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.
I’m waiting for cinnamon rolls to come out of the oven for the youth group’s Easter breakfast and won’t have any discretionary time on Monday so I’ll respond while I can.
The two scenarios’ wording fails to reflect what Okubo said. The date of BIRTH is totally irrelevant to this discussion; that’s a mistaken construct of Obama’s attempted forgery. What matters is the date of FILING - which is the date the certificate had a number stamped on it at the state registrar’s office. Obama’s was STAMPED WITH A NUMBER 3 days before the Nordyke twins’ were STAMPED WITH A NUMBER.
Why would anybody with a stamper (most likely the kind where you just increase the last digit each time you stamp) skip around with the numbers? What scenario would cause an office worker to say, “Oops. We forgot to use this number 3 days ago; let’s use it now”?
I have never once seen a birth certificate that has a “Date received” stamp that gives either the date or the hour of receipt in the state registrar’s office, which is what is required for your standard of proof. IOW, you have chosen a standard of proof which can never be satisfied - which is typically what I find in conversations I’ve had with atheists; the epistemology is different for something a person is simply not willing to believe.
The closest we have to a time stamp showing the order that certificates were accepted/approved at the state registrar’s office, according to Okubo, IS the certificate number.
And we do see that the Nordyke BC’s are consecutive, and that all the BC’s posted online fit the pattern of ascending numbers. We see that the Kapiolani BC’s were all signed by the local registrar and filed by the state registrar (given a number, according to Okubo) on the same date (always a Friday, except where national holidays interfere).
Obama’s BC number has two problems with the “Date received”: 1) It’s not on a Friday and should have been received the same Friday as the Nordykes’ were if he was born at Kapiolani; and 2) the certificate number doesn’t match the “Date filed” because the person whose certificate number they used was probably actually born at Kapiolani and had their BC filed and numbered right after the Nordykes. It was probably the person whose BC was either 2 above or below the Nordykes’ in the Kapiolani pile when it was delivered to the registrar’s office on Aug 11, 1961.
What’s funny is that Obama wouldn’t have been caught at this if he had simply used that person’s BC for the forgery and left the dates intact rather than trying to make the dates APPEAR to line up at a superficial glance. (Birth one day earlier than Nordykes when Nordykes were born during a weekend, “Date filed” 3 days earlier than Nordykes; birth announcements 3 days earlier than Nordykes)
Everything this guy has done was meant to allow people to take a superficial glance and be satisfied. It’s only when people start digging into the realities that they find the proof that it’s all manufactured. Obama was counting on people looking at the issue only superficially and then ridiculing anybody who dug deeper. He played this media and society like a fiddle. Whether he ultimately succeeds depends on the integrity of the American people, to pursue the truth even when they get ridiculed for it.
Obama’s hastiness to make the information look superficially correct has actually been the tip-off for me to find other things he’s manufactured. Obama is transparent - transparent in the way he manufactures “documentation”. Once you know the pattern you know what to look for and it leads to the anomalies that prove the fraud.
You haven’t heard the end of the story yet.
Be skeptical all you want but I will tell you that decades ago that when BCs came through our office, not one was stamped by some nurse at a hospital. Official state stamps are not given out willy nilly. Filing dates are at the time the document is filed at the state.