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

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.
2.The staple marks are different at the top left of page on the typewriter photo.
3. The crease at the top on the word 'Province' is too close to the 'P' on the typewriter photo.
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.

There are more discrepancies pointed out on this link where it is being debunked.

www.freerepublic.com...

Go to post #7616

Originally posted by ken10
The information on the KBC has been proved correct right down to the E.F.Lavender that has only just been confirmed.

You consider an anonymous post on Yahoo Answers as proof?

The Aussie BC has been confirmed a fake.....

No it hasn't. There are at least two copies of it but that doesn't mean that it's a fake. One is, but the other has been claimed by the owner.

I can only surmise that all the info contained on that BC is real and taken off a real physical BC........

I'm glad you're not sitting on my jury.

Does that sound logical ?

No. Sorry.

reply to post by oneclickaway


You are seriously drowning Oneclick.

The smudge/food particle/crumb is not there on the typewriter pic, you are right. But what ever was there, left a "grease" mark of what was there when the doc was lying straight. On the next photo(the crumbled up one) you see off to the left what was on the doc. It looks like a food crumb or something. The other issues don't matter because the lighting is different in the typewriter photo. The lighting is too strong so you can't see as many details.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Oh where to begin.

Sorry but, providing links to other forums where other common folk are speculating (just like us) does not muster proof. The only real substance is the "claim" that the Aussie BC is fake. (moot point BTW.)

The following picture was provided as "proof." The claim is that the lettering doesn't follow the deformation of the paper. That is NONSENSE.
You can cearly see the type falling into the valley of a crease. As comparison, they showed the KBC where the type is malformed over the top of a crease. It is abundantly obvious the paper folds are not equal.

Well you can't clearly see the type falling into the valley of the crease.
Also, how about the signature?
How about how the signature miraculously is under the 'D' of Deputy registrar...how do you explain the signature not going over the D s it should be?

Originally posted by oneclickaway
How about how the signature miraculously is under the 'D' of Deputy registrar...how do you explain the signature not going over the D s it should be?

OK, I will attempt to explain. That is kinda basic. Here goes.

That alleged discrepancy is ONLY visible in the INVERSE / INVERTED form.

Luminace values are inverted. (dark becomes light and vice versa) That is to say if the ink used to sign the document was not as jet black as the typewriter ink, when inverted, the blacker object (or whiter since inverted) will appear on top. If you remember the image is INVERTED or EXACT OPPOSITE of original, it PROVES the signature was on top.

Make sense?

reply to post by truthtothemasses

You are seriously drowning Oneclick.

The smudge/food particle/crumb is not there on the typewriter pic, you are right. But what ever was there, left a "grease" mark of what was there when the doc was lying straight. On the next photo(the crumbled up one) you see off to the left what was on the doc. It looks like a food crumb or something. The other issues don't matter because the lighting is different in the typewriter photo. The lighting is too strong so you can't see as many details.

Drowning...lmao.
So a smear...repeat smear.....suddenly turns into a great glob of gunk..ok whatever you say.

reply to post by kinda kurious

OK, I will attempt to explain. That is kinda basic. Here goes.

That alleged discrepancy is ONLY visible in the INVERSE / INVERTED form.

Luminace values are inverted. (dark becomes light and vice versa) That is to say if the ink used to sign the document was not as jet black as the typewriter ink, when inverted, the blacker object (or whiter since inverted) will appear on top. If you remember the image is INVERTED or EXACT OPPOSITE of original, it PROVES the signature was on top.

Well then how come it is also the exact same on the ORIGINAL uninverted form?
Make sure you reply in such basic form lest us idiots don't understand.

reply to post by Bratac


Please tell me you haven't just jumped in on page 106 to post that.

Go back to post 1 through and read what was presented as impossible and see how it was all explained bit by bit so that all the information contained on the BC is now plausible............And not the 2bit shoddy piece of fakery that was first thought.

IMO It is clear all the stops are being pulled to discredit this BC.....Think of the implications.

reply to post by oneclickaway


Honestly sir.

The print showing fake copy, box of paper and typewriter was OBVIOUSLY meant to show resources. A prop shot.

It was before the "disress" was done to it.

The print merely required a weathering, stains, folds, creases and aging enhancements.

You are clear on thst right?

