In a recent article at WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi talks about a comparison of typefaces made by Paul Irey between the Obama certificate and a newly-disclosed sample certificate from later in August. Irey, hopelessly blinded by confirmation bias, compares apples to oranges in terms of document resolution and arrives at the conclusion he expected; however, the information inadvertently disclosed on this new certificate completely destroys a mainstay of the birther objections to Obama’s certificate, namely that his certificate number is impossible.
Several articles here have discussed Obama’s birth certificate number. The birther objection is that Obama’s number is higher than that of the Nordyke twins born a day later. Birthers demand (for no good reason beyond the fact that Obama’s certificate doesn’t have this characteristic) that the certificate numbers must exactly follow the order of the births themselves. I showed in my article, Obama’s birth certificate number, that the information from available certificates suggests that certificates were batched and alphabetized before numbering, and even estimated the size of that batch.
Now WorldNetDaily has published a certificate it says is authentic dating from August 23, 1961, that has a lower number (61-09945) than both Nordyke and Obama! (Of course, they tried to cover up the number and then they did cover it up, but Google’s cache doesn’t forget.) Thanks to Computer Guy John Woodman, author of Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? for publishing this discovery by “Woofer.” I urge readers to read Woodman’s article because it not only presents the discovery with the care and attention to detail we have come to expect from Woodman, but because it describes some shenanigans at WorldNetDaily that may have been aimed at covering this all up.
Here are the old results, plus the new information:
- WND Mystery certificate – 09945 – 8/23/1961
- Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 8/5/1961
- Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 8/5/1961
- Obama, Barack – 10641- 8/4/1961
- Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 8/5/1961
My own calculations suggested that Obama’s certificate was part of a batch of 3 weeks certificates. Obama, born August 4, and the unnamed WND certificate holder born August 23 would be within a three week period and conceivably processed in the same batch. If we knew the surname on the WND certificate, we could get confirmation for or disprove my theory that the batch was alphabetized before numbering. If I’m right, the surname would be something preceding “Nordyke” in the alphabet by a good bit. (I’m not in a position to do a detailed calculation this week of what the letter should be according to my theory.) Woofer, who examined the image showing through to the back side of the WND certificate, believes that the surname might begin with “A.”
While the objection to the registrar signature on the Obama certificate (“ukulele’) has already been debunked, this certificate has the same signature.
Since WorldNetDaily has scrubbed the original images, I reproduce them here (taken from Google cache) for reference (click for original-sized versions).
Update: It was subsequently disclosed that the certificate is that of “Johanna Ah’nee.”
I’m curious to see what other birther theories we can debunk from this new specimen.
As I recall, they also claimed the name of the hospital was incorrect on Obama’s BC as that was not the name of the hospital at time.
And initially (and perhaps some still do) claimed that U.K.L. Lee was a joke.
They claimed, as I recall, that ll the typing should line up perfectly to the left on Obama’s… it certainly does not on this exemplar.
Also (and this with the naked eye) check out the typing in line 7c. The H in Hawaii is (at least as I remember the terminology from many years ago) “appears” to be a “flying capital letter” (though it’s slight) which was fairly common when typing, as I recall. I’m sure if such an “anomaly” appeared on Obama’s BC it was termed proof of forgery.
I’m sure there are probably many more such occurrences which snatch the “forgery/fake” claims from the birthers, based on this comparison document so kindly provided by Mr. Irey and WND.
TYVM guys. 🙂
The whole story appears to have disappeared from WND.
I am of the opinion that a really skilled person could coax out quite a bit of information from the back side of that certificate. Still, I don’t know that it would help much. It was remarkable that an article all about comparing the typewriting on the Obama certificate with this new one replaced the new certificate image with one where just about all the typewriting has been blanked out, even things which the article says is there, like the Kapioloani hospital location.
Note that the image above has the same penciled codes that the Obama certificate has, the same registrar signature. It’s a shame that the number “8” isn’t typed on the form to show the distinctive typeface of the Underwood typewriter used on Obama’s.
I think you have a good idea for an article reviewing this certificate against birther claims against Obama’s.
The Birth Certificate may still be a forgery….
Kapiolani Medical Center Confirms ‘African’ Never Used On Birth Certificates in 1961 or Now
http://networkedblogs.com/n4Xrv
Not sure what this means but in box 18A where the more is suppose to sign neither of the little check boxes are not marked.
