[SirJohnBarleycorn]

That point has been circumstatially proven beyond a shadow of doubt. - Care to try again?

ROFLMAO!

Freeper "PA Engineer" claimed here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1390#1390) that the Bomford document was photoshopped based on the following info:

Hold the Presses! My daughter just showed me something.

She had me open both the Australian and Kenyan documents in Photoshop Elements. From there she had me under the Image menu “Divide Scanned Photos”. Nothing appeared on the Kenyan document, however six layers pealed away from the Australian one.

These layers all showed distortion.

You can go on and read the rest of the post there.

But then freeper "rudman" countered here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1903#1903) with information that that tool in Photoshop does NOT detect layers, it separates out pictures.

“Divide Scanned Photos” is for separating out multiple pictures on a scanned document. It will find seemingly natural borders and break them out to minimize the time needed for scanning.

Now do this - take your phone bill, scan it in, and do the same exercise. See what i mean? Any flat document with seemingly blockish borders will break out.

All I am saying is that the work done earlier on the thread with the signatures and the creases are much more telling than this.

Just a last thought - if the australian certificate is really authenticate - or not - that really has no bearing on the kenyan certificate. If that can be corroborated - then there it is.

So the proof that the Bomford doc has been photoshopped appears lacking.

Also, you can go to the Internet Archive and find the Bomford web site here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bomford.net

Go to the Worcestershire Bomfords, then go to the annotated family tree. David Jeffrey Bomford appears on the Worcester Bomford page at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070205211559/www.bomford.net/worcestershire/treeannotated.htm

This page is from 2007.

Go down and find David Jeffrey Bomford (#I0543) and run your cursor over the "b" following his name. You will see that there was a .jpg page at that time (2007) containing a birth certificate at THAT TIME. The .jpg page was not also archived by the Internet Archive.

Was the birth certificate .jpg in 2007 the same as the birth certificate .jpg that was pulled from the web two days ago? There is no indication in the Internet Archive that the Bomford website was ever updated after June 2007.

So were there shenanigans with the Bomford birth certificate? So far, it seems unlikely.

And as to your question about the Bomford document being uploaded by a forger just the other day, see this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1943#1943

And of course, there is the interview on Australian radio with David Jeffrey Bomford himself in which he says essentially that that really was his actual birth certificate he put on his website.

I think everyone looking at this carefully would agree that the Kenyan birth certificate and the Bomford birth certificate cannot both be real, because the coincidence of the book (44B) and page number (5733) of the birth register places that outside the realm of reasonable possibility.

One way to verify the Bomford document is for any Australian freeper in Adelaide to pop into the registrar's office and ask very nicely if there really exists a book "44B" with a page "5733" in the birth records in the year 1961. That would not be giving out private information, and if asked nicely I'm sure a clerk could and would easily check. That would settle the question.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Just to correct my post, the year that should be checked in Adelaide for book 44B and page 5733 should be 1959, not 1961.

[editor-surveyor]

"So the proof that the Bomford doc has been photoshopped appears lacking."

The evidence is abundant.

"One way to verify the Bomford document is for any Australian freeper in Adelaide to pop into the registrar's office and ask very nicely if there really exists a book "44B" with a page "5733" in the birth records in the year 1961. That would not be giving out private information, and if asked nicely I'm sure a clerk could and would easily check. That would settle the question."

Obviously, and the fact that they made no effort to do exactly that to verify it, proves that they knew that it was fake because they had faked it.

[editor-surveyor]

"But then freeper "rudman" countered here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1903#1903) with information that that tool in Photoshop does NOT detect layers, it separates out pictures."

Then why was it not able to do the same for the Kenyan document that was so similar?

[Kells]

So the proof that the Bomford doc has been photoshopped appears lacking.

The original Australian BC image was definitely created using LeadTools graphics software as previously reported in these two posts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307802/posts?page=30#30

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307802/posts?page=40#40

Here is the LeadTools software product list:

http://www.leadtools.com/home2/VertMkts/LTProdOvrvw.htm

Go down and find David Jeffrey Bomford (#I0543) and run your cursor over the "b" following his name. You will see that there was a .jpg page at that time (2007) containing a birth certificate at THAT TIME. The .jpg page was not also archived by the Internet Archive.

This shows that there was a link to a .jpg document by that name in 2007. The .jpg link was not archived so there is no proof that the Australian BC purported "found" on 8/3/2009 ever existed prior to that date.