Replies

That it does. However, WHEN he was born is not the issue, nor pertinent. What is the issue for Stig's birth certificate is WHEN it was submitted to the central records. Apparentlynhis report of his birth was not reported for until several weeks AFTER his birth! As a result his birth was registered around 200 births AFTER Obama's even though he was really born the day after and only about five or six babies were born in between Obama and Stig's birth. The NUMBER is issued and stamped on the BC at the central office when someone gets around to reporting the birth... It's not assigned on the day of birth.

A most excellent point, Swordmaker.

However, I must correct a mistake that I made earlier.

August 6 was NOT Stig Waidelich's birth date.

August 6 was the date the certificate was filed with the registrar.

Waidelich was actually born, as was reported on the news, on August 5th.

The fact is, your theories have failed at every identifiable point, and you have yet to demonstrate failure of even one of the major points I've made.

I am still waiting for that apology from PA Engineer for his baseless and false personal attacks. The longer he delays in giving it, the worse he looks.

By the way, I will probably be offline now for a couple of days or so. Therefore, PA Engineer, you may take advantage of the situation to offer up as many baseless and false personal attacks as you like.

If you’re a decent human being, however, I would more expect an apology.

August 6 was the date the certificate was filed with the registrar.

Something fishy about that. Do you know of any State Registrar office in the United States that is open on a Sunday ? Aug 6, 1961 occurred on a Sunday, so how could it be filed ? August 6 was the date the certificate was filed with by the registrar (as it says on the form - not with the registrar.)