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.

[Genoa]

‘Twas a red gel pen, BTW. Didn’t have the same color as the signature on Bomford.

[trueamerica]

See post number 350.

I had a typewriter in the 60's. It did NOT have a key for the number "one". I used lower case letter "l" instead just like on this document. The red circled number 1 could have been added later. Why? I don't know.

[itsahoot]

Most thoughtful conservatives/Republicans

Most Republicans are happy to be in the minority, as long as they get their perks.

[spacejunkie01]

I just didn’t want all you excellent researchers searching the wrong name :)

there has been ALOT of great info lately about this issue.

quite fascinating.

[cynwoody]

All of the other ‘1’s in that document are lower case Ls instead of the #1. There is a picture of it on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=6783#6783

Yes, and note that the typewriter in the photo I posted lacks a numeral 1 key. A lot of typists back in the day were used to having to type lower-case l for the digit and continued to do it even when using a typewriter equipped with a proper #1 key.

[truthfreedom]

Think the fact that both docs have 44B 5733 has any importance?

Nah, I think everyone should just keep staring at jpgs.

Hundreds should spend 1000s of hours trying to either explain or ignore jpg compression.

Let’s debate Republic some more.

Maybe someone hasn’t been paying attention for the last 4 days. Let’s cover everything again.

Don’t bother trying to figure out whether Bomford’s birth records are actually, in fact, located in the register at Book 44B Page 5733 in the district of Hindmarsh in South Australia. Screw that, too hard.

[truthfreedom]

Book and Page are key. on Ancestry.com, they do have book and page for the HIN district in South Australia. It would be fairly easy, I suspect, to determine whether or not Bomford is at Book 44B Page 5733.

[Kevmo]

I wouldn’t trust Koyaan. He’s a little two-bit liar.
***That’s an insult to two-bit liars.

[john in springfield]

It just depended on the typewriter. Googling images of “old typewriter” and “1960s typewriter” will show you that some (maybe half) had “1” keys and others did not.

I would think this was based on two factors: compactness (was it a portable unit intended for lugging around?) and expense.

For a government office, of course, nothing but the best would do, especially in a major office. After all, it’s on the taxpayer’s dime. I would expect a major city registrar to have “1” keys on their typewriters. I would expect this to be equally as true on Australia as in the USA. The one place where it *might* not hold true (emphasis on the *might*) could be in Mombasa. But again, that was a major city (for Kenya, at least) as well.

[john in springfield]

Don’t bother trying to figure out whether Bomford’s birth records are actually, in fact, located in the register at Book 44B Page 5733 in the district of Hindmarsh in South Australia. Screw that, too hard.

Well, what we need is a freeper in Adelaide, or one who knows somebody there.

And yes, the identical information on both certificates indicates that one is a copy of the other. But which? I have and do maintain that the Kenya one is the copy. I've explained why, but I haven't SHOWN why. I guess I'll have to do that next.

[Marine_Uncle]

I continue to attempt to keep track of all the variables within this issue as posted. But it is a bit overwhelming to read every comment over so many posts.
One thing that sticks in my mind is the statement made by Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, during the campaign in 2008. As to his remarks suggesting zero was not a natural born citizen. It seemed to stay so low on the radar, got no press coverage etc..
The DNC knew along with a large number of others across the political spectrum. And they did nothing. They did not honor our Constitution and stop this fiasco before it got totally out of hand. Shame on them all.

[john in springfield]

Ok, let's have a look at these certificates.

First, let's look at the Kenyan one, straight magnified with a slight contrast.

Notice anything?

Now I suppose it's possible that the pixellation could be due to graphic conversion to JPEG. Some experiments could be done to see whether photos of text documents converted to JPEGs get similar pixellation. And I confess I haven't done those experiments. But so far, it does look a bit fishy, doesn't it? It looks even fishier if you enhance the contrast more than I've done here.

Now let's look at the Australian one.

I had to magnify it a bit more, but note: it lacks the pixellation around all the letters.

