I'm actually going to withdraw part of my argument above. Here's why:
The pixellation around the letters is probably just an artifact of jpeg optimization. Starting with an image with clean letters and doing a jpeg optimization thing (reduction of quality for file-size reduction) I experimented and came up with this:
The original here was clear, the pixellation appeared in the adjusted image.
So where does that leave us? Part of my above argument is invalid. There are still quite a few other things, though, that indicate to me personally that the Kenyan one seems to be the fake:
* The Republic of Kenya issue.
* The fact that a real live David Bomford says it's his Australian cert.
* Having an address for D J Bomford in Adelaide (one of only 2 Bomfords in the Adelaide phone book).
* The fact that nobody has even claimed to be able to produce a hard copy of the Kenyan one.
* The Australian price apparently appearing on both certificates.
* The fact that the Kenya seal is illegible and arguably not a seal at all.
* The fact that the Australian seal includes the readable words, "PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA" and the identifiable seal of the Australian government - but a seal which was probably not easy to come by as it's a slight variation that seems to appear nowhere on the web.
* And my recollection (hopefully accurate) that some freeper earlier in this thread stated that he had been able to confirm Bomford's certificate had been on the internet for a couple of years, whereas all evidence is that the Kenya one only appeared this week.
Does this mean I think Obama's legit? No. But (in my opinion) neither does this Kenyan certificate appear to be.
In that sense, I guess the two go together after all.
There are still quite a few other things, though, that indicate to me personally that the Kenyan one seems to be the fake:......The fact that a real live David Bomford says it's his Australian cert. Your 2nd point is the one that proves its the BOMFORD one that is the real fake! Do you know anything whatsoever about privacy laws???? Apparently not. The interview I read of David Bomford suggests that he knew nothing about the release of his birth certificate. That means he never authorized the release of any of that information. He should be hiring a lawyer as of yesterday. Instead he laughs it off - very suspicious. He is either 'in on it' or stupid - take your pick.
But I can tell you if anyone posted my legitimate birth certificate on a website WITHOUT my authorization they would get the pants sued off of them and it would be NO laughing matter.
The U.S. has privacy laws. Here is one link They vary from state to state but pretty much all 50 states are in agreememt that you never release any vital record information on a living person to anyone without authorization. And you definitely don't publish it without authorization.
Okay that's the U.S. But Australia has the same types of laws
If David Bomford per his interview never authorized his bc to be published online -- then you have one of two things:
1. A forgery he knew nothing about.
2. A criminal act and violation of his privacy rights.
Either one is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
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.