Kenyan document ignites firestorm over authenticity (Let's Discuss Bomford HERE)

WND ^ | 8/4/09 | Staff

[pissant]

A document unveiled by a California attorney in her quest to determine President Obama's place of birth has been condemned as a forgery by critics who deride as nonsense the challenges that have been raised to the president based on the U.S. Constitution's demand that the Oval Office occupant be a "natural born" citizen.

But those on the other side, who would like to see the original documentation of Obama's birth place revealed, say there are factors that indicate the Kenyan birth document could be real.

WND reported when the document was submitted to a California court by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has managed several of the high-profile cases challenging Obama's eligibility to be president.

Then yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised the dispute to the floor of that august body, protesting in a speech added to the Congressional Record that the dispute was not worth one minute of time.

[Mount Athos]

"Credit given to you for posting the correct 1963 Constitution."

YOU DON’T KNOW IF THEY USED REPUBLIC OF KENYA ON THEIR DOCUMENTS.

I didn't say I did.

You are hallucinating.

The question is yet to be resolved.

I have said this many times in my postings.
Maybe your reading comprehension is poor tonight.

So stop beating a dead horse. Staggers the imagination.

As long as people keep asserting false claims, I'll keep correcting them. If it's a dead horse they are the ones responsible for perpetuating false claims.

[MuHAfz]

Lurked here forever and it brought the Kenya BC issue to bring my geek ass out of the woodwork..

Just a heads up to anyone trying to suss out the Bomford Geneology site. It has been around since 2005 and David Jeffery Bomford was apparently listed on the site since its inception. The Wayback Machine Internet Archive has this from back in 2005. It has David Jeffery Bomford listed with a link to a photo of his birth certificate.

Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't archive links to individual photos, but the photo link has stayed active since 2005 as http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg

Now, whether this individual changed the photo to a photoshopped image to discredit the Kenya BC is another issue. Yet, it's still entirely possible that Mr. Bomford is just a victim of some lefty forger trying to muddy the issue of Obama's citizenship. I advise caution; no need to drag a senior citizen into the mud without due cause.

[PatriciaG]

http://www.jookos.com/media/7824/uncovered-cali-lawyer-finds-obama-kenya-birth-certificate.html

I understand there were a flurry of fakes so the real one would be obscured. Is the one I have posted one of the fakes?

[henbane]

I suppose you could deduce from the Weblo site that Daniel Loxton is into digital imagery, and he's somehow connected with our David Jeffrey Bomford--relatives, perhaps

Daniel Loxton is definitly interested in David Jeffrey Bomford in some manner not readily apparent.

The "Not Available" image with Bomford's name on it(near the robot pic) yields this image title when its "Properties" is right-clicked.

http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg

[Mount Athos]

There weren’t fakes, some pixels were lost in image recompression to make an F look like a K and a 0 like a 6. It’s not a big deal. The person who did the conversion was a freeper who was helping the community converting acrobat to jpeg. (or was it png)

[woofie]

Yep I just found it .....through facebook

[Shelayne]

"The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs has acquired possession of a color copy of one certain document (attached as Exhibit A to this motion)"

... "even though the undersigned counsel makes absolutely no pre-judgment or prediction regarding the actual authenticity of the document of which only a color copy taken by a camera at an odd angle, which is attached herein as Exhibit A."

Whoa Nellie, I know it's really late, and I am really tired, but this cannot be saying that she only possesses a photo of the document and not the original document, can it? IANAL by any stretch, but IF that were the case, wouldn't this be just laughed out of court?

This whole thing has been such a rollercoaster ride, I think I need to go visit the merry-go-round for awhile. Oy. ;^)

[john in springfield]

Can you find somewhere a south australian “certified copy of registration of birth”? Or any australian birth doc with a book and a page on it?

When I say the Australian one looks more genuine, here's what I mean:

1) Use a graphics program to expand both of them to high resolution. The Australian one, around the letters, looks like a photograph of a lettered document. The Kenyan one has heavy pixellation around the letters, and looks like the text was selected from some other document and dropped onto its background. If you examine them both in this way, you will see that the Kenyan one looks very fake.

