They can’t be both alphabetized and put in order of birth. We’ve got two numbering methods that have been publicly stated by HDOH representatives - neither of which involves alphabetizing. So where are you getting the alphabetizing from?
In any event, can you agree that the BC#’s don’t jive with the explanations we’ve been given and the only way we’re going to know how they numbered the BC’s is by looking at several randomly-chosen months’ worth of microfilms?
“We’ve got two numbering methods that have been publicly stated by HDOH representatives “
Have you heard the tape from Ms. Lee. Until we hear what she actually said it is not “publicly stated”.
I get alphabetizing from the known August, 1961 BCs. The ones from Kapiolani are in both alphabetical (by last name) order and numberical order.
I agree that we do not know the methodology used to number the BCs. Everything you and I have done on this question is just speculation on both of our parts. the difference is that I don’t depend on a department wide swapping of names and numbers over several months.
We will never see the microfilm. But I’ve always been surprised that if CNN could find Stig and WND could find Axxxx that other BCs from August 1961 could not be located. And I still cannot understand why Corsi has refused to publish Axxxx’s and Stig’s certificate numbers as part of the CCPs investigation. Even if only to make a claim that there is number switching going on at the DOH.