Fair is fair. If the birthers are going to question Barack Obama’s birth certificate by comparing it to another “authentic” one, it seems only fair that the birthers should provide some authentication for theirs.
The Hawaii Department of Health says:
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
I have authentication for Obama’s birth certificate. What do the birthers have for this one?
Click for original version
Birthers don’t even say where that redacted image came from, much less provide any authentication.
A number of purported Hawaiian birth certificates have surfaced over the past 5 years, but only Obama’s has any official provenance–and yet Obama’s is the only one called into question by birthers. That seems backwards reasoning to me. The photo above came from a British eccentric, Lord Monckton of Benchley via WorldNetDaily, who never says where he got it. Monckton labeled it “authentic;” however, Vogt labeled another birth certificate (one Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily called “authentic”) a forgery. If the birthers cannot even agree on what’s fake and what’s not, why should others have confidence in their judgment about any of them?
According to the 1960 Census, the population of Hawaii was 632,772, of which 4,943 or .78%, were black. There were around 14,000 births in 1961, and maybe 100 black parents were listed on a birth certificate, and of the non-duplicated number of those certificates, how many do you think the birthers have seen? I would think that it is an extremely small number, and what are the chances that they should come up with exactly what they needed, a race changed to “Negro?”1 That’s what one would normally suspect being “too good to be true.”
An alternate hypothesis to the certificate being true is that it was an altered version of a real one, altered by striking out “Colored” and adding “Negro.” The certificate was obviously altered—the only question is whether the alteration was contemporary to the birth or recent.
I’m not going to attempt an image analysis, but I’ll make one comment–look at this magnified version with the word “Colored” moved above “Negro.” It appears that the word “Colored” was crossed out by the typewriter’s hyphen character. However, the hyphen clearly aligns with the “l” but not with the “C.” One would think that an authentic typewriter would consistently lay the hyphen dead center on every character if it aligned with one. In the image here we see that the word “Negro” is also typed at a different pitch than the word “Colored.” That could only be authentic if one typewriter was typing at 10 pitch and the other at 12 pitch. The latter would be unusual. It’s possible, but just one more improbable detail.
Here is a segment of an unquestioned certificate from 1960 with a correction, also signed by Verna K. Lee. Notice how the change is initialed. There are no initials on the certificate under discussion in this article.
There maybe nothing wrong here, but again, this document has no provenance, the image is of poor quality, and it would be easy to add “- – – – – Negro” on top of what was already there with an old typewriter to provide just what the birthers needed, in the same way the Cold Case Posse cooked up a fake race code table to try to challenge the same entry. (If you believe the Cold Case Posse race codes—and you shouldn’t—then this certificate is clearly wrong.)
I am not saying that this certificate isn’t true, but we know that birthers fabricate evidence, and this is awfully convenient. It simply cannot be accepted without something in the way of provenance, and there is none.
1A birth certificate is a legal document signed by the parent under penalty of law. The only way this document could have been legitimately changed was with the approval of the signer, not by some clerk at the Department of Health afterwards.
Note: The reader may well ask where I got a version of this certificate without the grid lines, as my source document from Monckton shows grid lines. I might ask the same question of the writer of the Doc Dump at BirtherReport.
It just seems a little odd that colored would be typed and then they’d type negro instead of just retyping the certificate. Is the line through colored made by pen or rather through a modern strikethrough on the font? Also I find that Gillar redacting the father’s birthplace and the certificate numbering to be interesting
It may be just my eyes playing tricks on me, but it looks to me like the words “Negro”, “Porter Service”, and “Waihee” are all typed in a slightly smaller font than the rest of the document. “Waihee” definitely is smaller than the “Wahiee” below it.
But I honestly don’t care enough to measure or compare anything. It’s possible they’re in the same font size as the date in Box 19b; I can’t immediately tell if that’s a *smaller* font than in 18b, but it’s definitely a *different* font (which makes sense, given that it was presumably typed on a different day).
BTW, if you notice, this certificate is signed in Box 21 by Verna KL Lee.
As we all recall, for a long time her signature on Obama’s certificate was touted as one of the red flags of forgery (because it looked like a pun on ‘ukelele’). That is, until further information showed that it was just an odd but perfectly legitimate feature.
It’s a demonstration of the goalpost-moving nature of Birther theories that they’d now trot out a birth certificate that utterly contradicts one of their earlier theories of forgery, simply because they’ve long ago moved past that theory and gotten stuck on other ones.
An observation about Mr. Monckton’s comparison of this and President Obama’s LFBC: Chris makes a big deal about the grid defined by the typewritten entries being misaligned on the LFBC but not on the document presented here. However, there are several problems with his claims. In my opinion, the major flaw is that he didn’t systematically determine which entries were correctly aligned with each other on the LFBC and his “control” document is split into two groups which cannot be compared due to the certificate being torn in two.
