It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by truthtothemasses
www.bomford.net...
This is where is link is located. You have scroll through a lot of names though. It's about 3/4 of the way down clcik the hot link "b".
"10d I0543 David Jeffrey Bomford, b 10 April 1959 at Adelaide, m 28 Nov 1981 at Somerton Park, South Australia I0546 Amanda Jane Sandover, b 1959, and had issue".
Karl Rove responded to the circulation of the new paper on Twitter, saying "I believe this is likely a forgery."
Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
Regardless, the Kenya BC is a hoax. Too many similarities between the two.
Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Originally posted by truthtothemasses
Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Yes, I see the link, but not sure why you think this link makes it "1000% official".
Are you talking about the aussie certificate of Kenya cert???
I'm now of the opinion that the Kenyan doc is the fake, but I don't see the significance of the link that you said makes it 1000%. What am I missing?
Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by squidboy
Apparently some guy spent hours on Google Images trying to find a similar BC. Is it really that hard to believe?
politijab.com...
Originally posted by truthtothemasses
reply to post by j2000
Do we really have to do this dance????????
Book number and page number...identical.
District Registrar and Signature of Reg last names...identical.
Number up top....identical.
Copy of Reg of Birth doc format...identical.
Um, I really don't what to say other then the Aussie BC is real and the Kenya BC used the the Aussie BC as a template. I really don't know what other conclusion you could come to.
The names of the registrar and the district registrar were the SAME NAMES as given in the Kenya certificate save for the first initials, i.e. G.H. Lavender and J.H. Miller in the Bomford document versus E.H. Lavender and M.H. Miller in the Kenya document.
Also, the book number (44B) and page number (5733) were the exactly the same on both documents.
Originally posted by GLDNGUN
IF it's a fake, the forgerer may have used the following document as his template:
www.bomford.net...
Apparently it ss a scanned image of a “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” dated in 1964 for a David Jeffrey Bomford on a genealogy website for the Bomford family; however, David Jeffrey Bomford wasn’t born in Kenya, he was born in South Australia.
A closer look reveals more disturbing info.
The names of the registrar and the district registrar are nearly the same names used in the Kenya certificate except for the first initials, (G.H. Lavender and J.H. Miller in the Bomford BC vs. E.H. Lavender and M.H. Miller in the Kenya BC).
Also, the book number (44B) and page number (5733) are the same on both BCs.
If this Bomford certificate is the real deal, then I'll be the first to admit that the Kenya BC is very likely fake and that whomever forged it used the Bomford certificate for their template.
Originally posted by truthtothemasses
www.bomford.net...
This is where is link is located. You have scroll through a lot of names though. It's about 3/4 of the way down clcik the hot link "b".
"10d I0543 David Jeffrey Bomford, b 10 April 1959 at Adelaide, m 28 Nov 1981 at Somerton Park, South Australia I0546 Amanda Jane Sandover, b 1959, and had issue".
Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by redhatty
A quick WHO IS check reveals the site was created in 2005.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7f45b9acef3.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by truthtothemasses
Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Originally posted by truthtothemasses
Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Yes, I see the link, but not sure why you think this link makes it "1000% official".
Are you talking about the aussie certificate of Kenya cert???
I'm now of the opinion that the Kenyan doc is the fake, but I don't see the significance of the link that you said makes it 1000%. What am I missing?
The link establishes the fact that this aussie BC exists and is real, unless you want to believe that the founder of that site, which is all about Bomford acestory, is in on the forgery. If you want to believe that then I really don't know what to say. This website has been around since 2005 and isn't affiliated in anything political.
If you want to believe in the unbelieveable coincidences between the two then I really don't know what to say either.
Edit to add:
There are also other BC photo's on that website of the Bomfords.
[edit on 3-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]
Originally posted by Got Questions?
It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?
Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.
Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
I'd pose the argument beyond the accusation or supposition, stated in a previous post, that this Australian BC is a fake.
In 1957 (without further research) I believe that they were both under British rule at that time, and as such, likely had the same source forms from the British Crown?
Just my opinion that needs further research but I wanted to get this in quick so there's pause to consider this idea.
Happy BDay, Bro!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01b9a49a5c0c.jpg[/atsimg]
[edit on 8·3·09 by DrMattMaddix]
Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
Originally posted by Got Questions?
It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?
Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.
Those are exactly the generalized doubts that can be instilled to perpetuate this. They are weak in my opinion.
Not so fast! That guy Koyaan that posted that Aussie BC seems to be a graphic imaging expert. He's been all over the COLB debate. If anyone is capable of pulling off an imaging scam, I think he has the credentials for it. No accusations here, but just Google him.
Originally posted by Got Questions?
Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
Originally posted by Got Questions?
It's not that easy. What if someone hacked the site & replaced the original Aussie BC with a doctored one? Or, what if a hacker doctored the original Aussie BC and re-saved it? And then went "public" with their findings?
Plants are easy and done all the time by those with motive & means to do so.
Those are exactly the generalized doubts that can be instilled to perpetuate this. They are weak in my opinion.
I'm just too suspicious to think the Aussie BC is a slam-dunk.
1. This came to light within 24hrs of the Kenyan BC coming out.
2. The apparent originator of this Aussie BC find appears to be an imaging expert.
3. Hacking & planting is not IMO outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.
FWIW