Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:53 PM PDT by Calpernia
There are now modified photos of the COLB that broke here yesterday. The changes are so slight, that no one is noticing them.
The original one posted in breaking news:
One of the modified ones:
The changes are so subtle, you can barely tell which one you are looking at.
This modified one is showing jokes like: The Font of the Certificate=Schmutz (A Schmutz is a chump, as in you are a chump) #5733=The number of the Certificate, is code for : "Problem with Windows REGISTRY", a sly reference to your claim that Obama does not appear on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry. 47O44=Easiest of all. BOH's age=47 0=O (if you look close you can tell that that is a Schmutz Font "Oh" not "Zero") EF Lavender is ORGANIC DISH SOAP
The original one does not say EF Lavender, it says KF Lavender. The original one shows the number is: 47,644.
Has anyone actually seen another “Republic of Kenya” birth certificate issued before December 1964?
Simple question. Sure would add a lot of credibility to the Taitz Kenyan COLB.
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.
And if it was a UK form... how come it has “Kenya” etc on it? The place had had its own administration for half a century.
+++++++++++++++
Let me put it this way, perhaps the form was printed in Great Britain (initially), or designed with help from a British printer, or designed from some kind of British empire template, etc., and then the price on the sheet may have not been changed - I don’t know. One issue with this document is, how did that 7s 6d designation get there (if the form is legit.)
Except... the South Australian form was printed by the South Australian Government printer, it had nothing to do with the UK. There is no “British Empire template”. Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Gibralter, etc etc all have their own ways of doing things. Most used pounds, shillings and pence, but the East African administration (including several former German colonies) had their own currency, as did Canada, because of the French parts.
Now maybe... someone in Kenya contracted the job of making birth certificates out, and they subcontracted to this obscure printer in South Australia, who quietly and illegally did the job using government equipment in the dead of night or in weekends, and maybe they saved money by ignoring the Kenyan requirements and just using the South Australian plates, and just changing a few words and the crest, but screwing up and not changing the price.... and no-one noticed... so they somehow smuggled these out and the Kenyans accepted delivery...
Sorry, my disbelief-suspenders just snapped.
LOL...just scrolling through and thought the same thing!
This has been solved, apparently by more than one person.
The seal on the Bomford certificate includes the symbol for the government of South Australia. It has a lion and a unicorn instead of a kangaroo and a dodo.
Another nail in the coffin. Where's the source on this?
The claim that Monbasa was not “in Kenya” in 1961 or 1964 has not been “correctly pointed out.” This DU talking point was based on the fact that the coastal strip was NOMINALLY (in name only) under the Sultan of Zanzibar, who had leased it to the British years earlier.
It was “not in Kenya” nominally.
De facto it “was in Kenya.” Mombasa was very much a part of the British East Africa colony, being its major port.
In the fall of 1963 the emerging independent government of Kenya signed a deal to end even the nominal suzereignty held by Zanzibar.
So by Feb. 1964 Mombasa was “in Kenya.”
Moreover, the “Coastal Province” which is the unit of government to which this registry belongs is that Coastal Strip containing Mombasa. This is not a document that would have been issued out of Nairobi. If it is genuine (and I’m not saying it is), it is a document of the government of the coastal region that had once been nominally under Zanzibar but practically under British East Africa. The rest of British East Africa was turning into Kenya during 1963 and 1964; this unit had its own identity (led by an opposition party to Kenyatta in Nairobi) but definitely wanted to go with the emerging Kenya rather than going with Zanzibar (which eventually, but some years later, believe, become Tanzania—Tangyanika, Nyasaland, Zanzibar).
Putting “Republic of Kenya” on government forms could make sense if this “Coastal Province” was intent on demonstrating its Kenyanness rather than its Zanzibarianness.
But until someone produces an authentic Coastal Province document from this era with Republic of Kenya on it, the above remains a plausible but not definitive explanation.
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)?
Bomfords in Australia connected to Lefty Zero-Loving Bomford in Kentucky with the Facebook Page
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.
Good, clear post. Thank you.
I’ve got a question: Why is it so darn hard to find another sample of either contemporaneous Kenyan or South Australian Birth Certificates?
I’m going to try to post inquiries on some of the social websites’ geographical relationship pages. The suspense is tantalizing. I’m keeping an open mind and looking at each piece of the puzzle objectively. I agree with you that the key is to see contemporaneous post-birth certifications.
Respectfully, Zoe Brain’s analysis remains incomplete and therefore does not show an advantage for any one inference. If we had comparable samples of Kenyan documents to the Queensland and Victoria samples, we would then know whether a similar pattern of consistent data points was present there or not. Without that comparison, its as if you have only looked at all the available evidence on one side of the question while only looking at half the evidence on the other.
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.
I should add that for the 1948 South Australia, 2008 Victoria etc. we are all taking in good faith that Zoe Brain and RubyR have posted authentic documents. That’s the unwieldyness of it all. In order really to use these as controls on the authenticity of Bomford or Taitz, we need to know the chain of custody of these internet images. Did Zoe Brain have paper copies in front of him/her and directly photographed and uploaded them? Ditto for RubyR. I’m not trying to impugn either of them. I’m just sayin’ that the proper comparison for all of these documents ultimately has to be paper to paper to paper or else we need character witnesses for RubyR and Zoe Brain.
Short of that, we can speculate about what these additional internet sample birth certifications tell us about Taitz or Bomford but they don’t prove much.
Sorry, 2197 should have also had Zoe Brain and RubyR in the address box.
Try this site...
http://www.gordonmumford.com/kenyakorner/kenya-h.htm
My reference to 628 should have been to 630.
I also notice that the 1948 South Australian certificate does not, as far as I can see from # 620, have “South Australia Government Printer” at the bottom, but it’s hard to tell. Perhaps RubyR can clarify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
