[BigGuy22]

"He wouldn’t verify any of the facts or the genuineness of the White House image.

Not true."
__

Actually, I believe BZ is correct on that one.

What you said is also true -- "Dr Onaka did confirm that the facts asserted by the CoLB that the White Housse published match what the original on file with the DoH contains."

But BZ is pointing out that, while Onaka said that the information matches the official records, he did not actually say that the information was factually correct.

And I think that's right. Onaka is in no position to attest to what is factually correct in that he has no personal knowledge of the event. He relies on the fact that, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, what's in the official records is legally true unless proven otherwise.

I've been asking BZ to tell me what other sources Onaka is supposed to rely on in order to be able to be able to verify the factual truth of the data, sources more trustworthy than the official records of the State of Hawaii, but she hasn't come up with an answer so far.

[Red Steel]

I've been asking BZ to tell me what other sources Onaka is supposed to rely on in order to be able to be able to verify the factual truth of the data, sources more trustworthy than the official records of the State of Hawaii, but she hasn't come up with an answer so far.

You're one dense OBot Foggy. It has been explain to you many times.

[cynwoody]

Onaka is in no position to attest to what is factually correct in that he has no personal knowledge of the event.

That's obviously true. Even if Obama were to turn out to have been born in Mombasa, it would not make a liar out of Dr Onaka, who would have been a high school kid at the time of Obama's birth.

However, the fact that Dr Onaka is able to verify that the facts on the certificate match those on file with the DoH makes it just as pointless to argue that the document(s) are somehow forged as it would be to forge them.

[butterdezillion]

Onaka has to obey the HI statutes which say that the probative value of LATE and ALTERED BC’s can only be determined by judicial or administrative officials or bodies. On their own, those BC’s have NO probative value whatsoever. They are legally considered a rumor, nothing more, nothing less. Onaka can’t certify that what is legally no more than a rumor is actually the way something happened. He is legally forbidden from treating those claims as anything more than a rumor.

If a BC is VALID it is declared by HI statute to be prima facia evidence - that is, Onaka is LEGALLY REQUIRED to presume that the facts are true. It has nothing to do with his personal knowledge and everything to do with the standards that HI has set up for evaluating the credibility of claims submitted to them. Onaka doesn’t decide any of that; he only reports what Hawaii’s statutes say he has to presume about those claims. Unless the BC is LATE or ALTERED, he has to presume the claims are true. If the BC is LATE or ALTERED he has to presume it is an as-of-yet-unsubstantiated rumor and nothing more. He has to report that they have a record for that person but he cannot verify that the claims on that record are true.