Looks like an anomaly, it must have been signed by the grandmother registering the birth so her grandchild could be an American citizen and grow up to be President. Well in 1961, maybe she was expecting her granddaughter to grow up and be the wife of the American President.
I think we all may be suffering from confirmational bias now. Obviously, what this new document proves is that in 1961, every birth certificate produced in Hawai’i was fake.
Clearly there were no births in Hawaii at all that year, and in order to cover up this tragedy (caused by a massive nuclear accident in Pearl Harbor), the US Government and the Hawai’ian state government conspired to fake the birth certificates so no one would ever know.
You are assuming there even is a place called Hawaii.
Welcome to the Matrix.
The parent’s race is covered up, probably due to a non-standard entry like “African”, which the birthers claim cannot be allowed and proves a forgery.
The real giveaway that something is amiss is the year…….1961. Notice that it reads the same upside down as it does rightside up. It’s all part of the big plan…..I’m sure.
No one currently working at the Department of Health was around 50 years ago to know what they did and didn’t do. However, we know that African was used because the Director of Vital Statistics certified the copy of Obama’s certificate saying African.
So, this is just more useless speculation,
I love that new birther “evidence” – they talk to one random person, working at the hospital today, if a given term woul jaw been used 50 years ago, and they answer “Probably not”.
Somehow that becomes HOSpITAL CONFIRMS AFRICAN RACE IMPOSSIBLE.
The world may still be flat…
Hilarious!
John, do you want to spank those mean Hawaiian officials who “forged” Obama’s LFBC?
gorefan: You are assuming there even is a place called Hawaii.
Welcome to the Matrix.
YOU’RE assuming there is a Matrix. Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Where’s the smiley face? Was Mr. Onaka not a happy guy in 1995?
WND may have dropped their own linking to their own story, but it’s still up:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937
They can’t even scrub right(?). They are so fired from the Ministry of Truth. Where’s Winston Smith when we need him?
I did see the article last night (official J. Potter reaction: ” *sigh* … still at it …. just a’diggin’ that hole!”), and was struck by the absolute fail of its point, the comparison of letterforms between the two BCs: http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/07/090811Hospitaldoc.jpg … looks like identical typefaces to me, one sample scanned with heavier contrast than the other. If a complete provenance of the images provided of the 1995 BC was provided, I missed it. This table is to me a great litmus test of bias / desire a/o ignorance / gullibility.
Also in the big smoking gun comparison mashup, I enjoyed the typo “Sqribd”, which appears right over a correctly spelled link to http://www.scribd.com. To err is human; good to know they’re not all robots over at WND!
” “So, the word ‘African’ wouldn’t have been used, because that is a nationality…..”
i wonder if she also let dean know that africa isn’t a country?
When factcheck.org did its analysis of the Obama short form certificate, they inquired of the Hawaii Department of Health about the race of the father being listed as “African.”
A Mr. Kurt Tsue of the Hawaii Department of Health responded to the factcheck.org inquiry by saying “that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.”
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Mr. Tsue’s comment is at the end of the article.
Our birther friend “Butterdezillion” has done her own expert analysis of the WND birth certificate and she has declared it a forgery.
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/wnd-birth-certificate-forgery/
Plain old hustlers scamming money from the vulnerable. They embody the worst kind of con artist.
In 1961, the National Center for Health Statistics used nine different designations for race on birth certificates,
1 – White
2 – Negro
3 – American Indian
4 – Chinese
5 – Japanese
6 – Aluet
7 – Esjimo
8 – Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined)
9 – other nonwhite
On President Obama’s LFBC there is a number nine (9) written in pencil next to the word African and a number one (1) written in pencil next to the word Caucasian.
Coincidence?
The CEO of Kapiolani denies the story. Oh how desperate these people are getting in their efforts to debunk facts…
President Obama was born on US soil, and according to our Constitution is eligible to be our President.
A Kenya census document from around 1960 instructs its citizens to use the term african for race. Again, it’s not what we believe the race should be but rather what the parents considered the race to be, or in this case, the father.
Such despair….
On WND, Paul Irey claimed the race was “another mixed race” but won’t say which. Very likely one that isn’t “official” either and would kill the “they only used the official race names” argument.
Unfortunately, the snippet of the backside does not contain the frontside data about race.
