Here are the last digits of the cert#’s and “date filed” in order for the 4 numbers:
Susan Nordyke #637 Aug 11
Gretchen Nordyke #638 Aug 11
Barack Obama #641 Aug 8
Stig Waidelich #920 Aug 8
Over on my blog they’re trying to argue that the state registrar “filed” BC’s for weeks without numbering any of them and then alphabetized them (but only by surname) and numbered them. Here’s what I posted regarding that:
Page 21 of the PDF at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf . It’s Section 3.1 of PHR Chapter 8b. The heading says “Amendments after official acceptance of certificate” and then the text goes on to talk about amendments “after the assignment of a state file number.” The two terms are used interchangeably – “official acceptance of certificate” and “assignment of a state file number”.
Even Obama’s forged long-form has the date accepted by the local registrar the same as the date accepted by the state registrar – Aug 8th. And the HDOH Rules use “official acceptance of certificate” interchangeably with “assignment of a state file number”.
I have 4 BC’s from Kapiolani Hospital that were signed by the doctor and sent to the local and state registrars on Friday. And I have another that was not sent on a particular Friday because it was a state holiday on Friday and wasn’t sent the next Friday either because that Friday was a state holiday also, so it was signed and sent on the Thursday before the 2nd state holiday, when they realized there would be 3 weeks’ worth of BC’s sitting around unless they got them in on a day other than Friday. So even though that was not submitted on a Friday the pattern supports the Friday submission theory. I’ve never seen any other BC that sat around longer than a week. The only Kapiolani BC I’ve seen where the doctor signed the BC on a day other than Friday (or the Thursday because 2 Fridays in a row were state holidays) is Obama’s. And I have never seen a Kapiolani BC that was sent to the local registrar on a day other than when the doctor signed it.
What you have for your claims is
1.Obama’s BC which has already been proven a forgery in a bunch of different ways – including by Mara Zebest who has impeccable credentials as a Photoshop expert; has written many books and is considered a leading expert. See http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/photoshop-expert-and-author-mara-zebest.html and
2. A COLB issued by the same HDOH that has illegally altered their 1960-64 birth index – a COLB which contradicts their own statements, rules, and other sources that I’ve given you several times now…. shortly after former HDOH Director Fukino made it clear that the numbering is on their minds because she gave an interview to Michael Isikkof where she claimed that Obama’s BC was “properly numbered”.
Prove that these BC’s were “all numbered together”. I’ve been doing all the research, rebutting your arguments while you ignore the evidence I give you. You prove to me that those BC’s were numbered on the same day.
And none of this using the theory to prove the theory. I could put a purple raspberry on a $10 bill and use that to “prove” that $10 bills are printed with purple raspberries on them. That doesn’t work. You have to have evidence OUTSIDE OF THE THEORY that supports the theory. You can’t just assume that because Waidelich’s number is genuine it proves that the BC’s were numbered on the same day which proves that Waidelich’s number is genuine. That’s circular reasoning – a logical fallacy. You have to give me evidence OUTSIDE OF THE THEORY that proves that the Nordyke, Obama, and Waidelich BC’s were all numbered on the same day. It has to be better sources than Janice Okubo, the HDOH Administrative Rules, the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report, and all of the Kapiolani BC’s posted on the internet besides Obama’s and Waidelich’s.
Show me your sources
One clarification. When I say “I have” x number of HI BC’s, I’m talking about that I have seen them on the web, not that I have paper copies in my possession. If the images on the web are false then my theory is correspondingly inaccurate.
How many BCs have you looked at?
Susan Nordyke #637 Aug 11
Gretchen Nordyke #638 Aug 11
Barack Obama #641 Aug 8
Stig Waidelich #920 Aug 8
Over on my blog they’re trying to argue that the state registrar “filed” BC’s for weeks without numbering any of them and then alphabetized them (but only by surname) and numbered them. Here’s what I posted regarding that:
*****
I'm still confused, so could you please help me with these questions:
Date filed: Are there any birth certificates that were filed around Aug. 9 or 10, or Aug. 6 or 7, because the dates you list above are Aug. 8 and Aug. 11?
Waidelich number #920: I wonder if there are any birth certificate numbers out there with numbers 918,919, or 921, 922?
It would appear to me that something was not right if it turns out that Waldelich was the only person born in August 1961 with a number in the 900s.
My wish: I wish persons born in Hawaii, especially at Kapiiolani Hospital, in August 1961 would let us see there birth certificate number by contacting you directly or by posting their number on this message board at Free Republic.
******
I'm sorry, but I am having trouble following your train of thought in your message, like the passage above.
Is there any way you could re-write your message for me? Thanks.
NOTE: I have read your message several times, but I still get lost as I read the message. Sorry.
Most of the time I can follow and enjoy reading your messages, but this time, I am having trouble reading this long message. Thanks.