For what it's worth... Barack Obama's supposed African Birth Certificate

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Three things about this Lucas Smith guy and this birth certificate.

1) The first this was heard about was on Ebay where he tried to sell it.

2) He then disappeard after that failed

3) He is now back and being represented by Orly Taitz


Pretty much enough said.

Source


Oh...and you can also go make your very own Kenyan brith certificate.

Have Fun

[edit on 16-6-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

Another "shoot the messenger whenever the message is unpleasant for obama" post.

Seems sort of like a job for you, too ...

[edit on 6/16/2010 by centurion1211]

reply to post by muzzleflash

If it matches Obama's footprint it is a sealed deal. I am sorry.

Awwww another strawman "what if" from the whack-o birther movement.

I think the birther movement is just one giant madlib for "and then, barack obama said __________________ which proved he was not eligible for POTUS"

*sigh*

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You guys are either very gullible or knowingly spreading misinformation.

Lets start with the fact this was the same Lucas Smith that presented a Kenyan birth certificate over a year ago. I do not know if it is the same one but we went over discussing the last one and it was debunked. If this is a different one by the same person seriously now, how many times must you go around fooling yourselves?

Lets see how was the OTHER BIRTH CERTIFACATE DEBUNKED.

Firstly there was a reference to "republic of kenya" on the certificate.
The debunked certificate is a COPY of the original and was was issued on 17th Feb 1964. Kenya was by then the "Republic of Kenya"

Secondly. There were some people who said the registrars name was bogus.

The registrars name that appears copy of the certificate is E F. Lavender

Who was British colonial registrar in Mombasa Kenya in 1961?

Sir Edward F. Lavender
Source(s):
Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library

reply to post by Cytokine_Strom


We will now have a pause in the action on this thread while the "anti-birthers" tasked with refuting all such claims frantically search the internet for some evidence that Sir E. F. Lavender was a really nasty dude back then and therefore liable to make a fake birth certificate for just about anyone ...

This may be a real Kenyan BC, but it's been altered. It's very good, but not good enough.

Just a quick observation shows:

1. The dates are given in multiple formats. DD/MM/YY, DD/MM/YYYY, and (the most important one to point out) MM/DD/YY.

Month, date, year format is American. (I have always wondered why the difference.)

2. This form would have been typed (given the original date of issue)using a typewriter, most likely manual.

Lining up the document would be difficult to perfect, but the typed digits would at least follow a a straight line.

Giving the document a generous allowance for error [with the probability of the typist moving and manipulating the paper to get the typed digits to 'line-up' with the spaces on the form], digit placement is still too random for a ribbon-styled typewriter. By 'random', I'm referring to the sloping of words and spaces that are clearly not linear. (Does this sense?)

Plus the letters are too 'perfect' and also too formal to be a manual typewriter (IMO). We would see more line-breaks and uneven consistency with the ribbon-style ink (basically carbon transfer)

3. It can't be OBs birth certificate, because he was not born in Kenya. He was born in the U.S., most likely Hawaii - could be WA, but not important, given the issue(s) in question.

STOP IT! Seriously! Stop debating the 'place' of birth. It's not his place of birth being covered up. While the outcome (his eligibility) would still be a major issue, it's not as simple as place of birth.

Here's a big clue: ADOPTION



-Sour
Just crossing dots, while using logic and common sense; based on personal experience, 'ah ah' moments of research (most often accidental discovery of a tiny inf 'nugget', while researching random university assignments), other members dissection of this issue: over, and over, and over.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by SourGrapes]

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

One thing I've noticed, and that is that all these threads seem to worry

Don't you worry, I absolutely have no concerns about whether birthers will get their way. 63 failed lawsuits and 3 debunked birth certificates later I am really not concerned. My concern stems from the fact that birthers can get away with so much BS on this forum without been held accountable for it.

me has to ask if it really is such a non-issue,

I actually do believe this is an issue but not in the case of the presidents eligibility. My concern is the sheer ignorance this conspiracy is spreading and the type of people it is breeding.

Now evidently you have already concluded the president is not eligible. You are willing to believe that 18year old 6-8 month pregnant Dunham managed to afford and hop onto a 7 day plane trip to a totally alien country, with a collection of vaccines prior to the trip that no sane doctor would give to a pregnant teen, to a part of Kenya 300 or so miles from where Obama's extended family are. You would rather believe this, and lump the Hawaiian government, the US government into this conspiracy, than to just deal with the fact he was born in Hawaii. It is pathetic, but its this ignorance that is applauded here on ATS. This isn't a non-issue to me, not anymore. It is a serious issue when the deluded are contagious within this community.

You still don't have any facts or conclusive evidence, and yet people like you continue to insist.

Originally posted by Cytokine_Strom
The debunked certificate is a COPY of the original and was was issued on 17th Feb 1964. Kenya was by then the "Republic of Kenya"

Kenya only officially became a Republic on December 1964. That Kenyan birth certificate was dated February 1964.

Secondly. There were some people who said the registrars name was bogus.[

The registrars name that appears copy of the certificate is E F. Lavender

Who was British colonial registrar in Mombasa Kenya in 1961?

Sir Edward F. Lavender
Source(s):
Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library

Can you link the source?

Have you had any verification from Kenyan officials that the birth certificate was authentic? Or do you just choose to take whatever fellow birthers say?

Look I know. You don't like him. There are a number of reasons. There are a number of personal reasons you care not to admit here or to yourself rather. I know! I understand! Hey! Maybe next time they'll get a good ol' boy from the south again. Next time.