My attempts to excise data from the bleedthrough were not convincing so far (except for the certificate number); the first name seems to be something like “HANNA”, middle names something like “SOLANGE M…A ON…E” and last name something like “AHINE”; address something like “621 A Kun… Lane”.
I’ll consult my personal “Photoshop expert” on the weekend. 😉
On the heavily redacted version now on WND, they left the handwritten race codes unredacted. As best as I can tell, it is a 3 for both parents, That would make them American Indian according to Gorefan’s list, Since part of the number is covered, and I cannot find a comparison 3 on another certificate, I cannot be sure.
In addition, I’m fairly sure I’ve read on WND and Freep and ORYR many times that the mere redacting of a certificate number completely and wholly invalidates the certificate and all that it written on it such that it can never be used to confirm anything.
Sorry Mr. Irey, I’ve read WND too much to be fooled by your redacted certificate. You are a charlatan. Get a real birth certificate next time maybe.
/s
I would SO love to see the results of this query to their DB
Select count,race from birthdata group by race;
If there’s a rabbit hole then why can’t the rabbit that lives inside of it show it’s long-form birth certificate? The fact that the rabbit spent over $2 million to keep us from going further inside the hole to look for it is awfully suspicious.
Man, it’s hard thinking like a birther. How do these people do it every day?
On Oracle, the result would be “ORA-00979: not a GROUP BY expression”. ;-P
You probably meant “SELECT Count(*), race FROM birthdata GROUP BY race”; though I’d personally also settle for “SELECT DISTINCT race FROM birthdata”. 😉
Then again, the discussion above reiterates that the database will likely contain the internal classification numbers only, with Obama’s dad having “9” for “other”, not the literal text on the BC.
The first redacted version of the August 23 LFBC directly refuted at least three Birther “proofs” that the Obama BC was a fraud, namely:
– The hospital name “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” was not used in 1961
– “U. K. L. Lee” was a joke played by an anonymous
– That the typing is centered in the fields instead of left aligned
I believe at one time WND and Corsi have pushed every one of these claims. I believe this explains why the additional redactions were made. I am sure they knew the number had to be redacted because it was a huge blow to the out of sequence number nonsense. They never guessed it was visible from the back.
Not if you’re a birther. There’s another “C” word that is appropriate: CONSPIRACY!!!!
She has a black belt in bending reality to suit her belief system.
If you look at the back of this LFBC where the father’s occupation is listed, I swear it says chief (something). LOL
can i unassume there is a Matrix II and III?
But of course, the database must have the literal text “African” in it because the 2007 COLB is printed from the database and shows “African.” In vital statistics systems, with which I am an authority, it is common to store both codes and literals. Often the codes are assigned for some values in a separate step after the literals are recorded. This stems from the dual function that a vital record serves: a legal record where the record must show what was originally provided by the respondent, and the statistical function where data is aggregated according to a limited set of classifications.
Where did you get your list?
This is my favorite, too, Tarrant. To a birfer, as long as the random person says what they are desparate to hear, it’s all good!
I’ve read some posts from this person on the internet but mostly at free republic. I sincerely believe that she has mental issues. She talks about things in such a way as if she has ABSOLUTE PROOF of something and when you read her initial sentence about it, she has totally speculated and felt that this is PROOF.
I find her to be a sad person. I even read a post of hers where she said her sister wouldn’t talk to her anymore because she gets despressed or something…and this woman has children! I know that they are always anxiety ridden with her as a mother with all that 24/7 doom and gloom.
The fact that BZ has to explain a conspiracy by more conspiracy is the telltale sign that there is no conspiracy… The problem is that in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, it makes sense… The alternative is just unthinkable “the total abandonment of the concept”.
BZ is yet another example (many abound at Freeperville, ORYR and Dr (KH)ates) where the insane delusions they hold have either estranged them from or they have driven away their friends, relatives and loved ones.
If they weren’t in general such a bunch of racist, delusional, seditious, lying set of muppets I might scrape together a morsel of pity.
As it is….as ye sow so shall ye reap, bad cess to them all.
c/count/count(*)/
Your analysis may be right. It depends on what they feel is important for the DB.
CDC website – “Viial Statistics of the United States 1961”
Section 5 Technical Appendix
5-7 Race and Color
“Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.””
