Replies

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.

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)?

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.

It's true the match isn't exact. On the other hand, we do see from Zoe Brain's examples that other Australian states use the same general format (two columns of boxes). That isn't used in Obama's posted Hawaiian document, or in my own birth certificate (from a different U.S. state). Hence, these examples are at least somewhat suggestive that the Bomford and Taitz documents are both in a format used in Australia.

That's more than we have concerning Kenya. WND's original report said, "WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical." I join with others in this thread who've said that WND should immediately post those certificates (with identifying details blacked out, if need be) and explain where they came from. Until then, what Zoe Brain has provided is the best evidence available.