Actually, using an average for July-Sept would yield a more valid monthly estimate, when divided by 31, yields 48 per day. I don't necessarily buy the "bumper crop" argument as the total for August was 95% of July and 92% of September. I'm going to go with 48 per day as a slightly liberal estimate.
So, 8 * 48 = 384 + 9942 = 10,326, or 314 births short of 10,640...or about 8 days later than Aug 8th.
Now, that's a lot of wiggle room to find someone who was born in August 1961 but no longer living on August 20, 2008, the day before Factcheck posted that Cert. number.
“I don’t necessarily buy the “bumper crop” argument as the total for August was 95% of July and 92% of September.”
I noticed that too. But the July figure is also 11.1% higher—164 births—than June. A Kennedy election bumper crop would show up in late-July/early August. I’m assuming there may well be a similar annual “holiday”-related bump attributable to Xmas/New Years that would likewise make September higher than the typical August (someone with more time than I have to spotcheck various years of the same report I identified can easily test this hypothesis).
My point was that the statistics lean in the direction of Obama’s birth being recorded EARLIER rather than LATER than we might expect, which is contrary to your claim.
In contrast, at some level, your claim that a dead person’s BC # was swapped isn’t testable with the gross numbers we have available. That is, even if Obama’s birth # had been registered on the exact day predicted by whatever method you and I might agree upon, it would be trivial using the SS Death Index to identify which of the ~48 births recorded that day represent already dead individuals.
I’m a little confused on your position. If an African birth was registered in “the system” (even a few days late), it would have a “legitimate” Hawaiian BC number. Hence, there’s no real reason to snatch someone else’s. All that needs to be done is to fabricate the location of birth on the COLB. So long as the BC number remained blacked out, theories that they were trying to hide something by doing so had face validity. But the instant they disclosed an actual number, such theories run into a problem. While Obama may well have the director of vital statistics “in his pocket” he surely cannot count on a more neutral curious staff member double-checking the hijacked number against the long form version that I presume is on microfilm or some similar medium—ESPECIALLY in light of the increasing attention that’s been given to this. What do you think National Enquirer would pay for rock-solid evidence that the number on the on-line COLB matches up with a completely different individual’s long form record?
Of course, this general objection relates to ANY discrepancy between the COLB’s substantive contents and what’s on the long form. One could say that Fukino’s life had been threatened, hence he has no motive to rock the boat. So if he’s otherwise honest, he has done everything short of blatant lying to let the not-too-inquisitive MSM draw the wrong inference. But that reasoning does not extend to an anonymous whistleblower who stands to make millions by tipping off a deep-pocketed tabloid or by tipping off prosecutors and reaping roughly equivalent rewards via book sales, talk show appearances etc.
None of the foregoing is a criticism of your excellent work documenting serious problems with the authenticity of the documents put on the Web. I don’t pretend to have some grand theory that explains Obama’s puzzling behavior of a) posting such documents in the first place; and b) spending >$1 million fighting efforts to disclose the long form BC rather than just produce the damn thing. As bizarre as it might seem, I think it’s more likely there’s something embarrassing on the long form. I just saw The Reader last week: [CAUTION: PLOT SPOILER for those interested in seeing this film] in that case, a woman had no compunction about admitting her role in the deaths of 300 Jews, but was willing to risk death or life in prison over a lighter sentence simply to avoid owning up to being illiterate.