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf
I put it into a column form to make the idea behind the numbers on the BCs more understandable. On the few BC’s available that show race of parents there is always a 1 behind the Caucasian.
Hawaii DOH could rearrange the categories for their purposes. Maybe Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian was moved up to number 3 since they would see a lot more of those types of births. And Caucasion makes sense as being the first category and other nonwhite makes sense as being the last category.
Then again, I think Dr. C probably has the correct answer above.
More gleanings from the BC reverse:
It looks like the father’s name is JAMES HA????, occupation CHIEF something, address 623 A something LANE, mother’s name THERESA PUCKAWA, race something GERMAN
http://www.birthersummit.org/news/in-the-news/51-news20110915a.html
Dean Haskins reports more compelling information from Hawaii
Below is some very interesting excerpts from the account:
Today, we visited the Department of Health, and it turned into quite the showdown. Miki Booth did most of the talking, and I can assure you that the gentleman to whom she spoke was not happy that we were there. His name was Jesse Koike. At one point, Miki pointed out that on Obama’s “long form birth certificate,” the word “THE” in Alvin T. Onaka’s stamp was misspelled, and that it actually shows “TXE.” He seemed not to be aware of that, but then explained that they have THREE different “sealers,” so one of them might contain that misspelling. Later on in the conversation, Jesse explained that they have FIVE different sealers, so one of them might contain that misspelling. Hmmmm . . . is it three or five? When Miki asked to see the sealers, he conveniently declined.
Why is this important? It wouldn’t surprise me to hear in the near future that the Department of Health has “discovered” that one of their sealers contains a misspelling of the word “THE” in Onaka’s stamp. If they do that, you’ll know why.
Eventually, a long line of people formed behind us, and they were becoming increasingly vocal about having to wait. Jesse called a supervisor, and we heard him frantically state, “We have birthers down here!” We couldn’t contain our laughter at that. Of course, there wasn’t anyone higher up who would speak with us, and we were told that Mr. Onaka was in Guam. One can only imagine why he was in Guam. Good luck with that one, Hawaiians.
Miki asked how she could get a copy of her son’s actual long form birth certificate, and Mr. Koike informed us that the only way to do that would be to have a court order. Does anyone happen to recall a court order being part of the Obama narrative regarding how he obtained his supposed long form birth certificate from Hawaii? I didn’t think so.
Miki also asked Mr. Koike why some “long form birth certificates” contain information about the parents’ birthplace, while others don’t, and Jesse responded that only a “LFBC” for someone born after 1976 will contain the parents’ birthplace information (I use quotation marks because Onaka conveniently changed the rules during this Obama debacle so that nobody in Hawaii can actually obtain copies of their actual LFBC—only computer abstracts that they now call a long form birth certificate). When Miki pointed out that the parental information is necessary for a passport, Jesse told her that, in those cases, people must ask the Department of Health to update their birth certificates to include that information. Miki’s response to that answer was dead on. She said, “That is just lame!”
Happy to see that thiis has brought the batshit crazy “butterdezillion” out of birther retirement. We need Nelllie at the forefront of the movement.
Hey if Onaka is in Guam, the next flight of any good old Jack McKee reporter would be to Guam to track down Onaka. Perhaps Dr. Corsi should book his next flight to Guam tommorrow. Guam isn’t that big so it shouldn’t be too hard to track down Alvin Onaka and interview him about question him about Obama’s birth certificate. Dr. Corsi needs to be Jack McKee and hunt down Alvin Onaka.
But it may be even easier. Assuming Onaka is in Guam, it could be that he is there for a week. If that is true, he might be returning to Hawaii on Friday. It would fruitful for a good reporter to find all of the flights from Guam to Honolulu. That way, when Onaka gets after the plane, He can be ready to answer questions about Obama’s birth certificate to a reporter.
People who thought it must be “A????” perhaps forgot the frequency of the J at the start of English surnames. Jones, Johnson, … so Ha??? does not refute alphabetization.
Since this is the blog of (Dr) C, I have to explain that Puckawa is actually a Polish name and in Polish is written with a kreska on the C. Pućkawa, pronounced Pootshkava.
This lady putting down her race as German, may actually be stating “Hell no, I am NOT Polish, and my name is Poo-kava!”
Seems like they simply noted down what the person said.