2) Examine the seal of both documents.

a) You can actually READ THE WORDS on the seal of the Australian one. It says, "PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR'S OFFICE * SOUTH AUSTRALIA."

b) Blow it up as large as you like and examine the pixels closely. It shows NO sign whatsoever of being fake or having been added to the image. The ground between the embossed-paper image and the paper itself is as smooth as the rest of the document. There is NO indication of its being fake or its having been added.

c) Now contrast that with the Kenyan "seal." Try to read the Kenyan one. READ it? Hell, you can't even tell it's a SEAL. It's a totally blurry image that might just as well have been a coin that someone pressed into the paper. COMPLETELY different.

3) The Australian certificate bears information about the printer at the bottom. The Kenyan one does not. Yes, a small point, but EXTREMELY telling, for the following reasons:

a) It's definitely not the kind of thing one would simply add if one were starting from the Kenyan certificate and making a forged copy.

b) Examined closely, at say 1000% to 1500% magnification (which is how I examined the rest of these documents), like the rest of the Australian certificate, it shows ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN OF BEING ADDED IN. Completely UNLIKE the Kenyan certificate.

If this is a forgery, it looks to be a hell of a good one, and if the Kenyan one is genuine, it looks to be a hell of a bad one!

c) A quick Google search affirms that the printer listed is a REAL AND LEGITIMATE printer in Adelaide. We have no less than 1,200 Google references to the printer.

And 700 of those affirm that the named printer is an official printer for the government.

No, gentlemen, I'm afraid you've been PWNED. And the PWNer who did it to you is probably sitting in front of his computer right now, laughing his butt off.

[john in springfield]

I still can’t say whether the BH0 Kenyan BC is authentic or not however the Australian one is almost certainly fake.

Get a graphics program, blow both up to 1200%, then examine them both carefully, including the seal, and then talk to us.

[PureSolace]

I felt like drawing some circles...

special Thanks for wndawmn666 and Natural Born 54 for pointing this out.

[woofie]

Ping to #344

Bingo!!

http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg

Of course this is no longer available

Thanks a bunch

[john in springfield]

The article is a great find. However, a close reading show that it produces no proof at all that the KADU ever proclaimed that particular area the "Republic of Kenya."

Why do we not have the rest of the October 1963 article? I'd like to read the rest.

The second article, dated January 1, 1964 states, "...to celebrate the transfer of REGIONAL powers to the area..." (emphasis mine). It refers to the region throughout as "Kenya Coast Region," "Kenya's Coast Region," and "the Coast Region." NO mention WHATSOEVER is made of a "Republic of Kenya." Instead, we have the above variations of "Coast Region" no less than FIVE times. Mr. Ngala is referred to as "President of the Coast Region." We are specifically told that the new powers include "land administration, education, municipalities, county councils, finance, agriculture and veterinary services, forestry..."

This is NOT the announcement of some new country. It's a celebration of REGIONAL autonomy WITHIN Kenya. We are even EXPLICITLY told, "Mr. Ngala said that if the regional flag was approved, it would fly side by side WITH THE NATIONAL FLAG. THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF REGARDING THE COAST REGION AS SEPARATE FROM THE REST OF KENYA."

So we have clear evidence here as to what the Coast Region was up to in January of 1964: MORE REGIONAL AUTONOMY AS PART OF THE NEWLY INDEPENDENT NATION THAT HAD JUST BEEN OFFICIALLY NAMED, IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION, "KENYA."

In fact, as far as I can see, it's just a hair's breadth away from being fairly clear proof that the Coast Region in early 1964 EXPLICITLY DID NOT refer to itself as the "Republic of Kenya."

[woofie]

http://washingtonindependent.com/53722/david-bomford-talks-about-the-forgers-who-used-his-birth-certificate-to-smear-obama

David Bomford Talks About the Forgers Who Used His Birth Certificate to Smear Obama

By David Weigel 8/4/09 10:36 AM
PM, a series on the Australian Broadcast Channel, tracked down David Bomford, the man whose Australian birth certificate was used as the basis for the forged “Obama Kenyan birth certificate” that Orly Taitz posted online Sunday.

