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.

[woofie]

Any wasy to figure out who he is?

I thought he did interviews

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I'd just like to point out something...many of the folks arguing the hardest(this thread and others) that the Kenyan cert is the fake seem to have all mysteriously joined on 10-24 thru 10-28, 2008. Odd I suppose.

Smells like a pattern to me....

[pissant]

If you go to the “multiple Colbs” thread, we have his own writing taking credit for it.

[pissant]

If you go to the “multiple Colbs” thread, we have his own writing taking credit for it.

[Bigh4u2]

I find it really interesting that in that entire genealogy list, David Bomford is the only name, who is still living, with the highlighted 'b' leading to his birth certificate.

[woofie]

http://www.davidbomford.com/

I posted this earlier

It popped up on facebook when I looked up Mr Bomford

I assume its the same guy...This shows the web site is in Scotland

I cant do any more investigatin today. Can someone else try to verify this is Mr Bomford

[Genoa]

It’s not unreasonable that there might be several David Bomfords in various places around the world.

[agrarianlady]

The story is some guy is sitting there looking at his computer at documents (BCs? from Kenya) and then he widens his seach and happens to see this one.

Exactly! And that "some guy" is the notorious "Koyaan", who doesn't at all share how he found it. And no one in these lefty "tee hee gotcha" articles questions the miracle finding.

It stinks to high heaven, as they say.

[Technical Editor]

You wrote: “I have a difficult time believing a random person found the Aussie doc. It had no written references to its existence — text references are what generally show up when one does a google search for images. Can anyone else think of how this image was found at random?”

I get thumbnail images when I do a Google Images search for the word certificate, which is what Koyaan has said he did. You have to search using Google *Images* — not just Google.

[DoorGunner]

>>”No, because we know for a fact they released them exactly on dec 12th 1964. Nice try!”

Well, now. The fact that they RELEASED the stamps on December twelfth, 1964, means (by the use of ordinary logic) thst those stamps RELEASED, must have been PRINTED before that date. They had to have known that they were going to become a Republic on that date.

None of this means that the document in question is legitimate. No amount of speculation on our part will settle anything; only a court of competent juris diction.

I am beginning to think that ALL of the birth-related documents out there are false. Remember what Rush says about the Clintons: “There are no coincidences.”

Is it just a coincidence that the Secretary of State is attending some obscure conference in Kenya?

DG

[dalight]

It’s quite possible. I’m interested in WND PROMPLTY releasing the scans of the legit Kenyan BC’s they claimed to have compared the Obama one to.

I agree. Each day that passes that they do not increases my suspicion.

[Technical Editor]

It’s not him. He was born in Zambia, it says.

[agrarianlady]

http://www.davidbomford.com/ . . .

I posted this earlier

I think it's more likely to be this one.

The relationship matches up with a known (and prominent) eco-lefty (Michael Bomford), and it's the right country (Australia).

Also, this is a cached version. The real version no longer seems to be available on facebook.

[pissant]

It might show up now, but it didn’t when I did just that the other night.

[john in springfield]

O gee then that settles it. Our Declaration of Independence must also be a forgery by your reasoning since we dared to call ourselves the United States of America before while we were still under British dominion.

I would encourage you to go back and do some basic study of logic. And I'm not trying to be condescending when I say that. It's just that some things make sense from the conclusion, and some don't. If you don't have a good grasp of what you can reasonably conclude, you'll come to a lot of wrong conclusions.

It was with the Declaration of Independence that we officially declared ourselves "the United States of America." There's no way that you can twist my reasoning to conclude that the Declaration of Independence is a forgery.

On the other hand, we have a document purporting to have come from a government entity that (from all anyone can tell) simply did not exist at the time.

The REAL comparison here is: What if we were to come up with a image - an IMAGE, mind you - nobody has yet produced an actual paper document - of a birth certificate dated September 1775 supposedly of a David Bomford who was born back in 1772. It states on the IMAGE that this is an official document of "the United States of America."

In that case, there are only two logical conclusions: either this is a legitimate document that has been misdated, or it's a fake.

In fact, this line of thinking points to what is probably the only possible pathway for the Kenya document to be real: The date has to be wrong. And that, I will certainly admit, is plausible. It would not be the first time a mistake appeared on an official government document. And further enhancing that possibility is the fact that it appeared in mid-February, when that particular mistake might have been a bit more likely to have been made. Secondly, the "4" and "5" keys are struck with the same finger, making it very plausible that such a misstriek is a typo and not a mental mistake.

I think there are some serious problems with this theory, however.

First, it is unlikely. It seems less likely to me than that the Kenya document is a fake.

Second, the appearance of the document in February 1964 fits perfectly with a presumed timeline. We have a REASON why such a document would've been produced at that time: the divorce. The most likely "mistake year" would've been 1965, and we don't really have a plausible reason for the appearance of a birth certificate at that time. But that's a weak reason. There might've been a reason.

Third (and most important) there seem to be quite a few other problems with the Kenyan document - not the least of which is that the real David Bomford has stepped forward! But there are things in the image itself that are very telling. See my earlier post on this for more details.

[wndawmn666]

I posted some information on this thread regarding some additional things I noticed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308687/posts?page=18#18

[Technical Editor]

Agrarian lady said she didn’t get IMAGES.

Bomford’s cert. won’t show up now, of course.

[wndawmn666]

This is a copy of what I posted on another thread which shows images of other Australian birth certificates:

Thanks for posting the images.

In looking at the two images from 1955 and 1959 (since those forms should be most similar to a form from 1964) a few things pop out at me:

1. Each has the following information at the top of the form:

- BIRTH in the District of ___ (Bomford doesn’t have this at the top)
- Registered by __ (Bomford doesn’t have this at the top)

2. Each section of the form is numbered (Bomford’s isn’t)

3. Neither have any indication of a price at the top (e.g. 7s. 6d. from Bomford)

4. Verbiage at the bottom near seal is similar on 1955 and 1959 certs but very different on Bomford.

- 1955 says: I, ___ Assistant Government Statist of the State of Victoria, in the Commonwealth of Australia, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Entry in a Register of Births kept in this office.

- 1959 says: I, ___ Deputy Registrar General, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Entry in a Register of Births kept in the General Registry office...

- 1964 says: I, ___ Deputy Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for the State of South Australia, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the entry recorded in the Birth Register of this State, Book 44B, Page 5733.

5. Neither the 1955 nor the 1959 copies make any reference to a Book or Page. Both of those documents call it a ‘Register of Births’ while Bomford’s says, ‘Birth Register’

6. Section 10 on both the 1955 and 1959 certs (and Section 7 on the 1999 and 2000 certs) has information pertinent to the Registrar but none have a section for ‘Entered at the District Registry Office’ like Bomford’s does.

Obviously I have no way of knowing if any of these differences mean anything but I had some time to kill at work today.

[john in springfield]

All of your thinking on this sounds very reasonable to me.

[Technical Editor]

Bomford’s says the SAME book and page number as Orly’s doc .....