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.

[agrarianlady]

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.

I know -- I challenge any person to find a .jpg that has no text description reference that way. There was no label on that birth certificate that said in big friendly letters "I am a birth certificate" -- also, it wasn't even a true birth certificate, so the search terms would be even more obscure.

[wndawmn666]

I know that.

My point is why is Bomford’s the only Australian cert that makes reference to a Book and Page? None of the others do.

Check out the this thread and look at some other Australian certs:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308687/posts?page=1

None of the Australian samples reference a book or page.

[WVNan]

Isn't "Loxton" the name of the mother on the Bomford document???

Yes it is. Hi all, are we still at it? I need to catch up. See where mr. bromford has surfaced.....or has he? Those Bomfords sure do seem to populate the whole world. Australia, Scotland, U.S. I'm withholding judgement still. Maybe this will all shake out....or not. We need to stay focused on blocking anything coming out of Washington.

I see so far that the argument over the Republic of Kenya is still on. It occurs to me that the document was the creation of the Brits who were still in control of much of the "office" work in Kenya. Maybe they printed Republic of Kenya on the documents to please the newly freed Kenya. Juat a thought.

[agrarianlady]

Agrarian lady said she didn’t get IMAGES. Bomford’s cert. won’t show up now, of course

I tried at the time, when it was still available. I tried to download the gedcom file, but then got a little nervous about it so I didn't bother.

I posted links to the .jpg when it was still available, and how to find it.

I tried to think and think of how to find it by randomly searching at the time, and I probably spent 15 minutes trying to find it myself.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=680#680

Here's what I wrote in the above link:

The link to David Jeffrey Bomford's "Certified Copy of Registration of Birth" is about 3/4 of the way down the page (just search for the exact phrase "David Jeffrey").

http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/treeconcise.htm

"10d I0543 David Jeffrey Bomford, b 10 April 1959 at Adelaide, m 28 Nov 1981 at Somerton Park, South Australia I0546 Amanda Jane Sandover, b 1959, and had issue"

The only link was the little "b", (I marked it in red above) which linked you to the jpeg. How would google image search find the jpeg? There might be a way, I just don't know what it is.

[john in springfield]

It's just that some things make sense from the conclusion, and some don't.

Sorry. Obviously what I meant to say was that some things make sense from the known facts, and some don't.

[wndawmn666]

Also, look at this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308687/posts?page=19

Posts 19 and 20.

How could Bomford’s certificate be signed by the Deputy Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages when that office wasn’t created until 1975 - 11 years after the Bromford cert was issued/signed.

[WVNan]

The brilliance of Freepers never ceases to amaze me. Who would have thought of finding that an address does not match up to reality?

[agrarianlady]

Here's the cached copy of the referring file, where you could have linked to the jpeg:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/treeconcise.htm

[WVNan]

naturalman, I see right now that we have a shortage of Freepers in Australia. To remedy that is your assignment. Go forth my son and get us more “reporters” from around the realm. We need researchers everywhere. If we had one or two in Suth Australia right now, we wouldn’t be in this mess. They could go to Adelaide and have a look.

[WVNan]

I know. Typo.

[john in springfield]

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

Actually, there's a third possible conclusion: that the phrase "the United States of America" was used by an official government entity to represent the 13 colonies well before the time that we used the phrase in the Declaration of Independence.

However, by the very nature of things, this would seem unlikely. Governments generally do not produce official documents in some name other than their own name that exists at the time. It's like trying to prove that you went by the name "Janis Joplin" or "Emma Jones" back in the 1960s. But in fact, individuals are generally more likely to go by an assumed name than governments are.

The only reasonable proof would be other documents, known to be real and published by such an entity, from that time period using the same phrase. Producing proof that an obscure newspaper in Bavaria referred to the Colonies as the United States of America would not constitute any proof at all that there was an official American government entity that called itself the United States of America.

Therefore the burden of proof would be on someone making such a claim, to show that an official, governmental "United States of America" somehow existed and published official documents such as birth certificates before we know one was declared in July of 1776.

[Technical Editor]

Go to politijab.com and ask Koyaan yourself. He’s open about it. You can also find the post in which he said he searched for “certificate” only (from yesterday, I think).

[Technical Editor]

We’d have to know whether certs are different in different Australian states, which is probably the case. What we need is South Australia (the state).

