http://www.scribd.com/doc/96470103/Document-35-Et-Al
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.
That is not referring to 7d. That is in a field on another page of the BC ( there were two pages ). Plus I don't think it is drawn in, but a printed question mark at the end of a question in that field (when blown up it resembles ( accounting for the curvature of the page ) the question marks on the other document ) The left page contains birth metrics, health information and coding guidelines about the specific circumstances of the birth and the child’s biography after birth.
There is an explanation here: The Daily Pen
Hoosiermama
That vertical line marked “bend” looks like its just the border of the box.
The page continues bending past it, where the numbers are.
So it looks like the part with “4” etcetera on it is part of the b.c.
Home birth?
So what?
No witnesses. Could have been anywhere.
uh huh!
Courtesy pingie
“the numbers you see on the left really belong to another certificate on a different page.”
That has always been my interpretation (or at least that the image was made to look that way). The coding numbers seem to be placed just to the right of most items. If the whitehouse.gov “document” is indeed a digital forgery, the pasted in long hospital name would have likely “covered up” the code number for that box.
That is exactly what my BC looked like. I was born at home and never had a BC until I was ready to apply for SS. I sent to my state of birth to get one and when it came it was a CARD partly filled in by my mother, then other parts were typed. One place that was typed was my name as evidently she didn't know what to name me at the time. There was a doctors signature. This was then COPIED onto THE SAME GREEN LOOKING type of security paper as the forgery of Obama's. It then had the State Seal impressed in it. Since my mother had passed by the time I got my BC it made me tear up to see her hand writing on my BC.
So IMO IF Obama had been born at home and his BC looked like that it would be no big deal.
If Obama had been born in the home of that family with whom the grandparents were living at the time, you can be damn sure that the family living there would have remembered it. The daughter of that family has already said she doesn't remember any baby there.
“Home birth? So what?”
Home birth is not an issue. However, if the box 6c has a typed entry of “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” and the handwritten code next to it is the code that indicates a home birth, then there is a discrepancy that points to tampering with the original document.
Somebody changed what was typed in that box, and didn’t know the significance of the handwritten notation and that it would result in a contradiction.
The thing is, it shouldn't be bound in a book. It should be in a type of loose leaf book with metal brads so documents can be taken in and out (yeah, like hello Sandypants). Back in the early days of birth record books, I'm talking the 1920s and 30s, they used prebound books but found out those didn't work so well. For one thing, the registrars are anal about dates so births for each year would never fit precisely within a pre-bound book. You'd have too few births to fill it during the calendar year or you'd have too many. So, they went with the loose leaf type so every calendar year or whatever their set dates were would all fit within a single book. The loose leaf would also allow for delayed births to be inserted within the birth year. Later, when people started using copy machines, the loose leaf style helped so that the clerk could removed the page to place it on the machine without damaging the entire book. Those books are heavy and with age will tear and they're just too cumbersome to copy with the page in it. Before copy machines, the clerk would retype the information onto a current blank bc form, so if forms changed then information may have not been included in the typed "copy" which is what this looks like since this one only has 23 boxes and the 1961 manual speaks to 46 which includes the birth weight, etc.
Also, that curved copy isn't exactly legal (and forget about it ever being a "true copy" of the original bc) because it doesn't show everything on the document. Case in point the handwritten numbers we can't read.
Hussein’s place of birth looks like a 5 to me, however, there is no 5 in the manual. Sure enough, Gretchen Nordyke also has a 5 by the hospital box.
No, Gretchen Nordyke’s clearly shows a 5. Hussein’s looks like a 5 as well. However, there is no 5 in the manual. Also, the manual discusses boxes all the way up to 46 whereas Hussein’s bc has half that many. There must be a different manual with a different coding system.
I could swear we’ve been over that half cut off number before.
I agree that 5 is a clear possibility for the cut-off number. I do exclude 1, 2 and 3 as possibilities, at least to my eyes.
I wasn't talking about him being born in a home or not. I was pointing out the "THEORY" given in the article as to why the BC might have been changed because it had handwriting and typing so therefore embarrassing looking. Since that is EXACTLY the way mine looked I would find nothing wrong with that.
Besides IF it had been a home birth who says it would have had to been in THAT HOME? Just because you think the unreadable code 4 says home birth there is NOTHING that says which or who's home it could have been in. Maybe she was spending the night in Obama's apartment with him when she went into labor. That is IF one believes Obama's parents are who he says they are. Which I don't.
If Grandma filled out an affidavit of home birth, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL LOOKED LIKE so we don’t know that someone looking at it would “find nothing wrong it” or nothing “embarrassing looking.”
If it is correct that Zero was born somewhere other than Hawaii and Grandma filled out an affidavit of home birth claiming birth in Hawaii, then to my mind it is likely she would have listed her own home which is where Stanley Ann was listed as living according to the city street directory and which is the address that appears in the newspaper birth announcements.
But you are right we don’t know for certain what home address Grandma actually used in that case because WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL LOOKED LIKE.
What Sheriff Joe and the CCP have rather definitivelyy established is that:
Concentrate. Focus. We are rehashing stuff we knew years ago. A Hawaiian BC is nowhere near as strong a document of proof as Rover's Honolulu Dog License. Can we cut the gossip and crap now and walk and talk with Sheriff Joe?
Think. We don't need to prove Obama was born in Kenya. We don't need to theologically demonstrate that he is the Anti-Christ. (although that certainly is true)
We need one (1) nationally heard voice to point out that the President of the United States posted a forgery on The WH Website.
How do we do that?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96470103/Document-35-Et-Al
This is exactly what I think happened. Obama is NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN, let alone a "natural born citizen."
Where do you get a “4”? It looks to me like a “6”.
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.