See bolded part. You left that out in the step 3 in your previous post, but I should know better than to get caught up in silly stuff like this because the 1961 natality report has a copy of the 1956 revised standard birth certificate, and there's not enough additional medical information, certain or otherwise, that would warrant calling this document half-handwritten unless the PDF Obama presented is fraudulent.
Further, that same standard certificate contains asks in item No. 23 if the birth is legitimate. It would sure be interesting to see what Obama's "real" birth certificate says, as well as seeing how much of it actually matches the PDF he had posted.
I guess that would depend on how well they understood US law and Hawaii statutes.
Is there a reading problem?? Granny Dunham's baby, Stanley Ann was born in 1942 ... right in the middle of World War II. Your own source says "The requirements of a birth certificate throughout the country to show citizenship, during World War II ..." Granny Dunham would have believed her grandson needed a local birth certificate to show citizenship because she needed one for her own daughter. Then your source says, "Almost every parent knows that a baby must be registered soon after birth " In 1955, when Dr. Bennett would have written that, he was talking about mothers like Madelyn Dunham, not lovestruck teenagers who are hanging out with exotic international college students.
BTW - edge919 on that 1959 Hawaiian BC the mother signed it on 6/1/1959 but the attending physician signed it on 6/2/1959.
It also looks like it's dated in the same handwriting for both signatures. The 5 in 1959 is a giveaway. And the checkboxes in field 19 are different than they are in Obama's alleged PDF. What exactly is the significance of the dates for when the certificate was signed?? This one wouldn't be any more half-handwritten than Obama's PDF.
“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??”