The same. That’s why I don’t claim to know what is the standard format for a verification. You may be right that a standard verification format would include specific statements about the six items that are included on the request form or you may be wrong. Those six items may be implicitly verified by the issuance of the verification.
I just find it interesting that the items not specifically verified in Bennett’s verification are the items on the request form. But Dr. Onaka has no problem verifing everything else on the BC. While also certifing that all the information on the pdf matches all the information on the original BC.
On the whitehouse pdf what island is named in box 6b? And according to all three known certified verifications that information matches the information in box 6b on the original BC.
If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?
See, no matter what argument you try to make, Onaka’s own inconsistencies will bite you in the butt. The only explanation that explains it all is that Onaka verified only that the specifically-mentioned birth facts are “from the birth certificate” (as Bennett specifically worded his request ON THE PAGE BESIDES THE APPLICATION) - that is, that they are what is contained on the legally non-valid record (which is why he cannot verify anything from the actual application form).
Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka can’t interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. There’s no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things. He only snuck in Honolulu by saying that the birth record they have “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
Do not forget that the word he is willing to use is “matches”. He is not willing to use the words “is identical to”; he will not verify that, even though he has to verify it if he can. Matches makes no difference if the record is non-valid, and if it meant the same thing as “identical” he would have verified what Kobach actually submitted for verification: that the information contained in the WH image is “identical to” the information contained in the genuine record. He also wouldn’t verify that the WH image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.
If what you think he’s saying is what he was really saying, he would have just verified exactly what he was asked. He refused, and that gives it away that what he said is NOT that the WH image is genuine and identical to the original.