4. The image in question was not cached with this site for the previous 2 year, it suddenly appeared days ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307517/posts?q=1&;page=51#65
see post 75 on thread
When we did that in real time on 8-3 (immediately after the Aussie cert became available)the “last modified” date of the Bomford website was shown to be 2006.
What is the evidence that the Bomford cert did NOT exist before 8-2-09?
I got this from discussion on another thread. The statement was that the image was not in the cached version and that no changes have occurred since 2006.
But, analysis of this image has also shown that it was created using an application that left a watermark in the image stream - Lead Technologies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2308435/posts?page=218#218
Also in a prior thread, the individual who "found" this is a colorful character who has been banned from FR multiple times as a troll. Moreso, think about this concept, someone borrows a Aussie BC and keeps easy things to replace the same that mark the created document as a forgery, but goes through the trouble to mistakenly pick a Period just when there would be maximum controversy about the date and yet get the hospital, locations, jurisdictions, and logos right.
Folks have speculated that the divorce forced this timing if the Kenyan BC were real, but why do this if it was intended to be a forgery? Why not pick a date in 1965? or 1961? But, to pile more onto the improbability of Bomford vs. Kenyan BC being the original, the Kenyan BC is on paper and has been examined by a document examiner, whereas, Bomford is only known to us electronically. Also, many have noted that Bomford seems to have been printed on the wrinkled paper rather than being folded after printing, as the wrinkles surprising don't distort the letters which are sharp and clear rather than showing the effects of the folding process.
The stupidest document examiner in the world can see melted toner or inkjet ink on paper with a simple loop magnifying lens. If the Kenya BC is a fraud taken from Bromford, someone spent alot of money doing it, and if they were going to do that, why not start with a Kenyan BC rather than an Aussie BC.
People forget that the Bomford supporters are asserting that the Bomford image and the Kenyan BC are equivalent documents but they are not, one is physical and it must be taken seriously unless and until it is completely vetted.
If the Bomford document were to show up on paper, it would be just as suspicious until we see a comparable BC from Australia.
However, we also have the DU people saying they were going to flood the field with forgeries to make our heads spin and this comes some days after that announcement by someone who holds himself out as a document expert, at least in his own mind.