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]

one more image

[Mount Athos]

oh embarassing i got those images off a kind of anti-govt rebellion site with a proposed seal for hypothetical new govt. Still related to the real seal I’m sure but...

[john in springfield]

I've read your points, and they're all good. I do have some thoughts about some of them, though.

The No. field up top is 2. Why so low? That field seems a more logical place to have a higher number like 47,044 on the Kenyan document. Depending how many entries are listed on each page of the B series for example, and this is page 5733, maybe it’s 8 or 9 listed per page and that was the 47,044th birth in the B series. But 2 in that field? As I joked in another forum it’s like this guy was on Gilligan’s Island and the Skipper got assigned 1 and Gilligan got 2 at the lagoon registry office. It seems too low a number.

Okay, that IS very curious. But a little bit of digging on the web comes up with a reason.

Although Hindmarsh apparently contains quite a large stadium, it appears to be a very minute subdivision of the Adelaide area. In terms of actual residents who live there, multiple sources give the 2006 Hindmarsh population as 127.

But we're not done here yet. The father is listed as living in Thebarton, another neighborhood which is literally across the street from Hindmarsh. Recent population of Thebarton is 1,327.

But those are RECENT stats. What was the population of these areas in 1959? Fifty years ago? Probably much lower. In 1866, it was 450. Maybe 700 in 1959?

So let's maybe throw in West Hindmarsh, and estimate a 1959 population of 1,000 for the lot.

Out of 1000 residents (presumably approximately 500 females of ALL ages), how many will give birth in a given year?

If the average female bears approximately two children, and lives to be 75, the odds of the average female bearing a child in a given year are about 2 out of 75.

Work this out, and you'll see we might expect an AVERAGE of 12 or 13 children to be born in Hindmarsh district each year. Some years it would be more, some would be less.

Suddenly it becomes much less mysterious that David, born 3-1/3 months into the year, is child #2. More typically we would expect him to be child #3 or child #4, but having child #2 or child #5 - based on the stats we have - for Hindmarsh district in mid April would not seem to be at all unusual.

So once again, what at first appears to as if it might be an anomaly on the Aussie certificate, looked at more closely, checks out.

As an aside, does this mean a number of 44,677 (or 44,077) is improbable for Mombasa? Not necessarily. Mombasa is a huge city, with 700,000+ population. And the numbering might be from the beginning of their records rather than per year, per district.

On Bomford the 5733 looks noticeably crisper than other numbers in the vicinity. These anomalies suggest Photoshopping in the smoking gun fields needed to incriminate the Kenyan document.

I read it differently. On the Kenyan doc, the 5733 is so blurry you really can't even positively ID it as a 5733. As for its being darker than some of the other letters (I presume you have 10th April, 1959 as a reference), I think I have an idea about that.

I've tried typing on an old manual typewriter. A lot of what you accomplish is due to finger strength, and it varies by finger. All of the 5, 7, and 3 keys are struck by strong fingers. The 1, 0 and 9 are all struck by weak fingers. Moreover, the typist would have first spaced, then struck the 4 single characters very deliberately, versus flying over words like "HINDMARSH" etc. at a higher rate of speed.

Nonetheless, the simple fact is that there was variation in darkness of type on the old manual typewriters. This can be clearly seen in the word "Community" just below the "5733" - it's uncontested and is equally dark.

In fact, if you examine the word "Community," it shares the exact same characteristics as "5733." If we assume "5733" was Photoshopped on the basis of its crispness, then we must also assume the word "Community" was Photoshopped... but that other words in the same phrase were not.

Since that leads to an obvious absurdity, I conclude that the premise must be wrong.

It ought to be possible to find out, definitively, since unlike Kenya or Hawaii one presumes Adelaide, Australia and its suburb Hindmarsh, would be willing to engage in massive transparency here. Their registry office doesn’t even have to confirm anything specific about Bomford. Just have two or three officials up the chain of authority there tell us what period Book 44B spans and how many page numbers it has. If April 10, 1959 and Page 5733 falls within that, the Kenyan document is forged and the lawyer was almost certainly set up by her source.

Yes, I agree. Someone rather authoritative ought to contact Adelaide.

By the way, don't think that because I disagree with some of your conclusions I regard them as not valuable. On the contrary, you've made some very good points here.

Oh, and welcome to FreeRepublic! I hope you enjoy and benefit from your reading and interaction here. :-)

[john in springfield]

Note there’s an obvious weakness here: I’m assuming Hindmarsh is a small district only consisting of Hindmarsh, Thebarton, and maybe West Hindmarsh.

However, this probably isn’t as much of a weakness as it might seem at first. If the district is NAMED “Hindmarsh,” and Hindmarsh only has 127 people (recent census), then it stands to reason that the Hindmarsh district is very small indeed.

If it weren’t, it would be named after some place other than Hindmarsh.

