Palmer, you’re not listening. Verifying that something is on a piece of paper is not the same thing as verifying that what’s on the paper is true.
Especially since the BC#’s given for Obama and at least 3 other people cannot be what were on those BC’s in 1961, if we believe either of the contradictory numbering methods we’ve been told were used at the time. The only way Obama could have #10641, given what we’ve been told, is if that BC# is on a totally fabricated NEW BC created at the request of law enforcement - in which case every item on that BC will say whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder?) says it will say. Including the filing date.
IOW, we have good reason to believe that the HDOH BC that Onaka is talking about here is a complete fabrication.
In any event, Onaka would not verify birth facts he was asked to verify even though he acknowledged that those were the claims on the BC. So at the very least we know that the BC Onaka is looking at is non-valid. That’s all we need to know.
That's possible, but it would have to have been fabricated by someone in HI and placed in the book to look like a 1961 paper. Following that the officials would have to make xeroxes to stamp, sign and seal and send out. Multiple officials (not sure how many) would look at the piece of paper in the book and determine (rather easily) that it was made recently.
A far more coherent explanation is that there was a paper entered in 1961. The number is ok if the numbering was done alpha for the entire month. There could be any sort of info on it because we have not seen the original. Then xeroxes of that paper were stamped, signed and sent out. The WH scanned one that they recieved then did stuff to it on the computer. We don't know what they did.