Replies

There's really no such thing as an "original birth certificate". Even way back in the early 1960s the State of Indiana had computer generated certificates (attesting to birth, etc., on such and such a date at such and such a place) which were required to be "signed by computer" in multi-colored ink.

Sorry, that's not true. I have a 1974 certified photo-stat of a Florida birth certificate, including the signature of the attending physician. Those certified copies of originals can usually be obtained by special request (at additional expense).

The data for the computer-generated certificates is input from those original certificates, and I doubt that any state has disposed of the microfilms of the originals. They are necessary legal documents (since they contain more information than the computer-generated short forms) which can be subpoenaed in court cases, so yes, even though you may have computer-generated certificates dating back to the '60's, there are originals on microfilm somewhere in that state.

Most likely not. The data base requires much more information than my original "notice" to the County Clerk contained (and I have that document which was given back to my mother AFTER they recorded the data on the official county/state records).

There are differences in the way the different states do things. No doubt what Florida believes sufficient is not sufficient in more advanced parts of the country.

Here's a clue for you ~ no matter what kind of document you might concoct and claim as an "original birth certificate" it will not be recognized as valid if no one bothered to REPORT your birth to the appropriate authorities at or near your time of birth.

Further, if you should lose what you believe to be the "original", you can still obtain verification of your having been born in the US from the state.

The "report" or "document" believed by the government is the only one that counts.

I'd be willing to bet that the original documents, in addition to the microfilm, still exist.

It's been reported that the exif (whatever that is) for the photo of the “new” COLB at Factcheck indicates that the picture was taken March 12, 2008. This would be three months before another photo was posted on Factcheck as the real COLB. (And 5 months before they claim they had face time with the actual document.)

What's mighty odd is that it was also in March 2008 that the MSM reported that people (who turned out to work for friends of BO) had broken into his passport files.

Now, do you think that it's possible they did so in order to make sure that there wasn't a COLB in those files that did NOT exactly match this version that they were posting online?

What a coincidence that the break-in took place the same month that Annenberg’s Factcheck was photographing his “real” COLB.