You are so full of crap I don’t know how you can even walk.
Janice Okubo, the communications director for the Hawaii Department of Health, has said that the BC# was given by the state registrar’s office on the “date filed”.
The current HDOH Administrative Rules say the same (placing a state number on the file is used interchangeably with the HDOH “accepting” the BC).
The 1961 CDC Natality Report says the same - that the state file number was given by the state registrar’s office in sequential order. That fact was used to justify the accuracy of the 50% sampling method they used, since the local registrars would submit their BC’s all at once and the BC’s would be numbered sequentially, meaning that the BC#’s from that geographic area would be half-even and half-odd. The accuracy of the 50% sampling depends on those numbers being given sequentially rather than randomly. The numbers did NOT fall to chance and were NOT subject to manipulation by the HDOH because they were numbered sequentially according to when they were received at the HDOH office.
The Nordyke certificates illustrate the ascending sequential numbering at the state HDOH.
I can’t make any sense out of what you’re saying, but I can assure you that neither I nor any Freeper I’ve seen have “come up with a need” for anything. This is what the sources we have show. Period. If you want to argue it out with Janice Okubo, the DOH Administrative Rules, and the CDC from 1961, be my guest. Knock yourself out. But this is where this comes from and if the “debate” died down it was probably because the facts have been established to the best of our ability given the sources that are available.
Apparently you haven't, or you'd notice that JUST TO THE LEFT of what you think is a BC number there's another number called FILE NUMBER.
When was that number put there? Why do each of the BCs we ever seen have one?
Do you have any idea what part that number plays in the grand scheme of things or are you merely advancing on the theory that the BIGGEST NUMBER must necessarily be a BC number?
Since we've never gotten an answer on that question on any of the threads I suggest that since it's so important to your line of reasoning that YOU GO FIND OUT WHAT IT'S FOR.
The current HDOH Administrative Rules say the same (placing a state number on the file is used interchangeably with the HDOH “accepting” the BC).
The 1961 CDC Natality Report says the same - that the state file number was given by the state registrar’s office in sequential order. That fact was used to justify the accuracy of the 50% sampling method they used, since the local registrars would submit their BC’s all at once and the BC’s would be numbered sequentially, meaning that the BC#’s from that geographic area would be half-even and half-odd. The accuracy of the 50% sampling depends on those numbers being given sequentially rather than randomly. The numbers did NOT fall to chance and were NOT subject to manipulation by the HDOH because they were numbered sequentially according to when they were received at the HDOH office.
The Nordyke certificates illustrate the ascending sequential numbering at the state HDOH.
I can’t make any sense out of what you’re saying, but I can assure you that neither I nor any Freeper I’ve seen have “come up with a need” for anything. This is what the sources we have show. Period. If you want to argue it out with Janice Okubo, the DOH Administrative Rules, and the CDC from 1961, be my guest. Knock yourself out. But this is where this comes from and if the “debate” died down it was probably because the facts have been established to the best of our ability given the sources that are available.
Ping for later.