdiver


You're a little late. Here is what most of the discussion is on now:

www.upload.mn...
www.upload.mn...
www.upload.mn...
www.upload.mn...


[edit on 6-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

reply to post by Jenna


That means obama was born in zanzibar so would never have a kbc.

Note

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Notice how Mombassa wasn't EVEN PART of Kenya in 1961...

Except that this particular document wasn't created in 1961, it was created in 1964. So it doesn't really matter where Mombasa was in 61 I don't think.

I think it does matter precisely because Obamas Father never hung around Mombasa Zanzibar, as he lived around Lake Victoria.

For example... Obama Sr was born, grew up around, and studied at Lake Victoria until he went to Hawaii...

Look at how far his town is (Point B on the map) from Mombasa (Point 1 on the map):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/9bc760c1c0b24fc5.png[/atsimg]

It's just not logical. They're over 400 miles away from eachother.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

I really really hate repeating myself. It is impossible for the hackers to get the 'original' and then increase the detail level dramatically. This whole hacked thing is a load of BS. It's a lie.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Nice work KK
Combine your detective skills with that Leif Garret Hair of yours from the 70's and we have the makings of a Remington Steel

Is it just me...


...or was the Hoax tag applied to the title?









[edit on 6-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

[edit on 6-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Sorry if I'm repeating info, but everyone did realize that the judge struck down the request for rogatory, right?

08/06/2009 35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato: the documents listed below were improperly filed for the following reasons: Lacks proper notice; improper form and format; counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No.; description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court’s e-docket; therefore, the following document(s) shall be stricken from the record and shall not be considered by the Court: MOTION to Expedite authentication MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate 34 . (rla) (Entered: 08/06/2009)

WHEREAS, the documents listed below were improperly filed for the following reason(s)
Lacks proper notice (L.R. 6-1,7-4); improper form and format (L.R. 11-3.3, 11-3.6)); Counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No. (L.R. 11-3.8(a)); description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court’s e-docket

Source

reply to post by redhatty


Wow... so she's such a good lawyer she filed them improperly?

Go figure...

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Unfortunately, while I admit to being one of the "birthers" to the extent that I feel there are more questions than answers, and this entire canard could be put to rest so quickly, yet it continues.....

It is embarrassing at this point to even be part of this canard. EVERY SINGLE "LAWYER" or outspoken voice, with the exception of Leo Donofrio (semi-pro poker player??) Are UTTER NUT JOBS and make those of us with legitimate questions, (What is HE hiding?) look just as fruit-looped as they do.

I so wish that we could have just ONE respectable, legitimate ATTORNEY or congressman be a focal point to this (not just the BC, but all sealed records) controversy.

But alas, I am resigned to hang my head in shame, as I continue to watch the show & even point out when it's all a bunch of BS myself.

reply to post by redhatty


I can understand. I think FlyersFan is in the same boat to be honest.

It would be a lot better, I think, if this was being conducted in a more respectable manner.


I think folks like Orly only serve to marginalize what many feel is a serious search for truth.