“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.
In other words, 1961 was a baby bust rather than a banner year. Also, I now recognize that August and September had always been banner months for births, so the fact that August 1961 was the worst month ever in the past eleven years means that 10,640 is way too high and too late.
If 9,942 were the number of registered births as of July 31, then for there to have been 10,640 registered births as of August 8, the DATE OF REGISTRATION, then 698 births would have had to be registered in eight days, or about 87 registered births per day. In other words, no way.
As I said in my previous post, for that cert number to be accurate, Obama's BIRTH RECORD would have had to be recorded and registered much LATER, NOT EARLIER. Does this make it clearer?
Of course, we are assuming that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the number of cumulative births registered and the Certificate Number issued. Even if it were not, I cannot see how one could derive 10,640 as a number unless cert numbers began in the 600's. But, I agree with you that it's moot, as when you said, "this general objection relates to ANY discrepancy between the COLB’s substantive contents and what’s on the long form." To it, I would also add that there would also be discrepancies between what a real COLB would look like and the bogus COLB, too.
We can still allow for the Certificate Number to be the correct birth registration number for Obama, now that I've established that the COLB is bogus. Meaning, that one or more pieces of data are falsely stated in it. The cert number can be correct, but the other birth info not correct.
When I get my hands on the Cert. Number for Mar 22, 2007, I'll have a better idea of the correspondence between registered births and date registered.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that, on one of his many trips to Hawaii, Obama asked for, and received, reassurances from Fukino and Onaka that his original birth certificate was sealed, and that the Certificate Number did identify his record, but that it could not be used to access his birth record any more than than any other part of the record could be used as a search term. Whatever Obama did to get those assurances apparently worked.
If there were any dangers in knowing his number before, there were none now, and Factcheck was thus free to use his actual birth record number. The information on that birth records still does not match what was on the forgeries. So, at this stage, we do not need to know whether 10640 is the actual cert number, as it no longer makes a difference.
This is why I did not want Kevmo to publish an old comment of mine because as more information is made known to us, there may be changes made to my previous assumptions -- but none to the central one of the COLB being bogus.