[Houghton M.]

Well, not quite the best we’ve had yet. See

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308435/posts?page=620#620 for a South Australian 1948 certification of an 1884 birth.

It’s closer to the Bomford/Taitz yet does not have as many data fields as those two. It does refer to book/page registry but to a book 323. See my 628 on that same thread—the 1948 document does not disqualify the Bomford but neither does it unqualifiedly confirm that Bomford is genuine (even if digitally manipulated) and Taitz is fake.

We still need another point of triangulation from South Australia (from late 1950s or early 1960s), which could go a long way to eliminating either Bomford or Taitz or both. Something from Kenya would be even better, but the likelihood of that is ZerO.

[Eagle Forgotten]

Something from Kenya would be even better, but the likelihood of that is ZerO.

I agree, that would be even better. Why should the likelihood of finding such be zero, though? Certainly some people were born in Mombasa in 1961, and presumably some sort of records were kept. Unless a few Kenyan government offices burned to the ground, taking with them all copies of the records, examples should exist. Somebody born at approximately the right time should be willing to authorize release of his or her records, either for the publicity thrill or in exchange for a few bucks.

What's frustrating is that WND claimed to have compared the Taitz document with Kenyan exemplars. So why can't WND just post copies of whatever they looked at? It makes one suspect that WND was blowing smoke about the authenticity. (I don't think Orly Taitz herself claimed to have done such a comparison.)