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

Here is my analysis of the Kenya BC vs. the Bomford BC issue:

With regard to the authenticity of the Kenya and Bomford BCs there are really only three possibilities:

The Kenya BC is a fake and the Bomford BC is a fake.

The Kenya BC is authentic and the Bomford BC is a fake.

The Kenya BC is a fake and the Bomford BC is authentic.

The possibility that both the Kenya and the Bomford BCs are authentic is logically precluded due to the extreme unlikelihood that the items in Table 1 below would occur on both documents by chance:

Let's look at the chicken and egg problem. Which came first - the Kenya or the Bomford BC? Well it had to be one or the other so let's look at both cases and see what the implications are.

Bomford BC is first. Assume that the Bomford BC was first and it was used as a template for a Kenya BC forgery. For this scenario we have a fake Kenya BC and an authentic Bomford BC. So what can we conclude about the items in Table 1?

• The Kenya BC forger is either extremely incompetent or possibly too lazy to change the items in Table 1 to be different from the Bomford "template"

• the forger wants to get caught.

I don't think there are any other possibilities.

Since the forgery is quite good I conclude that the forger is quite competent which would rule out the first case. That means that if the Bomford is authentic and used as a template for the fake Kenya BC then the Kenya forger wants to get caught. The motive: to make us work hard but in the end prove us fools and discourage us from digging into Obama's past. The fact that the Kenya BC was a fake would come to light inevitably by a simple search of the appropriate Kenyan records. There is a strong possibility that the Government of Kenya would simply announce that Book 44B and Page 5733 does not have an entry for a Barak H. Obama and provide the press with a photocopy of the page in question or give them access to the records.

For this case there would be no pressing need to "out" the Bomford document that was used as a template. There would, in fact, be no need to put the Bomford document on the Internet. Time would be on the side of the forger. He could wait for things to develop in Kenya vis vis a review of the record book/page and watch us all busy ourselves with fonts, jpegs, Photoshop Elements and the date when Kenya really, really became a republic. But that's not what happened. The Bomford document was discovered within a day or two. An accidental "outing" of the Bomford document by a lefty blogger is, of course, possible. It cannot be totally discounted. It seems unlikely, however, for a couple of reasons. First, it has turned out to be very hard to find the Bomford BC by the conventional method: A Google image search based on reasonable search terms: birth certificate, Kenya birth certificate, British commonwealth birth certificate ... and so on. Nobody but the original lefty blogger has managed the task. The second reason: He's a lefty with all the motivation in the world to discredit the Birthers. So from this the logical conclusion would be that either the Lefty Blogger drew a Royal Flush with his Google Image search or he is in on the deal. And there is still the question of why the forger would put the document on the web in the first place. Personally, I don't think he would. Only the lefty blogger really knows for sure at this point.

So once again. What's the rush? It makes one wonder about all the fuss on the Left when leaving this to run the normal course would be to their advantage. It is an indication, at least, that the Kenya BC is viewed by the Left as a very dangerous document.

So on to the second case:

The Kenya BC is first and Bomford BC is a fake. For this scenario the Kenya BC could be either authentic or a fake. If it's a fake we can logically conclude that the Left isn't so sure. That would justify the generation of the Bomford BC as an insurance policy against the possibility that Book 44B and Page 5733 does have a listing for Barak H. Obama. It would also motivate the Bomford forger to act quickly in order to provide a basis for the Kenya Government to wave off a search of the BC records: "The Government of Kenya cannot get involved in searching records every time some crazy "Birther" has a new theory. And since this latest attempt involves a proven forgery ...". You get the idea.

Note that this scenario, where the Kenya BC may be fake or authentic and nobody knows for sure, would most likely play out just like we have seen events transpire: A rapid response to the release of the Kenya BC documents with a forged Bomford BC. As a result this would seem to be the most likely case.

So how do we resolve the mystery? First you look at the Australian records. Those should be accessible to some curious Australian. If the BC of David Jeffrey Bomford is indeed listed on page 5733 of Book 44B in the South Australian archives then it is game, set and match for the lefty blogger and the Kenya BC is certainly a fake.

But what if this is not the case? Then the Bomford document is a fake giving life to the possibility but not the certainty that the Kenya BC is authentic. This can only be proven for certain by looking at page 5733 in Book 44B of the Kenya archives. Discovering with certainty that the M.R. Miller and E.F.Lavender were performing Registrar duties in the appropriate timeframes will certainly prove to me that the Bomford BC is a fake but it cannot help validate the Kenya BC. Only a search of the records can do that.

But what about fonts, jpegs, republics, Photoshop Elements? IMHO, we are just spinning our wheels with those issues. We need to get to the records or give up the hunt.

Well-reasoned and intelligent post. Thanks.

Yes. It’s standard and proper to keep the info on any living person private. It’s too odd that the BC on any living person would be posted for all to see — unless, of course, the Aussies do things differently.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, and welcome!

Well, the fields are different, aren’t they? Too bad it’s 15 years older than the Bomford. Lots of time for busy bureaucrats to revise forms.

Bravo. Best summary I’ve seen so far. Thanks.

It’s too odd that the BC on any living person would be posted for all to see —

Or unless you were involved somehow and didn't care.

"DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: I'm not particularly worried about it because no-one would honestly believe that anyone like me would be involved in it - just a grey-haired old guy sitting in a corner in quiet old Adelaide."

Who happens to have a very partisan cousin (eco-lefty) at the University of Frankfort in Kentucky.

Update: Ah, I see the picture is no longer available. It was a picture of a guy with a brown and slightly grey beard in a large orange wig.

