Here's my comment...
This is BS! You're trying to force a debate/conversation with information that may not fit the situation!
Without the proper manual everything is still all speculation.
This shouldn't be used as evidence of any sort, apparent or actual.
Even WITH knowing for certain the proper manual, we don’t KNOW that the handwritten marks correspond to that time period.
Since the document is a digital composite, the portion of the document that contains the handwritten half “4” I am concerned with could be taken from, say, an original 1970 document the forger had access to, for all any of us knows.
As Don Rumsfeld might say, we have “known unknowns” and “unknowns unknowns” at play here.
However, if the instruction manual at the link is genuine, and the document used by the forger was an original from August 1961, then it is quite possible that the 14 August 1961 revised manual was the one used — the notations may have been done in September after the end of the month, or even later in the year for all we know.
And even if the coding for federal statistics purposes was done (incredibly efficiently) just mere days after the birth certificate was filed, it may well be that the “revisions” didn’t affect the code numbers for hospital vs home birth and the instructions for that were the same in both the prior and the revised manual.
As Sheriff Joe noted, to REALLY get to the bottom of this in a final and conclusive manner, we need forensics document examiners to look at the microfilm and other records in the possession of the Hawaii DoH.