Any idea when it will hit the public news or the courts ? I am sure he will have it deemed Fake.

Does the place of birth say: "Coast General Hospital MOMBASA or is it MOMMAGA"???

How ironic when it ask for the "Christian Name" and the answer is: "Barack Hussein Obama" when we all know that this is NOT A CHRISTIAN NAME!!!

I have to question the validity of the document since the copy states on the bottom of the document that this is a "True copy", and certified by "Simon Joshua Oduya" who is the Deputy Registrar of the Coast Province of Kenya, and yet this birth record was originally entered into their records by the "District Registrar - Mr. Miller" on the Ninth day of August, 1961 and there is another person named: "E.F. Lavender" who also is a registrar yet, no signatures from either of these names in this so called "True" copy of President Barack Obama's original birth record...

The Deputy Registrar - "Simon Joshua Oduya" states this copy was entered in the 17th Day of February 1964 into their Birth Register into book 44B, page 5733... Okay then, does anyone have a copy or the original book 44B showing this on this book's page 5733 to validate this so called "True" copy??? Is this the first copy of the original or is it another copy of many copies taken much later than 1964?

I have to ask this because back then, even though paper was much better in quality when I was born, it would still show some signs of aging by now and, I do not see any hints of deterioration in this copy at all... I know that the birth records in New york City were handled better than most of the third world countries, and preserved in better conditions than in Kenya yet, my own copy of my original birth certificate shows a whole bunch more of deterioration from the original certificate on the copy as it was transferred as part of the details picked up from the machine during the copying process, and this Simon Joshua Oduya" states that the form is a "True" copy of the record found in book 44B, page 5733!!! The raised seal also raises my eyebrows as well but, I cannot tell much without getting a better look at it's details based on the quality of the photo itself.

Well this sure doesn't look like a "TRUE" copy from any book since it doesn't even show the page number which would've transferred on to this supposedly "TRUE" copy of our President's birth record. In other words, I'm not convinced at all that this paper is in fact legitimate at all IMHO!!! The only date that I see that represents this copy is on the top of the page, and it only specifies the year as: "1961" The paper quality is too good for it to be signed in 1964 and that was the first obvious "Red flag' for me.

Now don't get me wrong because, I'm not a recognized authority on judging the authenticity of documents but, this photo clearly is showing that there are too many things in the body of this copy for me to question it's authenticity such as some of the details I mentioned in the previous paragraphs, and in these days of "Adobe Photoshop" digital photographic technology, one can easily "create" authentic looking documents for just about anything so, IMHO, it's just a picture without any validity whatsoever to authenticate it at all... When I see some sort of proof that authenticates and validates it as being a "True" copy of our current president's birth record - then it's just another picture!!!

I have some experience back when I was younger than when I got into welding, and metalworking - with being able to look for clues of alterations, judging copies for certain transfers of details that would be found in the copies papers, documents, stamps from their originals which I was taught to look for by my other grandfather who was an avid, and recognized stamp collector & numismatist who's stamp collection was one of the most extensive ones in this country back in the days of President Lyndon B. Johnson because, the ex-president himself at the time was interested in purchasing some of his stamp collection just before my grandfather passed away back in 1972.

The quality of the paper shown in the picture is too new to be a true copy which is dated as far back as 1964 unless, it is a copy of the original copy, and if it was just that, then some sort of aging marks representing deterioration in one form or another would have been transferred from the original copy to the one being shown in the picture, and I do not see anything that would lead me to believe it's authenticity. Possibly Photoshop??? No offense Gerald. :) :) :) I guess more will be revealed later!!! It should be interesting indeed Gerald. ;) ;) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry   

Your spelling of the word 'prove' in the topic heading is interesting.  I am just kidding.  I am glad to see eveyone getting along!