Replies

I'm Australian. Actually, I have dual Aus/UK nationality, and a UK BC.

I live in Australia.

The different states of Australia are like the different states of the USA. Each has their own special way of doing things. But since about 1941, IIRC, all the states agreed to have the same data on each of their BCs, though of course the forms vary.

here's a Victorian BC:

There's one from NSW here that's a bit big.

Here's one from Queensland:

All have, at minimum, and in order, Child data, Mother data and Father data, some have marriage data but others don't as kids will be born out of wedlock on occasion, previous children of relationship data, informant data, and registrar data.Now different states use different forms, and have changed them as printing and lately computer technology has improved. For example, the Victorian one, while it records a birth in 1956, is just a printout from the data in the registry made in 2008, and so was done on a laser printer. The originally issued one would have looked different, but had the same data on.

You’ve posted samples from Queensland and Victoria. Have you seen a South Australian form from this era? That’s what we need. Since the “South Australian Government Printer” is not on both forms, unless we know that it is found on authentic South Australian certifications of this era it remains possible that Bomford was made from Taitz and not the other way around.

If you can post some direct evidence about South Australian BCs of this era—the book numbering system, the “government printer” note, you will drive a stake through the heart of the Taitz document.

But Victoria and Queensland docs, while helpful, don’t prove that Bomford is genuine and Taitz is fake.

And it does seem clear that Bomford has been doctored. It might have been doctored from a genuine South Australian certificate. That’s the issue.

You keep insisting that there’s a standard set of data for Australian BCs that differs from UK, Canada etc., and that the Taitz document follows that Australian data set. But your samples from Queensland and Victoria make no reference to registry book and page numbers.

That may be because your samples are later certifications of earlier births that simply omit the book/page references.

But even if that’s the explanation, at the very least, your samples do not have the same data points as the Bomford alleged South Australian certification or the Taitz alleged Kenyan certification.

I don’t think your argument from standard Australian data points is that strong because your own samples don’t match the alleged South Australian Bomford in a key point where Taitz and Bomford match.

We need to know about authentic South Australian post-birth certifications from this era. Did South Australia use a book/page system? Did Queensland and Victoria (but omitted that data on post-birth certifications)?

To refine the nub of the issue: your one actual post-birth certification is from 2008 and omits reference to book/page number in the registry books but does state that such registers exist. By 2008 at least, post-birth certifications in Victoria omitted book/page references. The second sample is just that, pure sample, so it wasn’t “issued” in 2008 or 1964 or at any real time.

If the Bomford document is genuine, it means that in South Australia in the 1960s post-birth certifications did include book/page information. We need samples from that era from South Australia to see if this is really the way things were done then. We know it was not done in Victoria in 2008 but that’s a different time and different state.

We have the same problem with Australia that we have with Kenya. So far no one has gained access to post-birth certifications from the early 1960s in Kenya or in South Australia. We have some oranges and kiwis and pineapple samples for comparison to the apples that we want to authenticate.

Until we get some indubitably genuine apples (South Australian or Kenyan post-birth certifications from the 1950s or 1960s, preferably between 1955 and 1965, for Kenya we need precisely from early 1964 given the fluidity of the government situation in Kenya in that era), other “close but no cigar” evidence just doesn’t prove much one way or the other. Bomford could have been copied from Taitz or Taitz from Bomford. That at least one of them has been digitally manipulated is clear (Bomford). But it could have been done from a genuine template and if so, then Taitz is also a fake. But we need genuine South Australian post-birth certifications from the early 1960s.