Obama birth certificate story not going away

Coach is Right ^ | 4/21/13 | George Spelvin

[Oldpuppymax]

According to lead Obama investigator Mike Zullo, fear of ridicule is the number one reason authorities are not acting on the mountain of verifiable evidence of document fraud concerning Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Appearing on the Carl Gallups, Freedom Friday call-in show, Zullo said, “We are dealing with a fraudulent document that would never survive scrutiny of the judicial process.” (1)

Disinformation and the intentional dissemination of false information to protect Obama, will not survive in the face of what Zullo is calling a 100% fabricated document. He listed the following tactics used to discredit the research of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s...

[4Zoltan]

“See bolded part”

Yeah, I can see your confusion when I said that there were “three additional questions required by the Federal government and any additional questions that the State of Hawaii might require” on the Standard Certificate of Live Birth and Dr. Bennett said the attending filled in “certain” medical information on the Standard Certificate of Live Birth. Yikes.

“the 1961 natality report has a copy of the 1956 revised standard birth certificate”

And what does the 1961 Vital Statistics in the United States - Natality, Figure 5-1 which is an image of the 1956 Standard Certificate of Live Birth show along with the three additional questions required by the Federal government? The following note “(SPACE FOR ADDITION OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH ITEMS BY INDIVIDUAL STATE)”.

“there’s not enough additional medical information, certain or otherwise”

I didn’t realize you were a medical professional. So maybe you can tell me what additional “MEDICAL AND HEALTH ITEMS” are on the 1961 Hawaiian Standard Certification of Live Birth? Do you know?

Look at the Nordyke’s birth certificates along the left margin - notice how the horizontal lines that make up the individual boxes continue past the vertical line that makes up the left margin of the demographic section, EXCEPT sometimes they don’t. The boxes to the left of the demographic section are taller in some cases. And they run down the entire length of the demographic section. Are all of these boxes completely blank? or do they also have information in them? Why bother to print the lines if they are always just blank????

“I should know better than to get caught up in silly stuff’

Since you like to hyper-parse things, here is Dr. Fukino’s interview with MSNBC:

“Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time. “

Do you see any quotation marks around - She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten? This is the reporter paraphrasing what Dr. Fukino said. Did he get it right? Did he misunderstand what she said?

“What exactly is the significance of the dates for when the certificate was signed??”

You were the one who brought up ‘why didn’t the nurse type up everything’. And Dr. Bennett said the document was filled out, signed by mother and then the attending added the “certain” (don’t want to confuse you again) medical data and then he signs it. And the date box 19b next to his signature in 19a is labeled “Date of Signature”.

So using the Nordyke’s BCs as an example - when did the “nurse or clerk” fill out the BC? - before the mother signed it on August, 7th. And when did the attending physician fill out the “certain” medical data? - between August 7th and August 11th.

And if we also use the 1959 BC, when did the “nurse or clerk” fill out the BC? - before the mother signed it on June 1st. And when did the attending physician fill out the “certain” medical data? - between June 1st and June 2nd.

Maybe that is why “nurses type parts of the form that are given to the applicant but not the parts that aren’t??”

[edge919]

Yeah, I can see your confusion when I said that there were “three additional questions required by the Federal government and any additional questions that the State of Hawaii might require” on the Standard Certificate of Live Birth and Dr. Bennett said the attending filled in “certain” medical information on the Standard Certificate of Live Birth. Yikes

The only confusion was why you would dishonestly leave out the characterization of "certain" medical information and then suggest that three handwritten numbers and a checkmark would somehow make the form appear to be half-handwritten. Yikes, indeed. These weren't medical descriptions the doctor had to add and ALL of that information could have been added by the nurse.

I didn’t realize you were a medical professional.

I don't need to be a medical professional to read the other information on the standard birth certificate form. Quit being a drama queen.

So maybe you can tell me what additional “MEDICAL AND HEALTH ITEMS” are on the 1961 Hawaiian Standard Certification of Live Birth? Do you know?

It's not my job to provide YOUR argument for you. Look at the form. There's room for about three lines of text out 20 lines for the entire document. That's less than 1/6 of the document, even counting the three numbers and the checkmark.

Do you see any quotation marks around - She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten? This is the reporter paraphrasing what Dr. Fukino said. Did he get it right? Did he misunderstand what she said?

Do you know anything about reporting?? It's not up to a reporter to create the information being reported, although there's certainly plenty of reporting that doesn't follow this practice. It doesn't matter because in one scenario, the reporter isn't credible and in the other, the source isn't credible because the facts as reported don't align with the PDF as presented. And how exactly do you suppose one misunderstands that a couple of handwritten entries = half-handwritten and half-typed when there's such detail in the description of Fukino's account?? She took the "state official in charge of vital records" ... or maybe she didn't. She found "the original birth record" ... or maybe it wasn't original. She found it "properly numbered" ... or maybe it was improperly numbered. Are you really going to argue that the reporter misunderstood or misrepresented Fukino's on describing the document as half-handwritten??

"Sorry, Chiyome, I thought three numbers and a checkmark was roughly half of the certificate."

Sloppy reporting doesn't make the PDF Obama presented more credible.

You were the one who brought up ‘why didn’t the nurse type up everything’. And Dr. Bennett said the document was filled out, signed by mother and then the attending added the “certain” (don’t want to confuse you again) medical data and then he signs it. And the date box 19b next to his signature in 19a is labeled “Date of Signature”.

Yes and I already said in post No. 105 "The only parts that are handwritten are the signatures and the dates next to them, which would always be handwritten and wouldn’t provide a strong reason to point that out."

Maybe that is why “nurses type parts of the form that are given to the applicant but not the parts that aren’t??”

What??? So they only use typewriters on the days the mother signs the certificates??? Really?? That's how you're trying to rationalize Fukino's inconsistent account??

[Armenium]

I definitely agree with bitt's number 95 post, and would like it noted that ecinkc says everything that I would like to say but with intelligence!
I need smartistical peoples, like you, to help me with the question that I've posted HERE recently. Take note, it might not appear yet....