I would encourage you to go back and do some basic study of logic. And I'm not trying to be condescending when I say that. It's just that some things make sense from the conclusion, and some don't. If you don't have a good grasp of what you can reasonably conclude, you'll come to a lot of wrong conclusions.
It was with the Declaration of Independence that we officially declared ourselves "the United States of America." There's no way that you can twist my reasoning to conclude that the Declaration of Independence is a forgery.
On the other hand, we have a document purporting to have come from a government entity that (from all anyone can tell) simply did not exist at the time.
The REAL comparison here is: What if we were to come up with a image - an IMAGE, mind you - nobody has yet produced an actual paper document - of a birth certificate dated September 1775 supposedly of a David Bomford who was born back in 1772. It states on the IMAGE that this is an official document of "the United States of America."
In that case, there are only two logical conclusions: either this is a legitimate document that has been misdated, or it's a fake.
In fact, this line of thinking points to what is probably the only possible pathway for the Kenya document to be real: The date has to be wrong. And that, I will certainly admit, is plausible. It would not be the first time a mistake appeared on an official government document. And further enhancing that possibility is the fact that it appeared in mid-February, when that particular mistake might have been a bit more likely to have been made. Secondly, the "4" and "5" keys are struck with the same finger, making it very plausible that such a misstriek is a typo and not a mental mistake.
I think there are some serious problems with this theory, however.
First, it is unlikely. It seems less likely to me than that the Kenya document is a fake.
Second, the appearance of the document in February 1964 fits perfectly with a presumed timeline. We have a REASON why such a document would've been produced at that time: the divorce. The most likely "mistake year" would've been 1965, and we don't really have a plausible reason for the appearance of a birth certificate at that time. But that's a weak reason. There might've been a reason.
Third (and most important) there seem to be quite a few other problems with the Kenyan document - not the least of which is that the real David Bomford has stepped forward! But there are things in the image itself that are very telling. See my earlier post on this for more details.
Sorry. Obviously what I meant to say was that some things make sense from the known facts, and some don't.
Actually, there's a third possible conclusion: that the phrase "the United States of America" was used by an official government entity to represent the 13 colonies well before the time that we used the phrase in the Declaration of Independence.
However, by the very nature of things, this would seem unlikely. Governments generally do not produce official documents in some name other than their own name that exists at the time. It's like trying to prove that you went by the name "Janis Joplin" or "Emma Jones" back in the 1960s. But in fact, individuals are generally more likely to go by an assumed name than governments are.
The only reasonable proof would be other documents, known to be real and published by such an entity, from that time period using the same phrase. Producing proof that an obscure newspaper in Bavaria referred to the Colonies as the United States of America would not constitute any proof at all that there was an official American government entity that called itself the United States of America.
Therefore the burden of proof would be on someone making such a claim, to show that an official, governmental "United States of America" somehow existed and published official documents such as birth certificates before we know one was declared in July of 1776.
Why? I took a Logic class in college and got an A+. In my opinion you're the one being illogical trying to maintain that a country who had DECLARED independence could not call itself a republic before it became official. Keep spinning.
It was with the Declaration of Independence that we officially declared ourselves "the United States of America." There's no way that you can twist my reasoning to conclude that the Declaration of Independence is a forgery.
I don't have to twist anything. That's EXACTLY what you're doing. Kenya declared its independence in 1963. LOGIC would dictate they could call themselves whatever they wanted to prior to any offical government articles of confederation.
On the other hand, we have a document purporting to have come from a government entity that (from all anyone can tell) simply did not exist at the time.
Noone has yet suggested its been proven to be genuine - just that the jury is still out. It needs to be examined by specialists to determine authenticity. It cannot be done over the internet and over such piffle conclusions such as Kenya wasn't yet a Republic nonsense that you've been spouting off.
The REAL comparison here is: What if we were to come up with a image - an IMAGE, mind you - nobody has yet produced an actual paper document - of a birth certificate dated September 1775 supposedly of a David Bomford who was born back in 1772. It states on the IMAGE that this is an official document of "the United States of America."
Now that's gibberish. What we have is a supposed birth certificate of a David Bomford who was born in 1959 not 1772. Really spinning now aren't we? And furthermore no reputable genealogist is EVER going to publicly release the image of a vital record of a person STILL LIVING. Get that yet? That's proof enough the Bomford bc is fake. The forgers forgot to research that you cannot legally issue into public domain vital records of living persons.
In fact, this line of thinking points to what is probably the only possible pathway for the Kenya document to be real: The date has to be wrong.
Nonsense. You just don't understand that many people living in the coastal area of Kenya really did refer to themselves as being a Republic prior to December 1964.
Yeah, isn't it just ducky that it just so happens that someone just so happened to stumble upon a Bomford bc that just so happens to resemble the Kenya bc on the day the Kenyan bc was released and it just so happens that Bomford is a radical leftist who supports Obama and it just so happens that person who first identified this bc is a known troll of Free Republic and it just so happens..........Come on man wake up.
I don't know if the Kenyan one is fake or not, let the experts decide after it is analyzed for authenticity and let the chips fall where they may. But I DO KNOW the bomford one is a complete fake. You DO NOT release vital records of LIVING PERSONS on genealogical websites. EVER.