Article

2009-08-06 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2009-08-06 08:06|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 It's only a "plot" if they expected somebody to actually believe the obvious fake. Otherwise, it's a "joke"...

Posted by mojo 2009-08-06 11:16|| 2009-08-06 11:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Well, like I said, this got more interesting/amusing.

Here's the "Aussie" doc, now taken down.

Here's the "Kenyan" doc.

Which is the forgery? Both? If both, which came first? It's not credible that they both are genuine.

If the Aussie one is a forgery, how did it get on the geneology website? (The copy I posted was taken directly from http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg.)

A fascinating possibility is that the Aussie doc is genuine and the "Kenyan" doc was forged with deliberate references to the Aussie doc. The "Kenyan" doc was then fenced to gullible people, and when the moment was right, the Aussie doc was exposed, discrediting the gullible.

It seems a little early to expose it, though.

Has anyone pointed out that Kenyan docs of that period don't resemble the doc in question?

Posted by KBK 2009-08-06 11:19|| 2009-08-06 11:19|| Front Page Top

#3 WND has posted a sample 1961 Kenyan birth certificate. The format is entirely different, so the "Kenyan" doc is a forgery, and it appears Taitz is hooked.

Posted by KBK 2009-08-06 13:01|| 2009-08-06 13:01|| Front Page Top

23:26 ed
23:21 ed
23:17 ed
22:57 ed
22:54 ed
22:53 3dc
22:48 ed
22:41 Frank G
22:38 ed
22:23 OldSpook
22:23 Unitle Borgia4836
22:23 OldSpook
22:22 OldSpook
22:22 OldSpook
22:21 OldSpook
22:17 Zhang Fei
22:12 Unitle Borgia4836
22:06 3dc
21:48 AlmostAnonymous5839
21:30 trailing wife
21:26 Alaska Paul
21:22 Hellfish
21:16 DMFD
21:16 trailing wife