If the LFBC is really a forgery, the grid alignments of all the fields should be pretty much random—there should be no reason to expect pairwise alignment between any two entries. If, on the other hand, the document was done in two or more passes (say to fill in the left side of the form then the right), the groups of fields entered on each pass should align with each other.
If Mr. Monckton had presented the pairwise alignment discrepancies for all of the typewritten fields in the LFBC as well as an intact control document (preferably more than one), he could have gathered actual evidence that might bear on the document’s veracity, but instead his slipshod analysis only shows the incompetence of birther “experts”.
I would ask Chris Monckton whether he didn’t understand how to do a proper scientific investigation or if he was afraid that using a sound scientific methodology would give him results which contradicted his prejudice.
Negro is typed at a higher pitch than Colored. Probably two typewriters involved if mechanical.
Vern Lee initialed the changes on 6/22/61. That’s three days after it was accepted by the registrar
She initialed ONE of the changes.
In Michigan, both the County and the State maintain BDM vital statistics.
20 years ago or so, I asked for a BC from the County in Michigan where I was born. As an aid to the search I included the detail that my mother’s name was misspelled on the certificate. When I got it back (one of those negative image types), the correction was made BY HAND.
When I got another one a couple of years ago, I got it from the State. It was a computerized version, and did not have my mother’s name corrected.
So the state has an official birth record with the ‘wrong’ data, and the county has an official birth record with the data corrected by hand.
I don’t think that’s unusual.
Edith Coats has one initial but from its placement it appears to count for both boxes 7d and 7e. True, they are related information and that may be why there is only one initial.
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
If all changes were made at the same time would each change get an initial? Or does the single initial blanket all the changes made at the same time?
It looks to me like the only change was to box 7e, adding a check.
Old Plantation Road in box 7d is very faint compared to the rest of the typed text and it is not vertically aligned along the left margin with the remainder of the text.
Was 7d original blank?
So, what is the conclusion regarding the hand-written codes for the race of the parent? We don’t know what coding scheme was used?
I would guess that Hawaii had their own coding table 1 – Caucasian, 2 – Hawaiian, 3 – Part-Hawaiian after that who knows.
But if Hawaii was not using Federal Coding Tables, why should they use Federal Coding Instructions?
I would speculate that codes 5 & 6 were some breakdown of Asian people, perhaps Japanese and other Asian, 7 is probably black (according to this certificate), 8 is likely American Indian/Alaskan Native and 9 is Other/Unknown.
Recall that folks at the Department of Health had never seen Obama Sr., and wouldn’t have known whether he was a black African, a white African, an Arab African, an Indian African, or an Asian African.
The Edith Coats BC is a rather interesting speciam. It is one of the only long form Hawaii birth certificates out there with a seal on it that looks very similar to Obama’s long form birth certificate. To whit, notice the seal on Coat’s BC. The seal is rather profound and you absolutely cannot miss it. However, the seal on Obama’s birth certificate (The pic taken by Savanna Guthrie) is barley visible. Guthrie must really had sucky camera. It should also be noted the Coat’s BC is from the 1980’s, rather old but the seal is still very profound. Obama’s BC is only a few days old and the seal is barely visible.
Even adjusting the contrast and lighting, the seal is very poorly visible: http://wtpotus.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/guthrie-2-copy-copy.jpg
Other Hawaii birth certificates that have a seal, the seal is far more profound and visible.
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
http://www.saltandlightblog.com/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
Yet another inconstistency in Obama’s birth certificate.
why did Monckon use that bad quality document ?
Just to show the Colored–>Negro change , which
however was not the subject of his work.
He may have targeted a search for Negroes
born in 1961 in Hawaii.
That birth should have been classified as Part-Hawaiian
in the statistics.
——————————————-
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.”
The category “white” includes, in addition to persons
reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto
Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with
any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed
parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite
parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the
father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and
any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian.
In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and
“nonwhite” is used.
The Feds reported 116 male Negro live births for Hawaii in 1961 based on a 50% sample.
in 1958: Hawaii reported these races :
Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
Caucasian
Chinese
Japanese
Filipino
Other races (including Negro,Korean,and those described as “Puerto Rican”)
I think it was based on the 1950 census, they may have changed it after the 1960 census
or after they became a US-State.
Hawaii officially became a State of the United States on
August 21, 1959. Therefore, statistics for Hawaii are in-
cluded with those ior other States in 1960
for 1960 the national statistics lists 9 male Negro deaths for Hawaii
And precisely how would Monckton target a search for Negroes born in Hawaii in 1961, and how would he get their birth certificates?
I don’t think the word “may” means what you think it does.
I don’t have a good explanation for it being light. I suppose it could have been an addition, but it’s a pretty poor one. And if it is an addition, one wonders why it was not present on the original.
So let me see if I understand it. John, who is a racist troll, admits that the birth certificate actually touched by Ms. Guthrie has a seal.
