Replies

Wow there buddy, that’s a lot of words, and yet you didn’t answer my questions at all. It was almost as if you can’t even read.

Here are the 2 points.

1) They don’t seem to care about books and pages.
Let me explain this to you yet again.

Both forms have the word Book and then a blank space then a comma, then the word Page and then a blank space. In both docs, the blank space after Page is filled in with 44B and the blank space after Book is filled in with 5733.

Here’s the point, and I hope you and others get it. I HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA USED A SYSTEM OF BOOKS AND PAGES. If South Australia didn’t use a system of books and pages, then how can there be a form with a filled in space after Book and a filled in space after Page? Only if it’s 100% totally fake. Do you think that a real form would exist in South Australia with a space after Book if they don’t keep records that way? How do you suppose training would go? “Uh, boss, it says Book and theres a space, then Page and a space, what do Book and Page mean, and what do I fill in there?” “I have no idea, just put in 44B after Book and 5733 after Page” Seriously buddy, is that how you think it worked? Now, I’m not certain that they didn’t use books and pages as part of their system, but, again, we’ve seen plenty of birth certificates, and none contain a mention of a book or a page. The fact that we’ve seen those certs, and no mention of books and pages really tends to lead to the assumption that they didn’t use books and pages.

2) Very similar to point 1. I have seen no evidence that South Australia used documents that functioned similar to birth certificates that were entitled “CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH”

I don’t care at all what you think “looks more genuine” We’re comparing pictures. If we were looking at paper, then we’ll talk about what looks more genuine.

YOU’RE OBVIOUSLY A TROLL.

I HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA USED A SYSTEM OF BOOKS AND PAGES.

Are you kidding me?

This was 1964. What were they going to use in South Australia? IBM PCs? Full-building mainframes? Stacks of loose paper that would fall all over the floor?

Have you never gone to a county courthouse and gone through their old public records? Do you not have the slightest clue that public records are kept bound in BOOKS that have PAGES, and that reference to documents is made to a specific BOOK and a specific PAGE?

Your (apparent) claim that South Australia MUST have used some other system than books (with pages) only makes you look silly.

Oh, and by the way, I do encourage you to closely examine both documents at about 1200% magnification, like I suggested. I think anyone who does will come to the same conclusion I did.

Oh, and see the post above in which the real person referred to in the Australian birth certificate has given an interview.

Like I say, you been PWNED.

Here’s the point, and I hope you and others get it. I HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT SOUTH AUSTRALIA USED A SYSTEM OF BOOKS AND PAGES.

From a random post, found in three minutes search at Ancestry's South Australia message board:

One of my distant Victoria rellies married a man from South Australia, had one child in VIC – then disappeared from the Victorian indexes. Perhaps he moved back to SA, took her and the babe with him, and reared a family there:

Joseph WHITE, b. 25 Oct 1850, Adelaide, SA (per index ref: SA, Book 3, #124)

Link

That's only one of several posts on the South Australia board referencing Books and Page numbers for birth, marriage and death records, up to and including the 20th Century. Australia was a British colony. The British government set up a BMC registration system the same way they did in Ireland and other colonies: the event was recorded in a book at the Registrar's office and indexed in the general records as a book and page number.