Originally posted by oneclickaway

Drowning...lmao.
So a smear...repeat smear.....suddenly turns into a great glob of gunk..ok whatever you say.

Yes, it does.

Still drowning. Want me to throw you a life preserver??

reply to post by kinda kurious

The following picture was provided as "proof." The claim is that the lettering doesn't follow the deformation of the paper. That is NONSENSE. You can cearly see the type falling into the valley of a crease.

Perhaps you could add the other picture that was on that site, so we can look at them side by side? Because in my opinion, no matter if you capitalize the word NONSENSE, I still think they may have a good point. To me the type isn't clearly falling into the valley of a crease at all, and it's much clearer in the Kenyan BC...

Aside from what's fake and what's real, I'd still love to see those other Kenyan BC's WND got a hold of which they claim look identical. Have they posted those yet?

And all in all, my conclusion is that there's probably nothing in the Kenyan archives.
Perhaps Obama's Long Form KBC truly was there, but surely it's gone by now.
And if it truly doesn't exist, I doubt people will believe a Kenyan government's official on his word. If people don't trust the Hawaii official, why trust a Kenyan official?

If they truly come out of the dusty ol' archives with a Kenyan long form BC for Obama, then I'll conclude that everything's going according to plan, whatever that plan may be; but I doubt it's any good for We the People.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Well then how come it is also the exact same on the ORIGINAL uninverted form? Make sure you reply in such basic form lest us idiots don't understand.

Could you illusrate that. Seriously, I looked rather intensely when that was brought up and NEVER found evidence of it. I've ONLY seen it brought up in INVERSE which I explained why before.
I'll gladly re review if you could point me.

Just one itty-bitty image to review. Please?



[edit on 6-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

The typewriter document image is 100% fake. It is not a real printed form. Thought you Obama boys could do better than that. That didn't take a half-hour to debunk.

reply to post by truthtothemasses

The other issues don't matter because the lighting is different in the typewriter photo. The lighting is too strong so you can't see as many details.

Well anyone wanting the truth rather than to further an agenda and dismiss everything out of hand would actually look and try to either verify or dismiss after scrutiny...not in 2 seconds say....oh the other issues don't matter.

And the few with that agenda are the ones constantly saying where's the certificate, which one is it...show me...where's the proof...prove it to me.....when was that said....don't listen to other forums...why, what where, when.....after over a hundred pages? It clearly shows that the truth is of no consequence to you.

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...

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.

So how do you account for that? Hrmmm?????



[edit on 6-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by kinda kurious

Could you illusrate that. Seriously, I looked rather intensely when that was brought up and NEVER found evidence of it. I've ONLY seen it brought up in INVERSE which I explained why before.
I'll gladly re review if you could point me.

Just one itty-bitty image to review. Please?

You just proved my point. Too lazy to look for anything at all. The link was clearly given a few pages back...so go look for it.

Originally posted by ttatw
The typewriter document image is 100% fake. It is not a real printed form. Thought you Obama boys could do better than that. That didn't take a half-hour to debunk.

It matches image provided in OP 100%. Please see my prior post.

Besides, can you explain the red fabric?

reply to post by oneclickaway


How about checking out *my* post a couple back and explain how Mombassa, a part of Zanzibar in 1961 shows up on a supposed Kenya Birth Certificate from 1961?

I'll make it easy... you can just click on the first link in my signature...

Seems that Mombasa was part of the state of Zanzibar until 12 December 1963 when it was ceded to be incorporated into the newly independent state of Kenya.

There is honestly nothing left to debunk.

It's been a great day all...



[edit on 6-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by oneclickaway
You just proved my point. Too lazy to look for anything at all. The link was clearly given a few pages back...so go look for it.

Sorry, I missed your kind reply. I was working on a little present for you....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/901991c7d1a0.jpg[/atsimg]

You were saying, I'm lazy. I am trying to be nice.

Please direct me to the anomaly in question. Thanks.

EDIT TO ADD:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/226d1d4a64d8.jpg[/atsimg]

IMO, the pen ink seems to "puddle" in the "o" in of and "e" in February.

You were saying?

[edit on 6-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by ken10
Please tell me you haven't just jumped in on page 106 to post that.

I haven't. But neither have I read every page. If EF Lavender was a real Kenyan official, I haven't seen proof. Neither have I seen proof that the Aussie document was a fake.

What you surmise is speculation, nothing more.