Now I'm going to weaken my own argument, but stating that it seems possible that conversion to a jpeg could account for the pixellation around the type in the first document, and it's possible that you could overlay text onto a blank form background and get results like you see in the second. So this evidence is not conclusive.

But let's look at the seals. I've adjusted both to try and get the best picture I could.

Now I really can't tell what this is, but frankly, it looks (to me at least) like it could be the imprint of a large coin. Can anyone identify it?

Now the Australian one:

See any difference?

I can READ the Australian seal. I can tell you exactly what it says. I can't even tell you whether the Kenyan one is actually a seal, or a coin imprint.

For me, the difference in the seals is indicative.

Finally, a straight magnification of the printer's line on the Australian certificate, a printer whom we know both to exist and to be a long-standing printer of official documents for the Australian Government: Note that this feature is missing in the Kenyan certificate:

See any suspicious pixellation in this image of tiny print? Neither do I.

So I ask you: If one of these is a forgery of the other, which one looks like the original and which one looks like the fake? Some of us might still differ in opinions, but at least maybe conservativegramma can see a bit of where I'm coming from.

But there's lots more evidence. The Republic of Kenya thing. The fact that we have a real, live David Bomford in Adelaide who verifies that the Australian certificate is his. Heck, I've even posted his home address in this thread and only blotted out part of the phone number for privacy's sake. How do I know he's the one? Not 100% conclusive, but the only Bomfords in the Adelaide phone book are D Bomford and D J Bomford. The latter, I presume, is David Jeffrey.

[Genoa]

Look at the Bomford BC again, and look at where the folds cross type on the form (not the typewritten type, I mean the printed type). Look at the F in FATHER. Look at Registrar. See how the type looks like it has disintegrated or flaked off where the fold is? Printer’s ink doesn’t do that. That’s what toner does on a modern photocopy that is folded. Also, look at how the Bomford BC has been folded so roughly. No one treats their actual BC so abusively. It’s what someone might do if they were trying to make a new fake look old. Is anyone on this thread a photocopier expert? What say ye?

[shield]

I have to agree with you...the one means nothing.

[john in springfield]

Furthermore, I've just successfully identified the image on the Australian document between the word "PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR'S OFFICE" and the words "SOUTH AUSTRALIA."

Here it is:

[john in springfield]

Or, to put the two right next to each other:

Note that the first is slightly tilted. And it appears to be a variation of the present seal of the Australian government. The kangaroo's tail appears to be in the air, not on the ground. The shield is a bit more oval shaped. The curly-cues are a bit different.

It would appear to be an earlier, or at least different, version of the seal of the Australian government.

[Genoa]

Things like the seal and the printer’s line, and the rest of the form for that matter, could be copied from a real Australian BC and used to make a fake. Also, I’m skeptical about the “Bomford” interview: Was it really him? Was he telling the truth? And when I read the transcript, it sounds like he is a little clueless about the BC, not really saying, “Yes, it’s my BC that I put on the genealogy site, the very one.” It sounds like he’s confirming the data, like address and names, and saying it’s his BC on that basis—a deduction. And I, like conservativegrandma, am skeptical about why a living person’s BC is being posted to a genealogy website for all to see anyway.

[john in springfield]

I didn’t even mention how someone demonstrated the price on the form indicated an Australian, not a Kenyan, origin.

[BonRad]

Ahhhh...I thought you meant Orly, not Obama.

I thought Berg was being a real bad soldier and not closing ranks here...given his ire for Taitz.

OK OK OK OK

I listen to Savage often and enjoy him oh I’d say 3/4 the time.

[john in springfield]

Things like the seal and the printer’s line, and the rest of the form for that matter, could be copied from a real Australian BC and used to make a fake.

So you're telling me that some faker went out and got a genuine birth certificate from South Australia, which just happens to look identical to the Kenyan one, and which (like the Kenyan one!!!) has Australian prices on it, and created a forgery that's clearer and more convincing that the original?

Yeah, that could happen.