[FTJM]

Koyaan's (Steve Eddy) blog:

http://koyaan.wordpress.com/

From google: Steve Eddy (phone number is listed) Sacramento, CA 95814

http://primary96.sos.ca.gov/e/cand/ad09.html

STEVE EDDY Republican 2817 18TH AVENUE SACRAMENTO, CA 95820 RESIDENCE: 916 457-7946 BUSINESS: 916 457-7946 Computer Consultant

http://www.facebook.com/sceddy

[PA Engineer]

Thanks for the ping to 203. Just catching up now.

[john in springfield]

Honestly, I can't make much of the "Kenyan seal." There's just not enough detail. It might be the seal you posted. It might be the back of a Sacajawea dollar coin. It might be something else. I just can't tell.

In fact, the more I look at it, the more plausible it seems it was done with a coin.

If we assume the paper width at 8.5 inches (American!) then I measure the circle at around 28 mm. This is a bit bigger than a Sacajawea dollar, and smaller than a Kennedy half dollar.

If you've visited overseas, you may realize that other countries have different paper sizes. Australia apparently has the same size as Europe.

Assuming that paper size, I get a slightly smaller circle of approximately 27 mm. This is almost exactly the size of a Sacajawea dollar.

[john in springfield]

Oh, and I was going to say that the other thing clear about the “Kenyan seal” is that it’s quite a bit smaller than the Australian one.

[PA Engineer]

So stop beating a dead horse. Staggers the imagination.

Agreed. The continuing muddying of the waters by repeating oneself and screaming the loudest also boggles the mind. I am back to the computer trying to catch up. Probably will not post anything until Saturday. I have some new info and have rethought the original breakdown of the Australian into the 6 different components. I originally admitted that I was wrong, however this did indeed show something important and will raise that when I post later. Thanks for the pings and sorry about the late delay in responding.

[PA Engineer]

Well I was persuaded by the rudman explanation but I decided to rethink that position - I might have been too hasty in doing so. While it is true that .jpg files do not preserve layers it is certainly true that they can preserve artifacts from layers that don't quite match up for some reason. So the Photoshop Elements processing could be OK.

That was what I was referring to in the previous post. You saved me the explanation. Almost finished catching up. Thanks for that post.

[PA Engineer]

So based on that experiment I'm going to stick with rudman's view. I think the Photoshop Elements' or Photoshops division of the Bomford Document is just the sort of thing you get when you scan a .jpg with folds and wrinkles. Anyone doubting that should try the experiment themselves.

I guess I didn't finish your post. We have actually run numerous images and have come up with a different conclusion. Will post our results when complete.

[woofie]

I could use someone’s help to check out some material I have on Bomford...I downloaded a file on him (I think its the right Bomford) the site has since been deleted .

I believe it has good info on this guy but I want to be certain before I put it out there...so I need someone that can recheck what I have and do a bit more research.( I am low man in the tech ability pool)

If someone can let me know I will freepmail you what I have

[PA Engineer]

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.

I did while it was still up. Confining the search beyond the term "certificate" brought the image results down from 49 million to 3 million. Even with the website search the thumbnail did not come up. You are telling us koyaan was able to quickly scan 49 million thumbnail images and come up with an isolated document (not even on the waybackmachine, which shows the updates are 2007 and not 2006). This would be a needle in a haystack search.

Meanwhile, he immediately posts the Aus. COLB on an Astroturf website. You of course found it there (It was you?). The site you found it on according to Alexa has only 4 external links, unlike the 6000+ for FreeRepublic. Two of the main external links for this site are DU and KOS.

I am not buying it.

[PA Engineer]

For your reference here is something I posted on the other threads, but failed to post here. This is from the Australian document. The lower left quadrant has the most abnormalities including a lack of a gutter effect at the folds and the mysterious signature under only half of the printed text. For your reference.

[PA Engineer]

Here is a copy I saved.

[woofie]

Ping to my # 612

I really think this info is important

[Houghton M.]

Yes, the debunking offered by the SRM in Nairobi was laughable—mostly DUmmie talking points, including the one about Republic of Kenya, that have already been debunked as non-debunking. If they had genuine Kenyan BCs from this period that are truly different from the Taitz document, why haven’t they posted them to nuke the Taitz document?

[PA Engineer]

Good point.

[conservativegramma]

I absolutely agree with both your points.

I believe the Bomford bc to be completely fake, and as you said, buried into a genealogical site, then voila, lookee here what I found!! Being a genealogist myself, there is way too much that smells about the way this was done. Particularly the part where David Bomford doesn’t even seem to be ‘aware’ that this was done, then joked about it afterwards in an interview. To those that say this is a legitimate bc I say “Riiiightt...”

On the otherhand I’m also not saying yet that the Kenyan one is real, I’ll leave that one to the document experts to decide upon examination. Nor am I claiming its false. All of the arguments being made in favor of it being false just aren’t there either. So the jury is still out on that one for me.

But I can concisely say that all of this immediate “Its a fraud!” (regarding the Kenyan bc) and the desperate attempts to put out a fake Australian bc and DU’s calls to issue even more ‘fake’ Kenyan bc’s speak volumes that the Kenyan bc Taitz has may in fact be the real deal....all of these actions are extremely fishy.

[wndawmn666]

RubyR posted this find on a thread with samples of other Australian certs.