Doc reports an average of 339 births per week based on annual stats from 1961 — the new August 23 number is 975 digits lower than the Waidelich number. Based on the calculated average, you could expect roughly 1020 births in a 3 week period, or 1350 in a 4 week period, or about 1470 per month (simply dividing the annual figure by 12).
I’m not sure why Doc theorized a 3 week holding period rather than a monthly period. It actually would make more sense to me that the indexing was done by month. It would enable a very simple system whereby all records for the current month would be held in one place in a simple alphabetized filing unit, and then sometime near the start of a new month, all the records for the previous month would be numbered, indexed, and archived. So if a parent showed up at the health department asking for their baby’s birth certificate, the staff would know where to look simply from the calendar. Current month=alphabetically sorted “new records” cabinet; any previous month=regular indexing, archival and binding system.
Dean Haskins is a bald-faced liar.
A medical records department does not make records. They file charts, store charts, flag missing signatures, threaten loss of privileges to get those signatures, and copy or retrieve charts when needed.
There would not be a person sitting in med rec filling out birth certificates. Birth certificates are not medical records. They are not part of the chart. The person who types them up is generally a clerk on or near the maternity ward so s/he has easy access to the parents to make sure all info is correct.
Hawaii Regulations required that the outer island were to “air mail” any previous months BC that they still had on hand after the fourth day of the new month. So if a baby was born on July 31st on Maui, the local registrar had to air mail it to Honolulu on August 4th. So maybe that is when they started to assign numbers.
Isn’t it interesting how it all fall into place. Every new data point just proves the birthers wrong.
I said three weeks because that’s how the math came out; however, my methodology could at best come up with a rough estimate and 4 weeks is well within the margin of error. Remember, I only had certificates from two consecutive days to work with. As you say, a 4-week period makes more sense from a process standpoint. Given the number on the new certificate, a better approximation could be made, provided we could find out the surname.
That makes perfect sense to me.
John never fails to amuse.
What is “lame” is Miki Booth’s assertion that parental birthplace information is necessary for a passport. My birth certificate contains no information whatsoever about where my parents were born or their citizenship, but I have a passport.
John, do you have a passport?
Here is a piece of trivia that I found interesting from the CDC 1961 report,
Source of Data
“With the exceptions noted in the next paragraph, natality tabulations for 1961 are based on information obtained from microfilm copies of the original certificates. These copies were received from the registration offices of all States, certain cities, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The statistical information on these records was edited, classified, placed on punchcards, and tabulated in the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD).”
Up until now i just assumed the folks in Hawaii tabulated the statistical data and then forwarded that to Washington. I guess the NCHS wanted to be the ones to make the determination how to classify things like father’s race being “African”.
And the exceptions mentioned,
“The 1961 birth statistics for California, Georgia, Michigan, and New York City were produced by a somewhat different procedure. The vital statistics offices of these areas coded the information on their certificates according to the rules followed in NVSD. From punchcards prepared for their own use, they reproduced the information required for national tabulations on uniform punchcard forms. The reproduced cards were verified and tabulated with the cards for the other areas.”
Mr. Koike’s supposed answer makes no sense since the 1961 BC show father and mother’s place of birth. If he did make that statement it would show that he is not familiar with the older BCs in Hawaii. Which wouldn’t be all that surprising, he is probably just concerned with the stuff he needs to deal with on a day to day basis. He probably has no reason to be an expert in the evolution of Hawaiian BCs.
So people with actual business with the DOH had to wait while some morons carried on about something that doesn’t matter and isn’t their business?. Everyone of those people should bill the birthers for the time they lost at $500/hour.
Of course, we don’t know if anything which has been attributed to Mr. Koike was actually said by him. The birthers like to insinuate that Hawaii has changed its rules on birth certificates to cover up for Obama. The salient point is that Miki Booth’s assertion that “parental information is necessary for a passport” is not true now and never has been true. The State Department doesn’t care about the birthplace or citizenship of an applicant’s parents.
“When Miki pointed out that the parental information is necessary for a passport,”
.
Be patient, one day john may say something that is true, not now, but some day.
where does he come up with this stuff, and isn’t he tired of being wrong?
Here’s the first-time passport application (Form DS-11):
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79955.pdf
It has several fields for parental information, including parent’s place of birth. It doesn’t however have an entry for parental citizenship.
There is a newer requirement (as of April 2011) that parents’ names must be on the birth certificate. This has always been the case with Hawaiian BCs. The birthplace or citizenship of the parents isn’t a requirement.
