Replies

Ok, let's have a look at these certificates.

First, let's look at the Kenyan one, straight magnified with a slight contrast.

Notice anything?

Now I suppose it's possible that the pixellation could be due to graphic conversion to JPEG. Some experiments could be done to see whether photos of text documents converted to JPEGs get similar pixellation. And I confess I haven't done those experiments. But so far, it does look a bit fishy, doesn't it? It looks even fishier if you enhance the contrast more than I've done here.

Now let's look at the Australian one.

I had to magnify it a bit more, but note: it lacks the pixellation around all the letters.

Now I'm going to weaken my own argument, but stating that it seems possible that conversion to a jpeg could account for the pixellation around the type in the first document, and it's possible that you could overlay text onto a blank form background and get results like you see in the second. So this evidence is not conclusive.

But let's look at the seals. I've adjusted both to try and get the best picture I could.

Now I really can't tell what this is, but frankly, it looks (to me at least) like it could be the imprint of a large coin. Can anyone identify it?

Now the Australian one:

See any difference?

I can READ the Australian seal. I can tell you exactly what it says. I can't even tell you whether the Kenyan one is actually a seal, or a coin imprint.

For me, the difference in the seals is indicative.

Finally, a straight magnification of the printer's line on the Australian certificate, a printer whom we know both to exist and to be a long-standing printer of official documents for the Australian Government: Note that this feature is missing in the Kenyan certificate:

See any suspicious pixellation in this image of tiny print? Neither do I.

So I ask you: If one of these is a forgery of the other, which one looks like the original and which one looks like the fake? Some of us might still differ in opinions, but at least maybe conservativegramma can see a bit of where I'm coming from.

But there's lots more evidence. The Republic of Kenya thing. The fact that we have a real, live David Bomford in Adelaide who verifies that the Australian certificate is his. Heck, I've even posted his home address in this thread and only blotted out part of the phone number for privacy's sake. How do I know he's the one? Not 100% conclusive, but the only Bomfords in the Adelaide phone book are D Bomford and D J Bomford. The latter, I presume, is David Jeffrey.

Of course someone messed with the original Kenyan one if it really does exist or it is a modified doc from someone else's. Or the Kenyan one is simply generated from scratch as a forgery. The background imprint in the paper is simply to washed out as you clearly show. Jpeg images would be uniform throughout pixel by pixel. No distortions would be inherent. All a jpeg image is are obviously multiple lines of either ones or zeros within each pixel cell. Little room for repetitive messed up pixels unless the binary file that represents the image was held in a computer with one hell of a lot of faulty memory address during it's brief existence before writing out as a file. And that is extremely unlikely. One would be quite aware they had faulty RAM in their system for many good reasons I could go into but will spare the reader. Likewise if one had a number of literally bad areas within a number of sectors on a given track or multiple tracks on a CDROM or on their main Hard Disk where the file was stored, similarly one might remotely consider such uniform washouts to occur within a given stored file. But that is so unlikely based on how we see the washouts within the magnified image you show.
One would in either case above also see parts of the type print also washed out.