[Locomotive Breath]

Bingo. Given that Australia and Kenya were both part of the Empire, it would not at all be astonishing to find uniform reporting requirements including the paperwork.

The fact that Australia might or might not have used the same form is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what form was used in Kenya? Only a contemporaneous Kenya form can answer that question.

[agrarianlady]

Go to politijab.com and ask Koyaan yourself. He’s open about it. You can also find the post in which he said he searched for “certificate” only (from yesterday, I think).

Sigh. I'd have to create an account, and I was hoping not to bother. But perhaps I will.

It is beyond belief to think one could do a google image search for "certificate" and come up with the Bomford jpeg.

Here is the original URL:

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

I was thinking that perhaps the URL was the clue to finding it, but that seems rather impossible too.

[InterceptPoint]

Is there any way to track down the cached version of the .jpeg?

[agrarianlady]

Is there any way to track down the cached version of the .jpeg?

I've tried but I can't.

That's all there was on the page -- just the image -- no text.

[conservativegramma]

I would encourage you to go back and do some basic study of logic.

Why? I took a Logic class in college and got an A+. In my opinion you're the one being illogical trying to maintain that a country who had DECLARED independence could not call itself a republic before it became official. Keep spinning.

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.

I don't have to twist anything. That's EXACTLY what you're doing. Kenya declared its independence in 1963. LOGIC would dictate they could call themselves whatever they wanted to prior to any offical government articles of confederation.

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.

Noone has yet suggested its been proven to be genuine - just that the jury is still out. It needs to be examined by specialists to determine authenticity. It cannot be done over the internet and over such piffle conclusions such as Kenya wasn't yet a Republic nonsense that you've been spouting off.

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."

Now that's gibberish. What we have is a supposed birth certificate of a David Bomford who was born in 1959 not 1772. Really spinning now aren't we? And furthermore no reputable genealogist is EVER going to publicly release the image of a vital record of a person STILL LIVING. Get that yet? That's proof enough the Bomford bc is fake. The forgers forgot to research that you cannot legally issue into public domain vital records of living persons.

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.

Nonsense. You just don't understand that many people living in the coastal area of Kenya really did refer to themselves as being a Republic prior to December 1964.

Yeah, isn't it just ducky that it just so happens that someone just so happened to stumble upon a Bomford bc that just so happens to resemble the Kenya bc on the day the Kenyan bc was released and it just so happens that Bomford is a radical leftist who supports Obama and it just so happens that person who first identified this bc is a known troll of Free Republic and it just so happens..........Come on man wake up.

I don't know if the Kenyan one is fake or not, let the experts decide after it is analyzed for authenticity and let the chips fall where they may. But I DO KNOW the bomford one is a complete fake. You DO NOT release vital records of LIVING PERSONS on genealogical websites. EVER.

[Sibre Fan]

I just read this lurking on another (obot) site, but it raises a good issue.

If the Bomford certificate is the fake, why did the forgers add a whole new section to the document that does not even exist on the Kenya certificate?

The Bomford certificate has a section for “Signature and Description of Authorized Person, and Name, Description and Residence of Informant.” That section is not on the Kenya certificate.

???
(I posted this in the Bomford thread, but this thread seems to be the active one, so am reposting here.)

[Albertafriend]

Last night I found this website of one of the Kenyan tribes, the Ogie.
http://www.ogiek.org/faq/history-kenya.htm

Here is part of it:

1963 Dec 12, Kenya gained independence from Britain and the Kenyan African National Union Party (KANU) began ruling. Jomo Kenyatta, a Kikuyu, was the first president and served until 1978.
(SFC, 10/17/96, A8)(SFC, 7/1/97, p.A9)(AP,12/12/97)(SFC,12/23/97, p.D4)(SFC, 8/8/98, p.A12)

1963 Dec. 13, Kenya became a republic.
(HFA, ‘96, p.44)

1964 Dec 12, Kenya formally became a republic.
(SFC, 9/4/97, p.A10)(HN, 12/12/98)

The stuff in the brackets refer to other books and documents but I don’t know what they are.

So according to these Kenyans, they considered themselves a republic but not formally until a year later. However they had already established a republican government under a president during the year before the formal ceremony. Therefore I see no problem with them using documents saying “Republic of Kenya”.