There is no doubt Savanna Guthrie saw something and took pictures of what appeared to be Obama’s Long form Birth Certificate. Guthrie’s pics of Obama’s BC do show a seal but it is very poor in quality compared to every other Hawaii birth certificate with a seal that has been seen. Either Guthrie’s camera truly sucked to pick up any details of the seal or the seal is suspect.
I have no problem accepting that this worn out birth certificate and its content are legitimate unless somebody can provide some pretty compelling evidence that it isn’t. However, I will note that if this birth certificate had been produced by an obot–or worse, if a BC associated with President Obama’s family was in this condition–no birfer would accept it as evidence of anything, Irey and Vogt could waste hours of their time showing all the different fonts and looking for hidden messages from Frank Marshall Davis. There’s probably some paper expert (by which I mean somebody who has worked at Kinkos) birfer somewhere who could write all kinds of nonsense about how the damage that appears to be from the folds could not have possibly occurred naturally. But, since birfers seem to believe that this BC proves Obama is a usurper, they will certainly have no problem with any of the alleged anomalies.
interesting to see the obots birthering now …
for Hawaii Negro or African didn’t matter, it was coded as “other race” anyway.
But Hawaii became a US-State in 1959 and had to report to the national
statistics by their standards. And those handled Negro differently.
So by Sr. being African instead of Negro, the Obama’s avoided Jr. being
classified as Negro-birth by the Feds ?
I vaguely remember a mention in the statistics that the Hawaii(?) race codes were
ordered as in the last census.
1950 was: (499794)
Japanese,184611
Caucasian,114794
Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian ,86091
Filipino,61071
Chinese,32376
Other races (including Negro,Korean,and those described as “Puerto Rican”),(20851)
1960 was 632772
Japanese,203455
white,202230
Hawaiian,91109
Filipino,69070
Chinese,38197
Part-Hawaiian,11294
black,4943
Indian+Eskimo,472
other,12002
hmm, strange vertical halos parallel to the black gridlines
pdfimages.exe extracts 30 .ppm images from the linked Monckton .pdf,
#24 and #28 are identical (1185999 bytes) and are the new 1961 certificate without gridlines.
I don’t know, why the .pdf displays gridlines , maybe a bug of pdfimages,
not extracting another overlayed image
Hawaii uses a low relief seal that won’t show up in copies as a security feature.
Do you see the seal in this BC?
http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/img_0035-small.jpg
As with everything- Birthers will accept any rumor, innuendo or forgery as a fact- just as long as it is against Obama.
Likewise- no matter how official or confirmed a document is, if it supports Obama, Birthers are convinced it is a fraud.
Pardon me for being dense, but I don’t see how this helps birthers.
Assuming that this is 100% legitimate,there are two reasons I can see to change this. One, someone (presumably the nurse or registrar) wrote “Colored” and the parent didn’t like it and asked for it to be changed to “Negro”.
Why would anyone else bother to change it? Everyone in 1961 knew that “Colored” = “Negro”. For statistical reasons, there wouldn’t have been a doubt as to what “Colored” meant when it came time to tally such things.
Unless the parents weren’t involved, and it was changed to conform to some standard. In which case, it still doesn’t help the birthers, because it points to the fact that whomever took the information in the first place (the nurse or registrar – whomever entered “Colored”) was willing to write whatever the parent wanted.
In that case, “African” makes just as much sense as “Colored” – it was what the parents told the person taking down the details.
Either way, assuming that this is real, I don’t see how it helps the birther cause at all.
archived newspapers ? he’s a journalist
the pencil code in box 9 looks like a 2 to me
The relevant entries from the 1960 coding manual:
Race of child (column 32)
The codes for race of child are as follows:
White (includes Mexican, Puerto Rican,
and all other Caucasian)_____________________________1
Negro____________________________________________2
Indian (includes American and Alaskan Indians)___________3
Chinese__________________________________________4
Japanese_________________________________________5
Aleut_____________________________________________6
Eskimo___________________________________________7
Filipino___________________________________________8
Other nonwhite (includes Cajun and Creole)______________9
Hawaiian_________________________________________V
The code for this item is derived from the information given for race of parents. The classification of each parent must be considered separately in coding the race of the child.
Determining Race of parent.
–Examine the information given for race of father and mother separately, and apply the following rules to determine the race classification for each parent:
(2) Where other racial combinations are involved (that is, not involving Hawaiian):
b. If the racial entry is a mixture of Negro with any other race, consider the parent as Negro.
(3) If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A.,”Afro-American,” consider the parent’s race as Negro.
(6) If the racial entry for either parent is inconsistent with other information on the record or is not clearly identifiable as one of the races in the code scheme, consult the supervisor.
Coding race of child.
