Replies

The true “Birther” people do not trust any BC images to be real.

And guess what?

The Bomford BC is a forgery, dear people.

A bad one, too.

This is an image with the text superimposed over a scanned and folded printout.

The actual width of the Kenyan BC document is 9.5”

The visible width of the Bomford BC is only 8.1”

With a length of 11.6”, that means the printout was on 8.5” x 14” legal size paper, and the reason why the width is only 8.1”, is because most printers don’t print to the edges of the paper.

You know...the margins? They had to be removed.

You can clearly see where the top and sides were cut off.

On Taitz’s BC, the width of the bottom rule is 7.87,” while on the Bomford BC, the width of the same rule is 7.45,” so the size of the Bomford BC was reduced.

When a piece of paper is folded, the typed or printed letters running in them or over them, get distorted.

In Taitz’s BC, almost all of the letters show both their proper perspective and expected distortions to the letters that run over the fold lines. However, that document in the photo can also be a printout of a forged one, too.

Now, what is up with this?

Nearly all of the letters on the Bomford BC are not distorted in any way by the fold lines beneath them.

Example: No distortion in the “H” in “Hand”, but fold goes right under it.

Example: At the bottom is the phrase, “for the State of South Australia.” The “s” in “South” is identical to the “S” in “State,” although a big fold line runs right below the “S” in “South.”

And, what is up with this?

About 80% of all the letters have fold lines running between them.

There are two distorted fold lines that should not be there...but they also snake their way in between letters.

Now, that’s Jack!

Seems like the bugger who did this removed the perspective from an image to make it appear flat. That is what makes a straight fold line snake-like.

When I upped the contrast and lowered the bright (gamma) on the Bomford BC, there appear rainbow-colored lines (mostly blue) in place of the black ones.

Hello?

There is a multi-colored stain/spill area, about two to three inches in width, along the entire right edge, but it mysteriously stops short of “J. H. Miller” and just misses the remainder of the text below it.

Huh?

A narrower, two-shaded stain also appears on the Taitz’s photo of the Kenyan BC, but, unlike the Bomford BC, the stain does not bypass the text below “J. H. Miller.”

Hmm...

There are also phantom fold lines running perpendicular to the folds on the right side of the Bomford BC.

The fold line in the third-section down/first-section left is angled right to left, but fold line below it is perpendicular.

That would never happen that way just by folding the paper.

The Taitz BC has problems, too, like the bright reflections that only appear on the sides of a few folds.

Also, take a gander at the “A” in the two last “August” dates: all of the “A’s” before these are much darker, like a repeating key on the typewriter.

If the question is, “Which came first,” I’d have to say that the Taitz BC was not forged from the Bomford BC, but both may have come from another image.

This whole thing stinks to high Heaven, and once again, Birthers never trust any image to be real.

http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged-kenyan-document-splinters-birther-movement#comment-15423759