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/passport_5401.html
“Beginning April 1, 2011, the U.S. Department of State will require the full names of the applicant’s parent(s) to be listed on all certified birth certificates to be considered as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship for all passport applicants, regardless of age. Certified birth certificates missing this information will not be acceptable as evidence of citizenship. This will not affect applications already in-process that have been submitted or accepted before the effective date.”
“On President Obama’s LFBC there is a number nine (9) written in pencil next to the word African and a number one (1) written in pencil next to the word Caucasian.
Coincidence?”
African is marked with a 9 which is other, non-white. What’s the big deal?
Also, i think your math assumes that ALL birth records were assembled & alphabetized together. It’s possible that they were batched by island, and alphabetized within each grouping. (i.e., Oahu records are in a separate batch from Maui, etc.). That system would mean that the stamping and indexing wouldn’t be held up waiting for records to arrive from an outlying island. Of course, we would need a non-Oahu birth record with certificate number to test that possibility.
I think a UIPA request by Butterbutt answer said the certificate number was applied at the central office in Honolulu.
Dean should have mentioned the smiley face on the Alvin Onaka stamp. The smiley face can clearly be seen on Obama’s long-form birth certificate and is blatant even on the high resolution scan. Regardless of how many theories are put forth and debunked, Obama’s long-form birth certificate still a forgery. It has been altered and therefore is not valid. If one takes a close look at the smiley face on the high resolution scan, it appear the smiley face was created using the letter “E” or letter “C” and then overlaying the letter “A” from Alvin on to it. It appears that Alvin Onaka modified his own stamp to produce the smiley face. Onaka probably had a sense of humor and was taking a jab at birthers. Because Onaka modified his own signature stamp, he essentially invalided the birth certificate and therefore it is a forgery.
Yes, but that says nothing about the ORDER in which the numbers were applied, or how the certificates were arranged prior being stamped. I did not say the numbers were applied elsewhere — I just suggested that maybe the staff in Honolulu has a separate file drawer or section for each of the islands, and then goes through the process of stamping them in separate batches.
I can think of quite a few good reasons why it would be be efficient to batch the certificates by region prior to stamping them, and go through one region at a time. For one thing, that would mean that if one month a tropical storm caused the certificates from Molokai to arrive late, that wouldn’t hold up processing of the other certificates.
Here is the High Resolution scan:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
The smiley face literally jumps out at you. It appears to be created by using the letter C or E and overlaying the letter A over it.
Why Is WND Hiding That Central Birther Premise Has Been Demolished?
Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 11 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi makes a big deal out of “an authentic Hawaii Department of Health long-form birth certificate issued in 1961” as a way to attack Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate. But it appears that Corsi is hiding a crucial fact about that certificate.
The Obama Conspiracy blog is reporting that the “authentic” certificate Corsi is citing as a lower certificate number than Obama’s despite being dated 19 days later. One of Corsi’s major arguments to support the idea that Obama’s certificate is a fake, as he detailed in an April 27 article, is that it was out of order from a pair of birth certificates known as the Nordyke twins.
Corsi asked: “how was it possible that the Nordyke twins had their birth certificates accepted by the registrar general in Hawaii three days later than the registrar general accepted Obama’s birth certificate, when the twins’ numbers are lower than Obama’s number?” The answer, of course, is that more than one person was processing birth certificates in the Hawaii Department of Health office — but that is too simple a answer for Corsi, who instead felt the need to blow it up into a conspiracy.
Speaking of conspiracies, it seems WND has engaged in a conspiracy of silence over this revelation. Obama Consipracy reports that WND originally posted the “authentic” birth certificate with its number faintly displayed, but later substituted it with a version with the number completely blanked out.
John Woodman, who has recently released a book debunking the claims of Corsi and other birthers (which, of course, Corsi and WND have studiously ignored so far), has the incriminating screenshots on his blog.
Any chance Corsi and WND will come clean about their deception? Don’t count on it — peddling birther conspiracies is how WND makes its money these days, and debunking one of its own conspiracies is not in its business model.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
To clarify, my point is that the State Department doesn’t require that information about the parents birthplace be on an applicant’s birth certificate.
I actually don’t know the birthplace of my parents. I believe that my father was born in New York City. My mother was born in New York State, but I don’t know the name of the city.
