I thought about that and had a look at the Nordyke certificates from which it appears best as I can tell that the small area to the left of the vertical line is still part of the same page and not the prior page.
Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
In Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference, the Cold Case Posse presented further evidence that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth presented to the public was forged.
One of the points they raised was the presence of handwritten codes next to a number of the informational boxes on the COLB, and suggested that the codes did not match the substance of the information typed into the boxes in certain cases, providing one more indication of digital tampering.
The link for this thread is a Vital Statistics Instruction Manual issued by HEW revised August 14, 1961 which refers to some of the codes used for birth certificates at that time (which was in a link found by freeper Natufian). (Obama was born in early August according to his COLB, so we don't know if this manual or an earlier version was actually used, even if we believe the part of the document on which the codes appear was actually derived from an original 1961 document.)
Discussion so far has focused on the coding for race of the father, indicated as "9" on the COLB.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
One theory offered to explain why Obama presented a digitally-altered COLB is that Grandma Toot originally submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed document (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff). This document was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
According to this theory, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Highway where grandparents Stanley and Toot were then living as the address both of the mother and where the baby was born.
Where Stanley Ann really was at the time of birth is a matter of speculation, since she was first seen with the baby in Seattle and the daughter of the family with whom grandparents Stanley and Toot were living does not remember any new-born infant being brought to the house.
This document submitted by Grandma Toot was automatically included in the information delivered by the vital statistics department to the newspapers for recent births, and therefore would explain the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might look at, it was considered necessary to change this into a normal-looking birth certificate that someone born in a hospital would have.
The “home birth” story was too thin, especially since if anyone interviewed the family with whom the grandparents were living and they said no baby was born in their home, the whole story would collapse. On the other hand, in the case of a maternity hospital, lots of babies were being born there and it would be no problem if no one specifically remembered this particular baby and privacy laws would prevent an examination of the records of the hospital.
If true, then THE INFORMATION OF MOST INTEREST ON THE COLB WOULD BE PLACE OF BIRTH ON THE ORIGINAL UNALTERED DOCUMENT -- WAS IT A HOME BIRTH OR A HOSPITAL BIRTH?
Looking at the Instruction Manual, it indicates on page 14 that a hosptital birth or with a physician in attendance should be coded “1.”
In the case of a home birth, if a midwife attended it should be coded “3.”
If it was a birth at home, and neither a midwife nor a physician was present, then it should be coded “4.”
Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.
This handwritten number is cut off and only the right side of the number appears.
However it is clearly NOT a “1” and clearly NOT a “3”.
It looks like the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present.
This would be one additional point of evidence, in addition to the other evidence presented by Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, that Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
Even WITH knowing for certain the proper manual, we don’t KNOW that the handwritten marks correspond to that time period.
Since the document is a digital composite, the portion of the document that contains the handwritten half “4” I am concerned with could be taken from, say, an original 1970 document the forger had access to, for all any of us knows.
As Don Rumsfeld might say, we have “known unknowns” and “unknowns unknowns” at play here.
However, if the instruction manual at the link is genuine, and the document used by the forger was an original from August 1961, then it is quite possible that the 14 August 1961 revised manual was the one used — the notations may have been done in September after the end of the month, or even later in the year for all we know.
And even if the coding for federal statistics purposes was done (incredibly efficiently) just mere days after the birth certificate was filed, it may well be that the “revisions” didn’t affect the code numbers for hospital vs home birth and the instructions for that were the same in both the prior and the revised manual.
As Sheriff Joe noted, to REALLY get to the bottom of this in a final and conclusive manner, we need forensics document examiners to look at the microfilm and other records in the possession of the Hawaii DoH.
Capiche, Boss?
And I would add to your comment that if it IS the genuine and relevant manual for this purpose, it appears we are looking at a birth document that was originally filed as a home birth and later forged to indicate a hospital birth.
You Missed the ;) I was going to say “fat chance” but didn’t want to offend the fat.....
Is it possible we are seeing a different birth certificate bound in a book and the numbers you see on the left really belong to another certificate on a different page.
Don’t know what these look like in their files.
Since Arpiao’s posse proved that anyone can get a “real but fake” Hawaiian birth certificate just by having some people show up and ask (basically), or even a person 50 years old come and get one, then this question has to be asked.
If his parents were BHO and SAD, just born in Kenya (for instance), his mother could easily have gotten a “real but fake” b.c, stating he was born in HI. If his mother was SAD but a different father, then the forger would only have needed to change one name. But the whole shebang is forged.
So, the question is:
Since 0kaka could have easily gotten a “real but fake” birth certificate, WHY DID HE NEED TO HAVE ONE FORGED????
Answer:
Because his so-called life is fake. So the entire thing had to be forged.
Didn’t VI thru Z say they were sorted, piled and coded at the end of the month? How does this document code “home birth” ?..Is it different?
.. and yes it is a four.
I thought about that and had a look at the Nordyke certificates from which it appears best as I can tell that the small area to the left of the vertical line is still part of the same page and not the prior page.
“Home birth? So what?
_________________________________________
No one is disputing that a home birth is fine, as long as it was in Hawaii.
The dispute is over what country he was born in, and Obama’s obfuscation.
So it’s another box that has been altered. why did no one notice or did they notice and not comment at the news conference.
Your memory is probably better than mine on that.
It does like a four to me as well, but it's very hard to tell. It certainly does not look like a one or a three.
The notation in the same place on the Nordyke certificate is also hard to tell. I think it is clearly not a three or a four, and if it is a one there is a period or smudge at the bottom of the character.
The ‘oh, he was born at home’ would certainly be reasonable if you wanted to claim he was born in Hawaii (ie: American since I’m sure Toot knew the immigration laws at the time which said he wouldn’t even be a citizen at all if he was born outside the US) and not have to provide a hospital record.
Dr’s palms could have been greased to be the signing doctor.
The posse should have the ability to examine better than you and I...Frmail your way.
...it appears...
It appears that you're going to keep trying to push that square peg through the round hole, no matter what anyone says, based solely on conjecture since you can't use a manual that wasn't in effect at the time.
You can't presume that the coding was the same thing before the revision was made. You need the manual covering the time frame in question.
If it really is a "4" we are looking at and if we are reading the right instruction manual, then I don't think there even WAS a signing doctor if "4" was used.
No money necessary...The signature was more of a “the information on this form is as it was given to me” type. It was NOt a verification of that material only... Like a witness signs a will.
Look, everything is speculative in the absence of having experts look at the original microfilm and other records in Hawaii. There is only so far we can get based on looking at these various materials.
Everyone can look at what we have here with their own eyes and form an opinion.
For example, you yourself are speculating that the coding was done within ten days after the birth; we don’t actually KNOW that.
It doesn't matter when the coding was done as the two separate manuals would be used according to the date of birth.
All of the births before the 14th would be coded according to the old manual and all of the births on and after the 14th would use the new one.
And at least I'm not speculating that a manual that wasn't in effect until ten days after the birth is the manual that applies.
How do the two differ or is it just a new printing.
And to play your game...you yourself are speculating that Hawaii even got the new manual in time to use it in the month of August; we don’t actually KNOW that either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.