Given the similarity of the two SA birth certificates, and the huge difference between the two Kenyan ones alone, it’s safe to say that the Australian one is real while the Kenyan one is fake.
I live in adelaide, and I have seen my parent’s certificates, and from memory they looked the same.
I really don’t think that bomford is in on it at all. I know you guys have invested a lot of time on this, but outside of your circles this really isn’t a big news story. Kind of non existent. Definitely not big enough for people over the other side of the world to be involved! Especially adelaide!! Adelaide is such a sleepy little city.
I only took an interest when I heard the bomford interview on abc radio here.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And to say that somehow, to discredit the birthers movement, a bomford in Kentucky enlisted a relative to spend the time in forging a BC that looks almost idetical to other south Australian BCs, with all information on it that is relevant to the time, (ie naming hospitals that have been closed, old SA coat of arms, addresses that now exist redefined suburb boundries) really is a bit far fetched. To suggest that the Kenyan one is forged to try and either ‘punk’ and make fun of the birthers movement, or be created from within the movement really does make more logical sense.
As I said I live in Adelaide so any questions you have about the city, please ask!
I see no reason why the registry office could not confirm that in 1959 Book 44B was being used, up to the Page 6400 block for example, and that G.F. Lavender was the Registrar (presumably for all of South Australia) and J.H. Miller the District Registrar (presumably for Hindmarsh). It's conceivable that Freedom of Information laws if you have them down there would provide for release of that information upon request, or that libraries might have at least the Registrar information. But mainly I don't see why those in charge of the registry office couldn't just provide that information.
Depending on the answer, it leads to a potentially very different analysis and understanding of what happened. The answer also has to come through official channels or some demonstrably impartial source. For example the ancestry.com posts cannot credibly be challenged and so those prove that somewhere around Book 44B makes sense. There was also a reference from 1915 to an E.F. Lavender that a poster I believe it was elsewhere on this site mentioned a while back:
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/printArticleJpg/1536351/3?print=n
So he could be the father of G.F. Lavender, G.F. following in his footsteps because the occupation is very similar. It's only that Page 5733 that really makes no sense, but maybe their system changed and it means Vol 5 Page 733 of the B series of Books for example. I'm almost certain we'll find there is some explanation like that and it's just a matter of getting official confirmation. This would also make Bomford even less of a suspect, since the perpetrator of the hoax simply used his original as a template and then tipped off someone to trigger the debunking.
If we get confirmation that all four fields are legit, it's virtually 100% certain that the Obama document was designed to be debunked after the bait was taken and it was filed in the court case. The anonymous person claiming credit for punking the birthers may or may not be the one who did it, but whoever did it wanted to be able to right away or as soon as necessary debunk it. The reason they pulled the debunking trigger so quickly was probably because the little things they thought were implausible proved to not be, and so there was a danger it might acquire too much plausibility.