Nor do I. My father was born in Tawas City Michigan, I think, but my mother? Illinois? Indiana? Michigan? Not a clue, and it is too late to ask her.
Oh. And I do have a passport.
I am actually going to give butterdezillion a little bit of credit here. Just a tiny, tiny bit. She’s definitely deluded with respect to the law and lots of other things – she gets involved in all sorts of law and such threads on Freep and reads the law and statutes and comes to conclusions that are almost 180 degrees from what they actually mean (because she’s already decided what she wants them to mean in advance). And because, unlike most birthers, she actually does research (she just comes to the wrong conslusions), she’s much harder to convince that she’s wrong. She believes that she did the grunt work and that her findings prove what she already desperately wanted to be true, rather than just reading someone else’s. She’s emotionally invested in her findings and research.
But in this, I’ll grant that at least she’s being consistent, which gives her 1 point out of like, 4 billion possible.
The number of birthers that have looked at this new certificate, had the certificate number thing pointed out, but say that:
1. This BC is real and still proves Obama’s is fake because of Irey’s (completely bogus) “analysis” of the typing.
and also
2. The fact that the number is “out of order” does not mean this certificate is fake in the slightest and can be disregarded.
but also that
3. The fact that Obama’s number is “out of order” still proves his is fake.
That is, they are perfectly happy with the doublethink that the certificate number theory that WND still pushes that “proves” Obama’s is fake is completely inapplicable to another certificate that they desperately want to be real. Fingers in the ears, “LA LA LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU CERTIFICATE NUMBER NO IMPORTANCE THIS ONE IS REAL.” It’s like when they say the Indonesian school application is 100% real when it says Obama is Indonesian, but 100% fake (or they were simply lying) when it says he was born in Hawaii.
At least butterdezillion, who does subscribe to the “Certificate number means it’s fake” theory, immediately comes to the conclusion that this new one must also be fake for that reason (and a bunch of other daft reasons too). She’s wrong, but consistent.
So, score one miniscule point there.
On the contrary. The high-resolution scans show that what you imagine to be eyes and a mouth are both two vertical smudges.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/08/noise-2/
The certificate number is not a sequential serial number. It is a unique record number that serves as an identifier to allow the the various data elements to be linked in databases, for document storage purposes, etc. In this cases there is no discoverable information intentionally embedded in the number itself and it is a function of a recording process that occured at the DoH. The numbers look like “serial numbers” which do usually do contain “information” and are commom in manfacturing that assigned as a part or a fill assembly is finished. The simplest is the order of manufactuer. This DoH number is must simpler.
The idiot birthers don’t get the simple things right ever. That is why they always get proven wrong – 100% of the time,
Well, Polland has once again come up with a new theory.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/nordyke-long-form-birth-certificates.html
Hard to tell who is better at fiction writing Sven or Polland.
I understand your comment, but I wouldn’t put it that way. I think it is fair to say that the certificate number (called the State File Number in the business) is the processing order of the certificates. They are serialized in the sense that a numbering machine assigns the numbers sequentially as they are processed. Care is taken in other jurisdictions with which I am familiar, to insure that numbers aren’t skipped (or the reason why is documented if they are). In information processing systems, such numbers are called accession numbers.
The full certificate number is 151 – 61 – 010641, consisting of a prefix indicating Hawaii, a year number and then a sequentially assigned number.
Polland is basing part of his analysis of the Nordyke’s on the cert # of the WND BC. Since the girl born on the 23rd has a much lower number then the Nordyke’s, theirs must be fake. Good work
You must also believe there is a man’s face on the moon. Hey, it literally jumps out at you.
Did you notice that TXE becomes THE in the high resoultion scan? Thanks for debunking that myth.
And if you take the “9”, rotate it 180 degrees, put the 2 “1”s together head-to-tail and bend them just right, you get “666”. What could be more telling?
And if you hit the magnify button and look closely inside each of the 6’s you’ll see a faint image of Barack Obama. Oh wait…..that’s dirt on my screen. Never mind!
If you blow the “TXE” up to about +300% in the high resolution scan you can see that the stamp artifact that makes it look like an x in “THE”, to an illiterate moron, that artifact actually goes right across the entire phrase “OF THE” and becomes very apparent indeed… unless you happen to be illiterate, or a scanner salesman perhaps.