–After the race classification of each parent has been determined, apply the following rules in coding the race of child:
(1) In cases of mixed parentage, if either parent is Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian, punch V for race of child.
(3) If either parent is Negro, punch 2 for race of child (except as stated in rule 1).
Therefore:
Obama I — Negro
Obama II — Negro
Case closed.
anyone checked it for layers yet?
😀
To add some speculation: Assuming the information reflects reality, the father was 34 years old, born in Roanoke, Virginia and worked as a porter. It is not likely that in 1961 he was working as a porter on a railroad in Hawaii. It would be reasonable to assume he worked on one of the Norfolk & Western’s long run passenger trains, such as the Powatan Arrow (between Norfolk and Cincinnati) or the Pelican (between New York and New Orleans). He may have met a Hawaiian woman on one of these train trips, etc. I can imagine a father who was working on railroads in the East, hearing that his his son was born or about to be born in Hawaii, would schedule a trip and arrive a few days after the birth of the baby. He would review the information that had been filled out on the birth certificate and request that a change be made from “colored” to “negro”.
In the 1970’s my mother (born 1919) sent away for her birth certificate from Indiana and the (oddly spelled) name she had been given at birth was crossed out and the name she always knew herself as was handwritten in.
First name:
MirimJeanMiddle name:
FrancesHope WolfeLast name: Long
Perhaps my mother was an anti-American spy.
The document is a 16 page PDF. Each page consists of a clip group and a single imbedded image of the entire page. The 16 imbedded images are not designated as bitmap images in Illustrator. Each page image is w=640 px x 864 px.
The document was created and produced by an HP Digital Sending Device on 12/07/2013.
This document was not disinfected with Preview.
1,021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025….excuse me but I am busy counting angels on the head of a pin….1,026, 1027, 1028…
The determination of the parents race was all about determining the race of the child. The attending doctor and hospital staff would not have been concerned with properly coding the races of the parents and child according to the NOVS specifications. Official changes to the certificate would have been made under the supervision of the state Registrar in Honolulu. So any changes in the race of the father and the child would have been done by the HDOH staff before the certificate was microfiched and sent to the federal government.
“What do the birthers have for this one?”
Let’s see …. consulting the Book of the Birf … yep, here it is:
Allow me to offer a coherent timeline. First, I note that almost all of the typed text is made by one type of machine. However, there are 4 instances (although I suspect that the father’s occupation might make a 5th) of a different machine being used. These four instances are: Box 9, correction to “Negro”; Box 12b., addition of “Porter Service”; Box 16, correction to “Waihee”; and Box 19b., addition of “6-13-61” to the date signed by doctor. Also of import is that the name of the doctor is not done by the second machine, and the date signed by the doctor is three days after the mother signed.
The child was born on the 9th. The birth record was prepared on the 10th, but the mother did not know the occupation of the father (this is actually not that unusual – my mom for several years didn’t know my step-father’s job title – she knew it had something to do with computers, but not the actual occupation). Since the father was due to arrive in a few days, they waited for him to arrive before completing the form. In addition to adding his job data, he corrected his race, and then the doctor signed the certificate on the 13th. Finally, the mother’s birthplace spelling was corrected by Verna Lee on the 22nd. (Alternatively, the correction Verna Lee made is obscured by the redactions or is filling in the blank for mother’s occupation)
1. I see nothing that would lead me to conclude the Monckton form is not legitimate.
2. Changes to a birth certificate are not unusual (as my personal family history files proves in spades) but none that I have seen have anything obviously to do with some later exercise for coding purposes. For example, one of the two changes on this document is merely to correct spelling of a place name.
3. From my own files, every change I can find (and there are more than ten across a mere three birth certificates) is one that was clearly initiated by the parents to correct errors rather than any conceivable need to conform to some standard “coding.” This does not account at least a half dozen other errors I have identified in other documents that were never corrected at all.
4. From my own files (as well as the several Hawaiian birth certificates we have seen on line from multiple sources) there was simply no standard for how the races of parents was recorded… period. Rather than finding occasional exceptions to rules we simply find no rules. In fact, sometimes we find no rules even on the very same birth certificate: The DeCosta certificate shows “Caucasian” and “White” on the same certificate.
http://truebluenz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/birth-certificate-real-hawaii.jpg
5. As Doc has repeatedly pointed out… demographic coding as per the federal coding manuals did not take place in Hawaii. Hawaii was instead required to make microfilm copies of the relevant certificates and send them to the CDC where data entry folks performed the necessary data extraction. The instructions explicitly assume that the CDC would receive certificate copies that carried non-conforming race assignments, since they consist largely of instructions on how to interpret those non-standard entries for the sake of data entry.
6. These microfilm copies were made subsequent to the completion of the certificates… often weeks afterward. Accounting for the additional time necessary to transport the physical films from Hawaii to Georgia before coding and data entry could commence, it is not credible to propose that there was a process or even a sensible requirement for retroactively “correcting” distant birth certificates as the result of classification decisions made weeks or months later, thousands of miles away.
