Ak, All this has been discussed in this thread but I will summarize quickly. Its not a certificate of birth in the picture, it's a certified copy issued by some one's request in Feb 1964. Probably for the Obama divorce that was linked earlier. Just because they claim they can't find the original doesn't mean anything. We don't know where the picture was taken. Perhaps they didn't have a scanner with them and used a digital camera. If you trade any you should know that coincidental numbers show up all the time. 47044 is no big deal. Consider all the coincidences with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. All this petty nitpicking when Obama's fake certificate has African as the race on it . Lavender is a common English name. Here is a bunch of them. http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/lavender-family-crest.htm Why even bother with it? Y'all don't care anyway that we have a lying communist as Prez. John
It is pertinent to ask why would it be issued "in 1964 for a child born three years earlier who was not even living in the country at the time?" Where does it say in Taitz's motion that it was issued at someone's request for a divorce etc? The point being made here is that a photograph of the document is being used as opposed to its being scanned with an optical scanner to hide forgery flaws. To wit: Photography is inferior to optical scanning. As the saying goes "the proof is in the pudding." We'll find out in due course whether the document is a forgery although there is no doubt in my mind that it is indeed so. You're missing the insinuation here.The blogger is being audacious enough to suggest that the document is not only a forgery but also a hoax due to the ostensible coincidences with the numbers and the peculiar name of the registrar. While obvious that it is a forgery, I'm not bold enough to call it a hoax. I don't believe so. However that topic is a non sequitur in terms of this discussion. It is relevant however to point out that it is obvious to the majority of people, including pleasantly surprising ones such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to name a few, that Obama is not lying about his birth certificate. The blogger and several others have brought out many indisputable facts that contradict the validity of this document and they make perfect sense to sane individuals. Jfc, you had made a big deal earlier about Russians refusing to shake Obama's hand and you were proven palpably wrong. I would venture to say that you're headed in the same direction here.
Ak, I don't know why it was issued in Feb 1964. It doesn't matter. The timing with the Divorce is a plausible guess but who knows? Any investigator would examine the document not the image. Not sure why the hang up on how it was taken. As established, Lavender is a proper English name. Not sure why a proper name combined with a number is such a big deal. Here is an EF Lavender which means the name was in use. If it can show up in one place it can show up in another. http://constitutionallyspeaking.wor...f-lavender-worked-for-the-british-government/ I didn't make any of this up. I gave you links to everything. I am just the messenger. Why doesn't your guy just show his Birth Certificate? John
I hope they make it look more bona fide and authentic. This one was pathetic and that's being generous.
There is no birth certificate except the one Obama has shown. None. Nada. The Hawaiians went paperless in 2001, this is it, the only one, the sine quo non.
Uhhhh, was that Kenyan thingy supposed to be some crappy copy of the long Kenyan form thingy, or some crapy copy of the short form Kenyan thingy?