And the "document," so to speak, put forth in this instance is the WHLFBC electronic image, and "original" is used in this context to make the verification requested as to the bona fides of Obama's birth information as reflected on that image.
We don't care that the information contained on what has been put forth "matches" the information on the "original."
But you should care. Or at least you should understand that to those of us in the rationale world who don't act like we're living in some bizarre Ludlum novel of 45-year, multi-person conspiracies, saying the information shown on "the original Certificate of Live Birth" "matches" the information shown on the WH image, settles the question. The WH image shows "Honolulu, HI" as the place of birth. THAT MEANS the original record doesn't state some place like Kenya or Canada as the place of birth; if it did, it wouldn't "match." Same with the identify of the Mother; if the Original record listed someone other than Stanley Ann as the mother, it wouldn't "match." Same with the identify of the father. Same with the Hospital name, the physician name, the registrar stamp date, etc., etc.
Is the "original" document created in the normal manner from a Hospital, or was it created by the "say so" of someone such as Grandma Dunham?
Since the "original" is stated to show a hospital name (Kapiolani) and an attending doctor's name (Sinclair) (and the original must showing these items, otherwise those bits of information would not "match" those shown on the WH image.
Refusing to say that what is being put forth *IS* the original document, is just more legalistic bullshit crap the sort of which we have come to expect from Obama and the dodgers and weavers in the Hawaii department of health.
Of course no one is going to attest that the document *IS* the original document as the original document is contained in a vault at HDOH.
And neither, technically, should the partial WH image be called a "complete" copy. The original would have contained information per CDC standards of things like the infant's birth weight, birth order, mother's pregnancy history, etc., i.e., information that is NOT ever copied or released apart from authorized statistical reporting channels.
"Matches" or "abstract" are actually the more precise terms, notwithstanding your whining.
It proves that the document simply reflects whatever it is they have subsequently put into the record.
No, it does not. The term "original certificate of live birth" precludes your notion of "whatever is added subsequently." Hence your cognitive dissonance causing you to block out the repeated use of "original" in the Hawaii verifications.
No, we've been looking for the word "Original" to appear in anything from Hawaii, and the word never seems to appear.
It is a very different certification from the one used in the 1960s and later, to certify the document is a copy of the original.
In 2001, Hawaii stated it was ceasing to issue copies of "long form" certificates. So the COLB (short-form) which was produced earlier IS the official certification in the standard form. Your quibble about the .pdf image is just that: a quibble.
I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
"Abstract" simply means that less than all of the information is reflected (which is true with near every state which issues a computer-generated "short form" -- which is the standard form used in most places for official purposes). (This is rubber-stamp form language used in "either/or" fashion to cover a variety of documents.) But we know from taking account of all of the statements on point that "record on file" means the "original Certificate of Live Birth." Not some amended version.
And once again, I will point out that the word "Original" does not appear anywhere in the certification of Obama's purported birth certificate.
ROFLMAO!! Nice "goal post move" technique there, DumbDumb. This was not your claim earlier, which was:
No, we've been looking for the word "Original" to appear in anything from Hawaii, and the word never seems to appear.
Now that I've shown what a total blunder that was ("anything from Hawaii" would include the formal Verifications done by Onaka -- and those contained frequent references to the "original certificate of live birth), you try to move the goalposts a bit further and try to force a material semantic distinction between "verification" and "certification." That won't work as both a "verification" and "certification," as Hawaii uses the terms, have the same legal effect:
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."
So you're check-mated once again, DumbDumb.
Which means what is being shown is not being certified as "Original."
Now go ahead and chase your tail.