LorenC has used different names to log on at FR and attack Polarik. It's the Chicago way don'tchaknow, to threaten someone who has personal flaws, if they don't shut up and get out of the criminal enterptrise's way. But conspicuously absent were the refutations of Polarik's work on the forgeries posted at Factcheck, KOS, and fight the smears Obama website!
Earlier on Thusday, the thread posted to attack Polarik directly was pulled by the mods. But this little entry is not only allowed to remain up, but some of the defenders of the questionable exhibit are pointing to it, to the links aimed at smearing Polarik, and even bragging that this poster has scads of evidence on Polarik! Is there a clear enough pattern here that we are being played by ateam of dnc operatives?
Polarik is not the issue, the ofrgeries are the issue, and the mysterious exhibits which appear, with odd anomolies in them. And this same team of posters are echoing the refrain that Hawaiian officials are incompetent. Is there a pattern here? I think there is. It's your site. I rest my case and will step aside now. Let the team have their way at FR, smearing Polarik rather than addressing the work he did which speaks for itself, and making outrageous claims of their own credulity when the exhibts in use are very suspect.
The stamped serial number at the top of a long-form was stamped AT THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AT THE TIME OF FILING. That is why it is called a “file number” - and it can be proven easily that this was the case. Anyone working at the Registrar General’s office could confirm it, but also, there is simply no other way to account for the known fact that file numbers correspond to birth dates for ALL KNOWN long-form certificates that have ever been published.
Simply put, if the blank forms were distributed to the many hospitals and local registrars all over Hawaii in stacks, then the numbers of any given certificate would not correspond to the birth dates, because one hospital would get all the “low numbers” and another would get the next stack, and so on.
For example, we know that in 1961 there were 17592 births registered in Hawaii. Therefore, serialized filing numbers near 10650 correspond to early August, assuming that people are born with nearly equal frequency each day of the year.
This pattern is consistent for the years (and decades) worth of published certificates. See :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2303014/posts?page=198
For example, the January births have low serialized file numbers, and the December births are later. There is no way to do that with pre-numbered blank forms. For example, if the first baby born in Hawaii happened to be born at a hospital that had a stack of pre-numbered blanks with high numbers, then that baby would have a high serialized file number, even though he was born Jan 1. This is not what is observed.
The file number was not pre-stamped on the blanks distributed to the hospitals. The question is, why would Obama have a higher number than the twins, despite his form arriving at the Registrar’s office three days (and presumably about 100 certificates) earier than the Nordyke twins.
Is there any evidence of “batch” filing? No, there is not.
TOTAL Hawaii births 1996 to 2006:
18451
17419
17567
17032
17515
17043
17446
18066
18238
17922
18986
note the “resident births” stats are different than total births stats given here: http://hawaii.gov/health/statistics/vital-statistics/vital-statistics/vs_sbook/020108.html
Birth RATES over time for HI are shown here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/statistics/vital-statistics/trend_graph/birth_chart.html
(which is why the 1930 Decosta certificate has such a high number 10259 despite being born May 14 - there were more births that year)
I find it remarkable that I can see an original birth record from Hawaii in 1855 with a few mouse clicks but I can’t see Obama’s : http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/vitalsta/index/assoc/HASH156c/0a659111.dir/doc.pdf
This is an outright lie, and I resent the implication. I have one account on FR, and it is this one, which I created in 2006. When I have criticized Polarik on these boards, I have done it under my own name, this name. I see no need to do so under any other name.
So please stop lying about me in an effort to, I presume, discredit me.
It's the Chicago way don'tchaknow, to threaten someone who has personal flaws, if they don't shut up and get out of the criminal enterptrise's way.
No one has been threatened. Polarik ran a yearlong deception wherein he convinced people that he was a credible and reliable computer and document expert, when the truth was that he was nothing of the sort. I revealed him as a phony and a liar. I did not threaten him.
And if you would like to allege that I have done so, please point out where I have issued such a threat.
But conspicuously absent were the refutations of Polarik's work on the forgeries posted at Factcheck, KOS, and fight the smears Obama website!
Conspicuously absent from where? On my blog, I have two posts devoted to the subject of Polland's "research":
On Rebutting Polarik's Research
The latter illustrates how Polarik actually went so far as to lie about the nature of the images he created and used in one of his reports.