7. There is likewise a plethora of other nonconforming race labels found on other examples of Hawaiian birth certificates that show no retroactive changes. If there was (as birthers seem to maintain) a concerted effort to conform to the label “negro” resulting in changes to original certificates, why do we not likewise find all the “Caucasian” entries crossed out and “corrected” to “White” as per the coding manuals? Why are multiple European and Asian nationalities not found in the federal coding manuals allowed to persist in the original birth certificates, but not the equivalents for “negro?”
In short… there is no basis for anyone trying to challenge any race entry on any Hawaiian birth certificate because it doesn’t conform to an imaginary rule for which there is no evidence in the first place. All attempts to do so turns such certificates into the effective equivalent of a Rorschach test.
It just fries my chips to hear about these birther imbeciles giving someone else credit for my work. I produced the President’s Birth Certificate, and I am darn proud of it. It was made from a real physical document, and my digital fingerprints are all over the result.
Now I know why when a birther shakes his or her head “no,” it reminds me of the rattle of a spray-paint can.
Sworn affidavit by gorefan to avoid misprision of felony charges:
1) Different typewriter fonts (as pointed out by Loren and Doc C.). The forger changed the font size for Waihee to fit in the box. Other examples include “Negro” and “Porter Service”. The first point of forgery.
2) Inconsistent letter placement (dancing letters). The “a” in Hawaii in box 7c are below the baseline. The second point of forgery.
3) Vern Lee initial’s and date. Here the forger got lazy. The initial’s in the forged BC were taken from Edith’s Coats authentic BC. The forger simply switched the number “2” with the number “1” and presto change-o “6/21/62” becomes “6/22/61”. using Lord Monckton’s methodologies, I’ve calculated the odds that two random events (edited Hawaiian BCs) would occur almost exactly one year part as seven gazillion to one. Using a bimodal distribution there is a 99.99% confidence interval with a standard error 0.01. The third point of forgery.
4) The hidden certification number. When President Obama first released his short form Certification of Live Birth, it was declared a forgery because the certification number was blacked out. Therefore this document must be a forgery. The fourth point of forgery.
5) The condition of the forged document. I keep my original birth certificate in a drawer with other important papers, it is in near pristine condition. this forgery looks like it was kept in a wallet. No one keeps their birth certificate in a wallet. The fifth point of forgery.
6) The signature in 18a. The two check boxes (Parent and Other) are blank so this BC was not original signed by either a parent or an other. This invalidates the certification for box 18a – “I certify that the above stated information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” The forger did this for plausible deniability. the sixth point of forgery.
7) The dates of the signatures. The birth occurred on June 9th was not signed by a parent or other on June 10th, was signed by the doctor on June 13th and was accepted by the was accepted by the local registrar and the registrar general on June 19th. That is 10 days after the required time. The forger was not aware of Hawaiian laws. Per those laws all birth certificates were required to be turned in to the local registrar within seven days of the event. The hospital is in Honolulu, where was this birth certificate between June 13th and June 19th? The seventh point of forgery.
8) The codes for the mother’s race is incorrect. Per the 1960 coding instructions the code “2” is reserved for the race classification “Negro”. The mother is listed as “Hawaiian”. The eighth point of forgery.
9) The doctor signature. The doctor supposedly signed his name writing the title M.D. and also checking the M.D. check box. This the same as signing his name M.D. M.D. which is redundant. No medical professional would do this as we see on the Nordyke twins birth certificates. The ninth point of forgery.
10) The date stamp in box 22. This stamp is perfectly aligned in the box. No one using a hand date stamp could get it perfectly aligned in the box. I know I took a hand date stamp and tried to get it to be perfectly aligned in a text box and after thousands of attempts never once got it perfectly aligned. The tenth point of forgery.
11) Missing registrar stamp. There is no registrar stamp. The eleventh point of forgery.
12) Variable line spacing. The entry in box 2 “MALE” clearly touches the bottom line of the box but on the same line the entries in boxes 5a and 5b are clearly above the line. The twelfth point of forgery.
That’s what I found after a detailed examination of the document. It is a forgery and not a very good one.
Well, I’m off to find a federal judge that I can submit this to. Does anyone know if the courts are open on Sundays?
Look for my book, “From Hoax to Sedition” coming out as soon as I can find a publisher.
No, john. The “inconstistency” (cq) only exists because the images of different birth certificates were made by different people under different circumstances.
That’s how things work in the real world.
You seem to be suffering from the common birther reading disability of reading “(3) If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A.,”Afro-American,” consider the parent’s race as Negro” and seeing the word “African” in there.
The second mistake you make is using the 1960 coding manual. Yes, the 1961 coding manual was issued after Obama was born, but it was NOT issued before the microfilmed births from Hawaii were processed by the federal government for statistical purposes. The 1961 manual controls the coding.
