The date on the COLB, “Date filed”, is not put on by the hospital. It’s put on by the state at the same time the number is given. That fact totally nullifies the argument you cited. I’ve not seen any prospective scenario that gets around that snag.
The CDC Vital Stats Report for 1961 notes that certificate numbers were given in ascending order. That’s the standard they expect; they considered their 50% sampling accurate because of that. And that’s the pattern we see in the BC’s.
I just don’t think “Sh!t happens” is the best way of explaining data that doesn’t fit the protocols. If scientists did that with data we’d never learn anything.
Awesome comment, although, I have to say, gullobal warming science relies quite frequently on "SH" protocols.
I am skeptical as to how we know that this, for a fact, was true in 1961.
“The CDC Vital Stats Report for 1961 notes that certificate numbers were given in ascending order. That’s the standard they expect; they considered their 50% sampling accurate because of that.
It may have been the standard they expected, but it doesn't follow that this is what was actually done at the local level. Perhaps all the CDC wanted was roughly sequential numbering and not block assignments that would lead to gross differences in number assignments.
“I just don’t think “Sh!t happens” is the best way of explaining data that doesn’t fit the protocols. If scientists did that with data we’d never learn anything.”
I am at no point making the argument that “Sh!t happens”. I am saying that whatever system that was followed in 1961 may not have lead to BC numbers exactly matching chronological birth dates.
If you want to talk about the scientific method, you should be far more concerned about trying to draw sweeping conclusions from very small amounts of data. Especially when the only argument for why none of those conclusions have any other factual support is because that support is being suppressed.
Consider two arguments:
1) BHO’s BC is forged. This is evidenced by his BC number being higher than the Nordyke’s BC’s despite his earlier birth.
2) Hawaii didn't necessarily number BC’s in chronological order of birth. This is evidenced by his BC number being higher than the Nordyke’s BC’s despite his earlier birth.
Which is correct? You need more data to draw a supportable conclusion.
It's Easter, so let's leave any more talk of this until Monday.