The key bit of the interview:

DINA ROSENDORFF: Looking over the documents in question Mr Bomford still can’t quite believe his eyes.

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It’s little old me and my mum and everything else up there. Oh I definitely confirm that the birth certificate was mine. That was quite easy to see – my address, even the style of the birth certificate was an old South Australian one.

So it’s quite easy to identify that it’s mine.

DINA ROSENDORFF: And looking at the fake Kenyan birth certificate what do you make of it?

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It’s definitely a copy of my certificate. It’s so laughable it’s ridiculous.

Adam Serwer asks whether this could be the end of the “birther” movement. That seems unlikely, but it’s at least as dangerous to their movement as the fake documents in the 2004 CBS News story on George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard was to liberals and Democrats who wanted to prove that Bush skipped out on his duties. Orly Taitz, in particular, has stopped being an amusing curiosity, and become a scandalous figure even inside the birther movement who submitted fraudulent documents to courts of law.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://patrickhenrypress.info/?q=node/19767

David Bomford Is Not Barack Obama
Posted Tue, 08/04/2009 - 14:40 by admin
Comedy. Via The Washington Independent, the Australian Broadcast Channel found the man whose birth certificate was used in the latest chapter of the racist, birther movement’s quest to prove Barack Obama isn’t really an American citizen:

DINA ROSENDORFF: Looking over the documents in question Mr Bomford still can’t quite believe his eyes.

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It’s little old me and my mum and everything else up there. Oh I definitely confirm that the birth certificate was mine. That was quite easy to see – my address, even the style of the birth certificate was an old South Australian one.

So it’s quite easy to identify that it’s mine.

DINA ROSENDORFF: And looking at the fake Kenyan birth certificate what do you make of it?

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It’s definitely a copy of my certificate. It’s so laughable it’s ridiculous.

Unfortunately, there is nothing too ridiculous for the birthers to latch onto. Oh, and Lou Dobbs.

[DoorGunner]

>>”they became a republic on Dec 12th 1964, exactly a year after independence. They even released 5 postage stamps to announce and celebrate their becoming a republic.”

Do you think that they maybe printed those 5 stamps BEFORE December 12th, 1964? Maybe the certificates of registration early, also. And began using them early, too.

The path from Colony to independent Nation had been, for them, long, bloody, (MauMau) and (toward the end) structured.

During the final year, waiting for states, they could begin using the new form, either officially, or as a gesture of defiance.

DG

[john in springfield]

Those are really nice circles, but I'm not certain what your point is.

What you've pointed out is an argument for the authenticity of the Bomford certificate (as if we actually needed one following the public statement of the real person whose certificate it is...)

In the days of manual typewriters, the "L" key was frequently used as a substitute for the "1" key. Why? Because they looked so much alike that nobody cared about the difference. And the L key was a LOT easier to strike, because the "1" key was waaaay up at the top, and had to be struck - HARD - with the PINKY finger of the LEFT hand.

And that was just not easy.

I can tell you precisely why the earliest occurence is a "1" and every subsequent occurence is an "L." It's because the typist started off with the proper key, and then got lazy.

In fact, that initial "1" may well have been struck with an index finger, and not with the pinky at all.

All of which indicates that this document was typed by a REAL typist, on a REAL MANUAL (and probably pre-electric) typewriter.

[truthfreedom]

Wow there buddy, that’s a lot of words, and yet you didn’t answer my questions at all. It was almost as if you can’t even read.

Here are the 2 points.

1) They don’t seem to care about books and pages.
Let me explain this to you yet again.

Both forms have the word Book and then a blank space then a comma, then the word Page and then a blank space. In both docs, the blank space after Page is filled in with 44B and the blank space after Book is filled in with 5733.