The penciled codes, however, have nothing to do with federal coding since they were applied before microfilming.
I have argued, I think correctly, that had Obama been coded for federal statistical purposes, he would have been counted as White. However, his certificate wasn’t counted because is odd-numbered.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/shocking-revelation-president-obama-may-be-white/
No, it cannot be a 2. The 2’s are very distinct and uniform across all the known certificates, see box 14 for what the “2” looks like.
Exactly how could one go about using archived newspapers to find black children born in 1961 in Hawaii? The newspaper birth announcements, for example, don’t have race listed.
Hermie,
Do you have any integrity whatsoever?
Item (2) doesn’t apply since Obama Sr. is listed as “African” rather than a combination of races and item (3) doesn’t apply since “African” does not appear on the list of terms that (3) covers, so there is no reason to expect that “negro” is the appropriate designation (the term generally being synonymous with “African-American”, which would not be an accurate description of Barack Obama Senior’s race. On the other hand, the idea that either Dr. Dunham or Obama Sr. might describe his race as “African” is completely unremarkable.
We’re talking about public health statistics, not a label that a person carries. Barack Obama himself was not counted at all in 1961, as anything. The federal methodology was to count all even-numbered certificates and multiply by 2. Obama’s certificate was odd (no pun intended).
I don’t ever recall seeing race in those sorts of announcements…..even in the south.
I haven’t found anything “impossible” on the form. I am a little troubled by the fact that the race change was not initialed. My main objection is simply the lack of provenance.
I speculated that the father made the correction to “negro” when he noticed that the racial identifier “colored” had been supplied earlier (most likely by the mother). Why, you ask? I’m a bit of a steam train buff, and I have made several trips to the O. Winston Link Museum in Roanoke. This museum displays photographs taken by O. Winston Link from the late period of steam locomotion on the Norfolk & Western Railroad. One of the things that stuck with me is the explanation of the black porters from that era, and the high esteem that porters had as a group in the black community. As a group they were “progressive”. I assume that in 1961 a 34-year-old porter would have rejected the racial identifier of “colored” and strongly preferred the term “negro”. It would have made a difference to him. It made no difference to the officials in Hawaii what he called himself; they could code either identifier.
So…………….it’s your position that every picture of every birth certificate should look exactly the same…….no matter the circumstances, the lighting, the quality of the device taking the picture, the resolution, etc., etc.?
The only thing suspect in this scenario is the quality of your reasoning.
Just read their posts.
The birther rank and file suffers from extreme cut’n’pastus, so I’m not sure that constitutes proof.
place of birth,occupation,name give clues to the race. Using this I found a book
about African Americans in Hawaii. FMD, the porter service etc. families
can also be searched through genealogy webpages.
Or just send email to the author of the book
I can’t think of how any of those would help one distinguish a Caucasian Hawaiian from a Black Hawaiian. And where did he get place of birth and occupation from?
Such speculation is not what we do here.
did Dunham anticipate the number would be odd ? When applying for school,job,passport,registration,other document,
jr. could have argued that by the official rules of that time he would not have been classified as negro
according to his BC. The BC is maybe shown on such applications and it has not African wiped out
and replaced by negro as above
No Dunham didn’t know about the 50% rule, just as she didn’t know about an obscure statistical classification rule at the national vital statistics office.
If you have an argument, fine. If you just want to create a bad smell through irresponsible speculation, go away. I see why I banned you last time around.
the pencil mark in box 9 has a lower loop as a handwritten J.
No other number gives that loop (except 8)
OMG! This is definitely a forgery. As is common in forgeries, the forger has carefully exposed himself with a secret message in the document. Box 22 is supposed to say “June 19, 1961.” But look closely. It actually says “June 19, 1951.” And why is that interesting? Because that is the birth date of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri!!!
We know that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Tea Party movement. They instructed the CPAC organizers not to offer Pamela Geller a speaking slot this year because her speech would not be Sharia-compliant. (She actually made this claim. Her appearance at CPAC this year was as a panelist in a Breitbart-sponsored session with anti-Muslim bigots who were too nuts to be speakers.) Now Al-Qaeda has infiltrated the birther movement.
Wow.
The 9’s on other forms intersect the vertical much higher than this one. By a process of elimination, we’re pretty much left with 8. It is extremely common in code sets for the 9 (or 99 or 999) value to be reserved for categories like other/not stated/unknown. We also see in what we know of Hawaiian codes that the more frequent categories have lower numbers. That makes “8” very plausible as the code for Negro. The problem is that I’ve never seen an 8 on any other form to compare it with.
Are you serious?
Nope! My reading skills are intact. However one does have to read the correct material.
