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]

Corsi in Kenya is your classic babe in the woods. He’s a hard worker, but his judgment is a little suspect, to say the least. I’m not sure why Farah depends on him so.

[InterceptPoint]

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

If so, I'm not surprised. This was, based on my analysis in Post 621 above, the most likely scenario. It would tell me that the Kenya forger and the Bomford forger were not connected in any way.

But this isn't definitive yet. So hold on, we may be in for another ride.

[Houghton M.]

Yeah, but look at the rest of the article—it’s full of DU anti-Taitz-doc talking points, some of them long since discredited. The document appears to be a form sent in from the boondocks to report a birth for the registry books, though it’s such a lousy (intentionally so?) photo that it’s hard to know what it is.

The WND stuff is inconclusive. The Taitz doc may well be a fake—I won’t be surprised if it is. But I’m getting tired of half-baked breathless claims like this one from WND that we now have the smoking gun that definitively discredits it.

[Houghton M.]

Appears to be a birth in 1964, June 29?

[Godzilla]

CG, I would discount his last line. The bomford BC clearly has undistorted lettering at the fold lines. There is no distortion at all - inspite of some fairly significant and wide folds. The second point is that the official signature is under the typewritten lettering portion of the form. These are straight forward discrepencies that seem to be desired to be watered down. One doesn’t need photoshop or special programs to see these two glaring inconsistencies.

[conservativegramma]

Oh I agree with you! The Bomford I think is clearly forged, as I’ve been saying. One things for sure, this thing isn’t over yet and DU is definitely working into the late hours!

[Genoa]

The lettering on the fold lines of the Bomford (refer to the F in FATHER) tends to break up like toner from a photocopier or laserjet printer, unlike printer’s ink.

[Marine_Uncle]

I applaud everyones efforts to get at the truth on this issue of fake verse real documents that could lead toward resolving the issue surrounding zero's legitimate claim to be POTUS.
A problem as I see it in use of photo tools will always be how the original binary strings within a file (stored in a temporary buffer [RAM memory]) are manipulated in order to bring out some variance within the image, which can so easily lead to question of originality.
I recognize it is no easy tasks to arrive at some verifiable conclusion when dealing with this type activity. So I not being and expert in using these type software tools will hold reservation as to what conclusions a given person comes up with. But am glad some can make the time to do such investigations. Perhaps the truth shall eventually surface as just who this zero really is.

[andesag2000]

Well this is my first post. I was a Freeper back in my college days late ‘90s but haven’t been around here in a long time...Good to be back.

I found this website here:

http://143.216.32.39/archivessrsa/t1tbmain.asp?MainURL=t1tbdui.asp&FunctionName=$SASABKWDSCH

This is the South Australian Government archives. If you go to the link and put in births in the search box, then click search. It will give you a series of id’s. Click on

GRG76/1

This is the Birth information statements 1948-1973. Of course, its restricted so I can’t actually look at whats in there but it says down the page...

Description

Volumes 646A - 999A, 1B - 829B. Statements do not contain information about birth times.

So from this we can see that South Australia did pass through page 44B sometime between 1948 and 1973. It would be cool if they at least had the books scanned in so you could see them online but I can’t find them.

[Genoa]

Looks like they went through a lot more books during those last 9 years. I wonder if the raw births in South Australia increased that much.

[Genoa]

Or last 14 years if since 1959. But still . . . .

[Houghton M.]

Thanks. I was able to duplicate your steps and confirm that that information is found on that site.

This corrects something I was wrong about earlier. The book 343 of the 1948 South Australian certification refers to an 1884 registry. So in 1884 they were at book 343. By 1948, as you have discovered, they were into the A series. 44 B would perhaps coincide roughly with 1961 when measured from 1948-1973.

So the registry book numbers on the Bomford document do seem to match South Australian birth registry books.

That, it seems to me, is very telling against the Taitz document. There’s no way that birth registry books in Kenya could have the same sequence over the same years.

[Godzilla]

Could be - however, still no distortion of the F either

[Genoa]

Look below a little at Registrar (the first of the two). The last couple of letters here also have flaked off the fold line. That’s how toner behaves. I suspect the type on the form (the form as opposed to the typing added later) was produced on a modern copier or laser printer of some kind, not printed on a press.

[Houghton M.]

The South Australian Archive site has not been updated since December 2006. Seems very odd for a government archive site

Budget cuts?

Is there any way this is a fake site that is part of the hoax?

Can anyone tech savvy verify that it’s legitimate?

http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/

[InterceptPoint]

Quick analysis of your data:

The only easy assumption: Constant births per year

From 1948 to 1973 is 25 years.

646A to 999A is 354 volumes.

1B to 829B is 829 volumes.

Total volumes is 354+829 = 1183

646A to 44 B is 354+44 = 398 volumes

1183 volumes in 25 years is 47.3 volumes per year

Expected years from 1948 to volume 44B = 398/47.3 = 8.4 years

Expected year for 44B = 1948+8.4=1956.4

That is not that far from April 1959 considering that I assumed a constant number of births per year. If that rate was slowing down with time then it could have taken a few more years to get to 44B. Not good news.

[KalElFan]

When I was checking ancestry.com the volunteer from South Australia had made a post back in 2005 I think it was, about one of the other provinces in Australia allowing free online access to older birth records at that time. From that I gathered South Australia didn't allow free access to any such records online, but you apparently can access old ones (1928 and prior I would guess) in libraries. That still wouldn't help with 1959 so we'll have to wait for direct confirmation from the registry office.

I think it's moot now that wnd.com is bailing on the story. To be objective here, they did say this:

“WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical” in their article:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Clearly the new one looks nothing like the Bomford original or its clone the Kenyan one. The only plausible excuse I can see for wnd.com is that they got punked as well but just never ran with it. So the perps kept at it and probably tried to bag Berg and then Taitz, and eventually she decided to get brave and smoke out what they were all sitting on to that point.

Thanks for the book ranges through 1973. By my calculation it was averaging 21.5 Books per year from 1928 to 1948, not much higher than 1900-1928. But from 1948 to 1973 the increase was from 646A to 829B, with 44B allegedly being hit in 1959 about 10 or 11 years into that 25 year period. It sounds plausible if there was rapid expansion in the province during the baby boom and even more so in the 60s.

The 5733 Page number still doesn't fit and there are the other issues, so it's still possible Bomford’s was hacked to some extent to hasten this “debunking”.

[andesag2000]

Good analysis! No, its not good news. I honestly have believed that the Bomford BC was a fake...No opinion on the Kenyan BC...Now I am not so sure. Thanks for taking the time to look at the non-existent data we have.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the work...

Fred...see this....

[john in springfield]

We must not be looking at the same Bomford.

Everything I’ve looked into on the Bomford certificate - EVERYTHING so far - has either checked out or seemed to have a reasonable explanation.

I can even see apparent distortion at a place or two in the folds. There’s not much, because you have a full-frontal view of the certificate, but I can see some in a place or two.

As for the type being “over” the signature, IMO that’s just nonsense. It’s going to be EXTREMELY difficult to tell from a scanned image which ink is on top. Heck, I’ve even tried it on a real piece of paper, and it’s difficult there!

I know you want the Kenyan one to be real, but you have to go with where the facts lead you.

Just the fact that the Kenyan one apparently has an Australian price on it, NOT Kenyan, is enough to mark it as almost certainly being a fake.