[Man50D]

In Hawaii where there were so many racial groups and classifications there was even more leeway about what a birth certificate might say than in the segregated states on the mainland.

So the fact that a document gives the father's race as "African" doesn't in itself make the document fraudulent.

All the racial groups were covered in the 1961 Vital Statistics manual. Any group not specifically listed was classified as "non white". The manual was a mandate for all states to follow just as are present federal regulations. That fact alone does make it a forgery but there are several other irregularities of a technical nature. They include:

· Missing second-fold line while first fold-line is shown
· Missing the embossed Seal of Hawaii
· Missing the State Registrar’s signature
· Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text data
· Original text was removed by pasting a layer of background over them
· Different text was typed onto a text layer and merged with background layer
· Pixel blocks of text data are different from the data headers
· Heavy and unnecessary sharpening of the whole image, except for the border
· Border was created as a separate layer and merged with other layers
· Border pattern is more blurred than the background
· Border pattern more transparent than those on genuine scans
· Top and bottom black border bars have less pixilation than text
· Border bars are more black in color than any of the text
· Absence of green, background pixels inside the border bar text · White lines between border bars and pattern (both sides)
· Image colors are very different from scan images of real COLBs
· Lack of pixilation in black rectangle covering certificate number
· Different blocking artifacts from JPG compression found across the image

[tired_old_conservative]

You know, repeating the same tired stuff over and over doesn’t make it true.

[x]

All the racial groups were covered in the 1961 Vital Statistics manual. Any group not specifically listed was classified as "non white". The manual was a mandate for all states to follow just as are present federal regulations.

That is for the health statistics that are submitted to federal authorities. They are "coded" in accordance with federal categories. The birth certificates that parents recieve for identification purposes aren't under those regulations.

If you look at Hawaiian censuses from territorial days, "races" included Hawaiian, Part-Hawaiian, Caucasian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Negro, Puerto Rican, and Filipino. Given all those possible answers it wouldn't be unheard of for a clerk in Hawaii in 1961 to put down the father's race as "African," all the more so, since there were so few African-Americans in Hawaii at the time. I'm not saying that's what happened, just that such an answer on a birth certificate doesn't automatically make it fraudulent. Hawaii just wasn't as strict about these things as some other states.

That fact alone does make it a forgery but there are several other irregularities of a technical nature.

"Real" and "fake" can be hard to sort out, since the document in question isn't an original 1961 birth certificate, but a more recent computer generated birth certification. So whether it's real or not, it's a copy.

But it's not even that, really. Most of the discussion centers on computer graphics posted online, not on an actual document. And there are probably more than one graphic out there. Some of them are fake. I don't know whether all of them are.