It is a fact that the 1960 manuals were distributed to the state vital statistics agencies before Aug 4, 1961. So the manual was the prevailing document when Obama’s certificate would have been processed by the HDOH. Moreover any alterations would have been made before the altered certificate was microfilmed. For example, the strike-through of typed text and replacement by other typed text would not have been made after the certificate was microfilmed.
The relevant coding specifications that determine the race of the father and new-born child are as follows:
b. If the racial entry is a mixture of Negro with any other race, consider the parent as Negro.
(3) If either parent is Negro, punch 2 for race of child (except as stated in rule 1).
The same exact requirements are also found in the 1961 coding manual.
Clearly Obama I was a Negro per the 1960-1961 race classification.
It he were present at the birth his race would be obvious to the attending physician and/or the hospital staff.
If he was not present, then it’s unlikely that SAD would have declared his race to be “African”. She certainly would have known him to be a Black man.
Therefore Obama II would be also a Negro per either the 1960 or the 1961 manual.
Monckton is many things. ‘Journalist’ is not one of them.
If Pica type is 10 characters per inch and Elite is 12 characters per inch, than in box 16 would the larger Waihee be Pica and the smaller Waihee be Elite?
BTW, I lean toward forgery with Edith Coates being the model. One stamped June 19, 1961 and one stamped June 19, 1962, one corrected on June 21, 1962 and the other June 22, 1961 and both are missing a check mark in 18a.
Or during his (hypothetical) military service at Pearl Harbor?
You are a FRAUD.
You have DECEITFULLY edited that section to leave out a VITAL part of the instruction. The entire paragraph is:
Since Obama Senior’s birthplace ‘is not in the United States’, the correct code is “OTHER NON_WHITE”. Further, the racial entry for Obama Sr. is not in the given list.
It is absolutely clear, with no ambiguity at all, that the term ‘NEGRO’ was to apply to persons born in America. Negro is an American term, not an African one.
John, “inconsistency” does not automatically equal “forgery.”
Yes he is but in this case he is citing the 1960 manual which doesn’t have the part about the place of birth in the US.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/190043926/1960-Vital-Statistics-Manual-Coding-for-Parents-Race-See-Page-47-12-6-2013
However he is being dishonest when he cites:
“b. If the racial entry is a mixture of Negro with any other race, consider the parent as Negro.
(3) If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A.,”Afro-American,” consider the parent’s race as Negro.”
Here is what it really says:
“b. If the racial entry is a mixture of Negro with any other race, consider the parent as Negro.
If the racial entry is a mixture of any of the nonwhite races listed above, consider the parent as other nonwhite (code 9), except as stated in a and b above.
(3) If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A.,”Afro-American,” consider the parent’s race as Negro.”
Note the similarity in language “consider the parent” and “consider the parent’s ” according to Gillar this means they had to strike ourt the entry and enter “other nonwhite”.
Herman has never produced a BC from anywhere that has the parent’s race listed as “Other nonwhite”. They don’t exist.
As Doc C has pointed out several times, none of these codes or rules apply to the 1961 Hawaiian birth certificates. We have seen several birth certificates where the race designation of the parents were not on that list, things like John Woodman’s “Hawaii Girl” 1961 birth certificate, which says her mother is “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean.” This was coded with a 3, which the codes says indicates “Indian.” Given that there is a code for both Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian, the code on that birth certificate is clearly not from the federal codes in use at the time. Even the BC that is the subject of this article was obviously not coded using the federal codes in place at the time.
These coding rules for race do not apply to the handwritten codes on 1961 Hawaii birth certificates. They obviously used different codes.
What’s your problem Ace ? (b) is one of the exceptions to your…
“If the racial entry is a mixture of any of the nonwhite races listed above, consider the parent as other nonwhite (code 9), except as stated in a and b above.”
(a) is the other exception.
Obama 1st was, as far as anyone knows, a Negro. And no one ever declared him to be “African American”.
If you are assuming that “African” includes the possibility that Obama I was White, then that would be an error entered on an official certificate. It would not be unexpected that the error would be corrected given that Obama I was known to have been the first Black student at the University of Hawaii.
However no correction appears on the WH LFCOLB PDF image.
“African” is indeterminant. It could be anything.
I’m sorry, why do you think that manual was distributed to the states? It’s a federal keypunching manual. Hawaii didn’t do any keypunching for the federal government. References to this manual in other documents describe it as “unpublished.”
The very fact that the hand-written codes differ from the federal manual make it clear that Hawaii wasn’t following it.
I don’t think the word “fact” means what you think it does.
That is just flat-out wrong Hermie. From the manual you quote, it is clear that “negro” is synonymous with “African-AMERICAN“, a race to which Barack Obama Senior clearly did not belong.
According to birthers like Gillar, the DOH was required to change “African” to “Negro” by this statement:
“consider the parent’s race as Negro.”
