That statement among others. He was reiterating the comments he had read.
I do not believe that Polarik takes this as “Bogus” birth document. This document is as good as you or anyone is going to get from the registrar in any Kenyan district. There isn’t anything inherently bogus about it in the way that there is with the Hawaii COLB in that there is not another actual “Birth Certificate” as the primary document.
In Kenya, the proimary document is a big heavy book, with sequentially numbered intact pages, and the birth record is inscribed on one of these pages. That is the primary record, and it is not avialable for issuance. All anyone will get is an attestation in a prescribed form as to its content. That is what was issued in 1964. It is a real document with typed words on it and a signature, which makes it much more amenable to verification than a laser printed sheet of paper with no real signature.
He said it was bogus earlier on this LOOOOOOONG thread. Can't remember the number. Perhaps in the 2000s?
The reason it appears to me that the first sentences are in Polarik’s own voice saying that the Kenyan birth certificate is bogus, is the regular font here:
“However, the bottom line is that it’s another BOGUS BIRTH DOCUMENT. It’s not a birth certificate at all. Here are a few findings by the members of the group and from other contacts:”
Then the quoted statements change to italic font, until the end of the comment where the regular font returns with this:
“I also found a number of anomalies that shout, “Forgery.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=4121#4121