Here’s the point, and I hope you and others get it. I HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA USED A SYSTEM OF BOOKS AND PAGES. If South Australia didn’t use a system of books and pages, then how can there be a form with a filled in space after Book and a filled in space after Page? Only if it’s 100% totally fake. Do you think that a real form would exist in South Australia with a space after Book if they don’t keep records that way? How do you suppose training would go? “Uh, boss, it says Book and theres a space, then Page and a space, what do Book and Page mean, and what do I fill in there?” “I have no idea, just put in 44B after Book and 5733 after Page” Seriously buddy, is that how you think it worked? Now, I’m not certain that they didn’t use books and pages as part of their system, but, again, we’ve seen plenty of birth certificates, and none contain a mention of a book or a page. The fact that we’ve seen those certs, and no mention of books and pages really tends to lead to the assumption that they didn’t use books and pages.

2) Very similar to point 1. I have seen no evidence that South Australia used documents that functioned similar to birth certificates that were entitled “CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH”

I don’t care at all what you think “looks more genuine” We’re comparing pictures. If we were looking at paper, then we’ll talk about what looks more genuine.

YOU’RE OBVIOUSLY A TROLL.

[Tejava]

Does anyone have any old encyclopedias they can reference? Check both Kenya, and Jomo Kenyatta. Also I found this book as a good possible source in google scholar:

The Politics of independent Kenya, 1963-8. —
by Cherry J. Gertzel
(London)
Pagination: xii, 180 p. ; 23 cm. —
ISBN 10: 0435833510
Subject: Kenya — Politics and government.

[john in springfield]

I HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA USED A SYSTEM OF BOOKS AND PAGES.

Are you kidding me?

This was 1964. What were they going to use in South Australia? IBM PCs? Full-building mainframes? Stacks of loose paper that would fall all over the floor?

Have you never gone to a county courthouse and gone through their old public records? Do you not have the slightest clue that public records are kept bound in BOOKS that have PAGES, and that reference to documents is made to a specific BOOK and a specific PAGE?

Your (apparent) claim that South Australia MUST have used some other system than books (with pages) only makes you look silly.

Oh, and by the way, I do encourage you to closely examine both documents at about 1200% magnification, like I suggested. I think anyone who does will come to the same conclusion I did.

Oh, and see the post above in which the real person referred to in the Australian birth certificate has given an interview.

Like I say, you been PWNED.

[PureSolace]

Maybe what you say is true, and maybe it's not. That's why I'm drawing circles. :) I just want to find the truth.

And thanks, I thought they were nice circles too! :)

[woofie]

http://wikiality.wikia.com/David_Jeffrey_BomfordDavid Jeffrey Bomford

From Wikiality, the Truthiness Encyclopedia

Stephen has sent you a very special truthy-filled message on Escape Mechanism Wiki, Mortal Kombat, Scratchpad
Jump to: navigation, search

David Jeffrey Bomford
is too Australian for the average American.
For other things Australian, click here
Mahmoud Ahmedi-David Jeffrey Bomford-nejad is a terrorist.

Bomford giving orders via secret messages.
David Jeffrey Bomford is the president of the Australian chapter of The Society Of Secret Muslims and his work as Senior Restorer of Paintings at the National Gallery of Sydney works perfectly into his scheme as a master forger.

Contents
[hide]
1 Early Life & Education
2 Life Of Crime
2.1 Master Forger
2.2 Secret Muslim
2.3 Other
3 External Tubes

[edit] Early Life & Education
[edit] Life Of Crime
[edit] Master Forger
[edit] Secret Muslim
[edit] Other
[edit] External Tubes
Bomford’s criminal record
Bomford may not be real!

David Jeffrey Bomford is an article about a person who is not Stephen.
Please add more details so America can better judge David Jeffrey Bomford’s worthiness.
Retrieved from “http://wikiality.wikia.com/David_Jeffrey_Bomford";
Categories: Australian | Terrorist | Biographical Stub

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

note:

Restorer of Paintings at the National Gallery of Sydney works perfectly into his scheme as a master forger.