By that logic, the language in this statement:
“consider the parent as other nonwhite (code 9)”
means that in those cases the DOH of any state would change the parent’s race to “other nonwhite”.
I’m merely pointing out that no such birth certificates exist, so the birther understanding of the phrase “consider the parent’s race as Negro.” is wrong. And the DOH would not to change the entry of “African”.
I’m curious. Why would the federal coding manuals be distributed to state vital statistics agencies at all? They didn’t do the coding.
Dear Hermie,
When you say “It’s a fact” plainly you don’t really grasp what a “fact” is.
Can you provide some demonstrable proof that this “fact” of yours is in point of fact, factual….?
The birth data from Hawaii was provided to the federal government on microfilm. To facilitate the coding process, the Federal government distributed the manuals to encourage the states to properly fill out the certificate.
Only there’s nothing about how to fill out the forms in that manual, is there?
Again, you say “the Federal government distributed the manuals” when you have no reason whatever to offer in support of the claim. Again, the manual was described as “unpublished” and it contains no relevant information for states.
Just because you need for the manual to be published so you can misrepresent what it says and make a faulty argument using it, does not mean that it WAS published and distributed to the states.
Encourage doesn’t mean it was a requirement.
Do not mess with logic and reason… Hermitian prefers to believe ‘facts’, although he appears somewhat confused as to the meaning of the word.
Still no evidence to support your claims…
What’s new… Hermitians beliefs take precedence over logic, reason and facts.
The fact that the coding instructions tells the coders what to do when they encounter an entry like “yellow” pretty much confirms that.
If the Federal Government wanted the DOHs to correct entries to their coding standards there would be an instruction to do so.
“Note: The reader may well ask where I got a version of this certificate without the grid lines, as my source document from Monckton shows grid lines. I might ask the same question of the writer of the Doc Dump at BirtherReport.”
The Blue vertical grid lines are each a separate Path object added to the two pages which contain the same image of the torn certificate.
The image of the certificate is a JFIF bitmap image. If you extracted the JFIF image of the certificate without also importing the accompanying Blue grid line path objects then the Blue grid lines would be missing from your extracted image.
Your evidence for this is…. what?
Almost every Hawaiian birth certificate we have ever seen fails to comply with the federal coding. For example, every certificate that says “Caucasian” is wrong by that standard.
Are you suggesting that Hawaii was informed about how “to properly fill out the certificate” and yet got them all wrong except for Monckton’s?
Wishful thinking… He seems to be a fan of such…
Maybe it’s just me but it looks like Verna Lee’s signature is taken directly from the Edith Coats’ birth certificate. It’s hard to tell because of the way the signature is cut in half by the tear but the signature looks pretty identical
Also if we were to apply the reasoning birthers use the hospital name is Kuakini Medical Center.
Look at the registration dates for the torn one and Coats’. Then count the days from the DOB to registrar acceptance on the torn one. Keeping in mind that Hawaii administrative rules required the BCs to be submitted in seven days.
How hard is it to convert 6/21/62 to 6/22/61?
Well, that deserves a hearty “No sh*t, Herms!”.
Wow, for once he is on to something… Self evident but still, some progress
I think you added an extra word in there with “to”.
That’s right.
What is interesting is that the image, once extracted, is found to have some rather detailed metadata (this is the “original” linked in the article). It might be possible to match this metadata with the metadata on some other published scanned document and have a clue as to who supplied the image to Monckton (it is unlikely that Monckton had the original).
We can conclude (I think) that the machine that scanned this certificate is not the same one that scanned the baby footprint in the Lucas Smith draft complaint.
You’re implying that Ann Dunham actually cared about what a gov’t form might have said about her son when it had zero effect on his life. This irresponsible speculation is typical of the birthers, which is what you repeatedly claim not to be on FB. African was used by Ann & Barack Obama, Sr. because that is simply how they were referred to regarding race in Africa. There are two recent examples posted regarding the term African being used on the FB, it wasn’t an obscure term that only appeared on Obama’s LFBC. Nelson Mandela referred to himself as African in reference to his race when speaking to Ted Koppel in an interview in 1990. In the movie, Red Tails, upon seeing that his plane was brought down by black pilots, the German squadron leader said, “My God! These pilots are African.” He wasn’t referring to their country as they were clearly flying U.S. planes, he was referring to their race. It’s been found repeatedly in various writings that blacks in Africa are referred to as Africans as far as racial designation goes. Deal with it!
Not only that, but he’s implying that Dr. Dunham could have known that the number which would be assigned to the president’s birth certificate (which wouldn’t be done until after she left the hospital) would be odd. Not a very well thought out theory from gsgs…
Well, I may have a problem with this.
This BC says that the child associated with it was born on June 9. 1961.
The copy that Obama produced reads that he was born on August 4. 1961.
Any one else notice?
The June 9 certificate belongs to someone else. It is just shown here as an example of how race was coded in Hawaii in 1961.