The other suggestion is that Koyaan targeted these people in advance based on some dislike of the "post-carbon" lefty in Frankfort. Which would have been an indecent thing to do, as much as we might disagree.

Thanks for bringing this over here. Something I mentioned on the other thread is that the book and page in the registrar’s block is Book 323 pge 47.

Outstanding analysis! Well done post, thanks!

Yes, and this cuts two ways. On the one hand it is confirmation that was lacking from Zoe Brain’s postings of a recent certifcation from Victoria that the book/page registry was used in South Australia 15 years earlier. I suppose between 1948 and 1959 books 323 through 999 got filled up and they started with a B series (no A series?) and were up to 44B by 1959. If so (if a similar South Australian after-birth certification from closer to 1964 can be found), the Taitz document is a fake.

On the other hand, until we see some contemporaneous Kenyan certifications (not likely, since Odinga’s got Obama’s back), we can’t know whether Kenya used a very similar form and whether it’s book/page registry system might not have had A and B series. In which case, the Bomford forger (a genealogist?) knew about the similarities and ingeniously created the 1964 certification off the Kenyan certification, knowing that it was close enough to Australian certifications of that era to direct attention to the Taitz as a copy of the Bomford.

The solution can only come from 1960s era authentic certifications from both South Australia and Kenya or at least from South Australia—they might be smoking guns against the Taitz document or they might incriminate the Bomford document while leaving things open on Taitz. So far we know the Bomford document was manipulated but we don’t know whether it was or was not based on genuine 1960s era South Australian forms. We are closer to the latter but not there yet.

Thanks.

After I made the post a few quick clicks yielded an email for enquiries of the registry office. It says a response can take up to five days. Anyway I decided to quickly draft and fire off an email and I’ll just post it here. If and when you folks designate your representative I can email him/her with the email address I sent it to, or meantime they may come up with another contact. Some poster here or media person from Australia who reads this site may end up getting wind of it and finding out the information before we do anyway. Here’s what I wrote:

“Hello,

I’m Canadian and post online under the handle “KalElFan”. I just made a post at the freerepublic.com site for the first time, concerning a controversy that recently arose involving a Birth Certificate for South Australia Hindmarsh District from 1959. It allegedly was used as a template to create a fake Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama. The owner of the birth certificate confirmed that it was his used as the template (it had been posted on a family genealogy web site), but he may not have been aware or noticed that only four key fields having nothing to do with his information were at issue: The Registrar, District Registrar, Book and Page numbers.

In my post I suggested some trusted member of the freerepublic.com online community contact the registry office in Adelaide, of which Hindmarsh is a suburb as I understand it. But after a few quick clicks I ran across your site so I thought I’d try myself.

You needn’t confirm any specific person’s details at all, just if you can the general details of the era. Specifically, for the Hindmarsh (Hin) district birth registry, what month(s) did Book 44B cover and what was its maximum page range? Also if you can, what was the name of the Registrar and District Registrar in 1959? It would be much appreciated if you could provide any or all of that information, which again has nothing to do with any specific birth certificate information.

If I haven’t reached the correct source for this information, or if it requires higher approval, perhaps you could let me know who to contact next. Thanks.”

I sent that from my personal email addy not the KalElFan handle, about 20 minutes ago. I just checked and it still hasn’t bounced so I assume it got through okay. I’ll post the result here if and when I hear back. Not necessarily the text of the email until I get permission, but the key thing which is whether the four general fields at issue match up.

Well, it was a page on Walton that was originally linked to and it had several Hindmarsh birth references, probably more than half the 12 I checked. The others I got from a few threads of that volunteer who was checking for people, and all 12 were in that 1900-1928 period. If I’d checked throughout the site I’m sure I’d have found a lot more, and only a small fraction of people would be online searching.

So I’d still find it difficult to believe that by April 10th, 1959 and page 5733 of Book 44B there were only 2 births in Hindmarsh District. At that rate there were maybe 10 all year in 1959, while I could probably find 10 Hindmarsh some years in that 1900-1928 period just on the site.

The darkness of Community varies by letter, but it is letters and I was comparing numbers to numbers.

I have another post that hasn’t seemed to appear yet but I’ll wait to see if it does before reposting. I guess there’s a delay because I’m a new poster. The post had a draft of an email I sent because I did find a site and email address to send it to just a few minutes after I made the initial post and checked. I’d let whoever you freepers decide on know so they could contact them directly and not have to rely solely on my reporting of any response, but the site said it could take up to 5 days to respond to requests.

Thank you for finding that. So he’s listed as a Republican. Well there are a lot of R naysayers it seems in this issue.

Michael Kondwani Bomford’s grandfather and David Jeffrey Bomford’s father were first cousins, so they would be second cousins, if I remember correctly.

According to the GED, Michael’s great-grandfather, Edwin Wilfred (known as Wilfred) Bomford and his brother Dick homesteaded in Saskatchewan before moving to Vancouver Island.

Yikes, Farah cites Kenya sources as indicating fake.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135

I live in adelaide. I took an interest when I heard the bomford interview on abc radio.

Anyone have any questions about Adelaide, nows your chance!

Yikes indeed. Starting to look like they are both fakes.

Still, though, two things occur to me. (1) Corsi has been suckered in Kenya before. (2) Birth report from 1961 and birth extract from 1964 are not quite the same thing.

I can’t tell anything whatsoever from the new image posted on the WND site — including a date.

It begins to look like a catfight among the oddballs: Farah, Taitz, Berg, etc. but I’m not interested in watching furr fly.

I do wish we had some grown-ups out front on this.

And Corsi.