“Circumstantial evidence” versus state certified evidence and contemporaneous documentation.
What Hawaii submitted actually does prove he was born in Hawaii.
If you mean Hawaii statute §338-17.8, it did not exist in 1961.
If you talking about Title 11 Chapter 8A, the dates on the certificate 08-4-1961 (birth) and 08-08-1961 (mother’s and doctor’s signatures) mean it doesn’t apply. The doctor would know the difference between a 4 day old infant and a 1 year old one.
No one has even examined the certified copy so claims of it being a fake seem at best to be exaggerated.
Exactly. Facts can't lie. State officials can and do. The circumstantial evidence makes it virtually impossible for Obama to have been born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. When something cannot be true, it doesn't matter how many liars swear that it is, or put pretty stamps on pieces of paper saying it is.
What Hawaii submitted actually does prove he was born in Hawaii.
I would like to hear how you think it does.
If you mean Hawaii statute §338-17.8, it did not exist in 1961.
It has been years since I wandered through the Hawaiian statutes on birth and birth certificates, adoption, and so forth, and so I do not remember what each particular one said by number, but what I do recall is that Hawaii has always allowed people born elsewhere to be given Hawaiian birth certificates. This is a long practice that derived from the fact so many children were born while their mothers were on a ship traveling to Hawaii. The first Hawaiian port reached becomes designated as the place of birth. That was true prior to 1961, and it is still true today.
No one has even examined the certified copy so claims of it being a fake seem at best to be exaggerated.
You have clearly not participated in various threads in which this fabricated thing was taken apart numerous different ways. I can only think you didn't participate in these discussions because you didn't want to, but rest assured, there are many ways that have been shown to prove what Hawaii submitted is a fake. Hawaii doesn't even swear it is a "true and correct copy of the original", which is the legal language they used to use back in the 1960s.
Again, if something can't possibly be true, it doesn't matter how many liars there are swearing it is, or how many liars put pretty stamps on their pieces of paper saying it is true.