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Here's a big clue: ADOPTION

You may be right.

Of course this is real. That is what has been planned ever since he said sorry not interested in running for president. He said that because he knew he was not allowed to. That is also why he was ushered into place by the PTB. Choas is about to be unleashed on the USA, we have the economic problems, the debt, new taxes, gun control, internet censorship (they can turn it off), and now when things get really messy they will kick him out so we get a race war to boot!

some noteworthy info

the doctor listed on this BC was murdered
over 40 years ago on a public street in
Kenya, so he's not
talking however his daughter is. In this
article, she claims her father and Obama's
father were neighbors in Kenya.

One thing I found here was that this doctor's
specialty was not delivering babies but he
worked in curing Tuberculosis.

Why would a research doctor in TB be delivering
babies????

article here:

allafrica.com...


[edit on 17-6-2010 by boondock-saint]

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

One thing I've noticed, and that is that all these threads seem to worry YOU so much that you cannot stop yourself from posting on EVERY one of them.

Now the CT in me has to ask if it really is such a non-issue, exactly why do YOU care so much about it? Why not just let it go? Or is attempting to refute all these threads sort of like a job for you?


Paraphrasing Shakespeare:

Me thinks thou doest protest too much ...

So instead of trying to debunk any of his statements you decided to attack him for posting in so many birther threads, It sounds like you are worried. Simply just debunk what he was saying a moved on, no need to get emotional.

reply to post by MysterE


The very existence of he footrint proves that the document is a fake. While newborn's prints may be commonplace on American certificates, they are not found on certificates issued under British Jurisdiction, and never have been. So whether or not the footprint turns out to be genuine, it should not be on that certificate in the first place. Furthermore, dates on the certificate are written in an American format of mm/dd/yyyy. No British-educated person would use this format, as it is simply not used. We use the dd/mm/yyyy format. Another problem with the certificate is the use of numerals after the surname. This is a habit peculiar to America, and would not appear on a British certificate.

IMHO, the certificate was forged by an American person who has little or no knowledge of Britain or her colonies.

This BC was posted and debunked on ATS at least 6 months ago. First glaring error is the date format as many people already pointed out. Absolutely no way a British colony or protectorate would use mm/dd/yy format. Big fat fake.


Edit: Add related links

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/17/2010 by mythatsabigprobe]

Originally posted by muzzleflash


But the foot print CAN NOT LIE.

There is NO WAY anyone could have got this footprint.

If it matches Obama's footprint it is a sealed deal. I am sorry.

These are the facts.

It all rests on this foundation.

Let us hope that the footprint is not the completely black patch that appears on the copy we see here on this thread. That will be the make or break for this case. When an enlarged version showing the whorls of the footprint is released, then there is reason to suspect the Kenyian BC is real. If the whorls are undeterminable/unreadable, then that is an excellent reason to suspect it a hoax.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Aliensun]

Again? How many fake birth certificates do you need disproved before you finally accept that these documents are forged?

Get one that can be certified legitimate and we'll start talking impeachment, but until then looks like your up the river without a paddle.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
My concern stems from the fact that birthers can get away with so much BS on this forum without been held accountable for it.

I actually do believe this is an issue but not in the case of the presidents eligibility. My concern is the sheer ignorance this conspiracy is spreading and the type of people it is breeding.

Get away with so much? Ever read (or post in) an anti-Bush or anti-Palin thread? Again, why are you personally so concerned? What's it to you if the claim is as absurd as you say? "Flat earthers" also make absurd claims, but no one is hyperventilating over them as you appear to be doing on this issue.

Now evidently you have already concluded the president is not eligible.

No, it's just that I'm maintaining an open mind. There is a lot of "smoke" on this one, so waiting to see if any flames erupt.

This isn't a non-issue to me, not anymore. It is a serious issue when the deluded are contagious within this community.

Now you're sounding like just one more liberal elitist that thinks they can do a better job of thinking and deciding for the rest of us. Take a break. We really don't need your help.

You still don't have any facts or conclusive evidence, and yet people like you continue to insist.

And that also describes the "facts and evidence" on the anti-birther side. Even you must admit that obama himself could have put this all to rest at the very beginning by releasing records instead of having them sealed. That's the one fact that has kept this issue alive - and kept you wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth over it

Originally posted by centurion1211


sort of like a job

Yeah.
Hmmmm.

You may be on to something there!

Originally posted by Alxandro
FINALLY!
A birth certificate with an actual baby footprint.

Is there a toe print expert in the house?

The ones with baby footprints are souvenirs and not legally recognized as birth certificates.

So, if people want to reject a certification of live birth (which the State of Hawaii refers to as a "birth certificate," just like a certificate of live birth) for something that isn't even legally sanctioned, then the goal posts have been shifted so far you're likely to be hit by a semi when you're about to kick.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Look I know. You don't like him. There are a number of reasons. There are a number of personal reasons you care not to admit here or to yourself rather. I know! I understand! Hey! Maybe next time they'll get a good ol' boy from the south again. Next time.

Only took until page two to get the (thinly veiled) accusations of racism.
They never fail.

Originally posted by ogbert


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dfee61d3b85b.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/be608f048025.jpg[/atsimg]

A friend sent them to me via email a few days ago. I do not know where the source or web page they came from is..

[edit on 16-6-2010 by ogbert]

This "new" certificate has dates in MM/DD/YYYY order. The American format. Pretty much everyone else uses DD/MM/YYYY. The British definitely use that format. So right off the bat, this is fake.