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

reply to post by HunkaHunka

UPDATE - TWO


Serious doubts about the accuracy of "information" on this document have been raised in this post on page 46 of this thread.

Those points were later refuted in this post, which apparently continues to keep the analysis alive.

from the first post on the thread. SO did it.





BTW that post was so ON topic and you know it MemoryShock!!!!

[edit on 3-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Although, they did not have true letterheads, at the time, it is well established, that they referred to their land by that name.

It was first used by Alexaander Hamilton in one of his papers.

Google is your friend

Yeah, and there are still people here in the south that refer to the Confederate States...don't make it so

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Because every argument that mad it a hoax was refuted quite thoroughly with facts and sources.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I still haven't heard anyone explain why this thread was labeled hoax earlier is now no longer labeled as such?

Umm.....yes, they have numerous times. It's apparent you are not reading posts.

Perhaps you are reading posts but are intentionally being a troll in a lame attempt to further your deluded agenda.

From a previous post:

What happened is someone posted a list of document "problems" they copied from that bastion of unbiased information - democratic underground.

For some reason that convinced a mod to *HOAX* the thread. Then the list was taken apart point by point with actual research, and "VIOALA", it was *UNHOAXED*.

Lesson learned? Never, EVER, swallow something scraped from the DUmster.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Again, that is neither here nor there. You are giving a straw man as an effort to debunk me.

The point is that just because it was not "official" until 1964 does not mean that it was never referred to, and they never used the title "Republic."

[edit on 8/3/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


Thank you for pointing out the page number.


WhatTheory, I see what you posted, but it still did not provide details as to *what* had been debunked, just that something had...

I wanted to find out what it was...


Thanks to hotrodturbo7 for pointing out the page for reference....

The fact of the matter is we can't know for sure until we get another BC from Kenya in the same (district/provence?) from 1964, That's it unfortunately. The only thing close is that World News Daily claims they have one, but has not disclosed it. If we had a comparison then we could move on, considerably.

I've been searching for many hours but am unable to find anything given the resources avaliable here online. There are literally hundreds of pages via google that pop up *all* related to this recent pic in the OP. It's a frustrating ordeal.


[edit on 3-8-2009 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I still haven't heard anyone explain why this thread was labeled hoax earlier is now no longer labeled as such?

Read the opening post. It has an explanation. Many people simply can not bring themselves to accept that the question is legitimate. Fear of being wrong I suppose. But then, there's a lot of supposition going on lately.

The HOAX label is a powerful tool to dissuade anyone from taking the content seriously - despite the fact that some obviously do.

I contend that the word "HOAX" is far too specific in it's general use, and should be reserved for proven attempts at derailing or destroying a posters position or content. That's a lot of power to give to someone who might have a vested stake in the judgment... especially if they are partisan to begin with.

Paradigms die hard. This one makes it sound like someone has something to gain by asking the question, is this document real? Can they? Do they?

Who stands to gain? And what is it that they gain?

On the other hand, socially grouped individuals can use the label quite effectively to avoid the argument and simply disregard the content.

It's not a HOAX.... it could be wrong, as in 'an error' but that hasn't been established, and even if it is established, it doesn't make it a HOAX - it makes it an error.

Denying ignorance is not a judgment call. Facts either are accurate or they are not. ---- Questions are NOT facts. So how can the question of this document's legitimacy be a 'hoax'?

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
You know what, I'd like to apologize to all the birthers and people in the middle on this argument. I've been arguing against you people and throwing a lot of cheap shots in this debate. After thinking about it for awhile I realized I was becoming rather intense on the anti-side to the point where I wasn't impartial anymore.

That's very big of you Curious. Becoming caught up in emotions and ceasing to be impartial is something we should all guard against on topics such as this one.

__________

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

How crazy is it that our country didn't have this covered?

Extremely crazy. It wasn't until this mess started that I discovered there weren't any laws about it already on the books. I was one of the many who mistakenly believed that there was.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You haven't seen it because you haven't read the thread. It's been posted several times and SO updated the OP with the reason why the thread was removed from the hoax subforum.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Yes someone did. I'll repeat -

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
MODS? Why was the hoax tag applied and then removed?

That question is answered on the first post in a 2nd update.

The person who posted info that this was a hoax had all the info explained away starting with the post at the 2nd update and there is more info after that.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Never, EVER, swallow something scraped from the DUmster.

OMG that's so true!





[edit on 8/3/2009 by FlyersFan]

*** ATTENTION ***

KNOCK IT OFF

Get on topic, be civil, you will be post banned, from this point on.

I suggest everyone go out and download the original copies if you haven't already. With all of the DUmmies over there pumping out fakes it would behoove you to have the "real" ones on hand. I kinda foresaw this and saved mine to multiple hard drives yesterday morning.

Once again, for those that missed it the first thirty times. The thread was [HOAX]ed due to some erroneous debunking. Gldngun disproved the items in the debunking and it was de-hoaxed and moved back into a "normal" forum.

The font used in the typed data is not Shmutz. It's Prestige Elite. See my post on page 43 of this thread for the comparison.

E.F. Lavender, while it is quite odd to have the name of a soap, it's not outside of the realm of possibility. People come up with weird names for their kids. I kid you not I have seen a woman who's first name was Gonnoreah. (say it if it's not immediately clear)

The ONE and ONLY strange thing that I can see is the number 47044. Yes, it's a strance coincidence...but again, not outside of the realm of possibility. The other issue is Obama's name as listed on the certificate. If I am correct (and i'm waiting on a family member to get back with me on this) my birth certificate says Net Warrior Jr. and not Net Warrior Lastname Jr. If this is true, it's not really that big of an issue. BTW I was born in Louisiana in 1980. Things can be done in different formats all over.

I had a thought about the angle. Would it not be more difficult to photoshop if the picture of the "original" certified copy was at an angle like it is rather than a straight on perpendicular shot? The angle of the picture may have been done like that intentionally.

Here is a copy of the Kenya BC:
www.orlytaitzesq.com...
(BTW I had no problems getting on the above site)
Here is the ORIGINAL Kenya BC:
thesteadydrip.blogspot.com...

Just in case anyone is asking..again...

Originally posted by netwarrior
E.F. Lavender, while it is quite odd to have the name of a soap, it's not outside of the realm of possibility.

. . .

The ONE and ONLY strange thing that I can see is the number 47044.

I thought someone had disproved both of those a few pages back, and that the number is actually 47644 and the name is actually E. K. Lavender. I'll have to go back and see if I can find that post because I could have sworn I had read one that said that.


edit: Downloaded an image and zoomed it instead of hunting through 60 pages for one post. After zooming a bit that looks like K. F. Lavender to me. Could just be my eyes, but that's what I see.

I think I may have mis-spoke on the number because I see 47044 too.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Jenna]

Apparently some folks have already "doctored" the photo of the document and changed pertinent info - to help support their attempts at debunking the document. (why am I not surprised?)

defendourfreedoms.net...

This modified one is showing jokes like: The Font of the Certificate=Schmutz (A Schmutz is a chump, as in you are a chump)
#5733=The number of the Certificate, is code for : "Problem with Windows REGISTRY", a sly reference to your claim that Obama does not appear on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry. 47O44=Easiest of all. BOH's age=47 0=O (if you look close you can tell that that is a Schmutz Font "Oh" not "Zero") EF Lavender is ORGANIC DISH SOAP

The original one does not say EF Lavender, it says KF Lavender. The original one shows the number is: 47,644.

reply to post by Jenna


My copies say 47044 and E.F. Lavender.

I checked the other one on that steadydrip site and it's the same too.