Replies

Actually, the number wouldn’t be a problem. I’m almost certain that the BC number Obama used was from a child born on Aug 4 at Kapiolani. That child’s number was later than Nordykes’ because it was beneath the Nordykes’ in the pile, having been born before the Nordykes.

But that number wasn’t Obama’s. I believe it belonged to a little girl who was born on Aug 4th and died on Aug 5th.

We know that number wasn’t Obama’s because the “date filed” is 3 days earlier than the Nordykes’ “date filed”, which doesn’t work for a number later than the Nordykes’.

The date of birth wouldn’t necessarily impact the certificate number because the hospitals by law were required to collect BC’s for a week and then submit them to the state registrar, where they were given a number that same day. Kapiolani submitted theirs on Fridays - another reason why the Factcheck COLB doesn’t fit for a Kapiolani birth: the “date filed” is on a Tuesday, when all the BC’s for kids born after office hours on Friday, Aug 4th until right before the BC’s were delivered to the state registrar the following Friday would have a “date filed” of Aug 11, 1961.

People have talked about the earlier BC’s being on the bottom of the pile when it was given to the state registrar, and then being numbered from the top of the pile down so that earlier births may well have had later certificate numbers. That is true, for BC’s processed on the same day. That’s why the little girl who was born on the 4th probably had a number slightly later than the Nordykes’. There was probably one other person born between when she was born and when the Nordyke twins were born.

But a person who received a certificate number on a different DAY wouldn’t have that reverse-order effect. That’s why Obama’s “date filed” is the revealing item. It messes up what would otherwise have been a really handy substitution between Obama and this little girl, since she was born at the time and place where he wanted to claim he was born and had the birth certificate to match that time and place. Too bad (for Obama) that he screwed up the “date filed”. It reveals all.

The date of birth wouldn’t necessarily impact the certificate number because the hospitals by law were required to collect BC’s for a week and then submit them to the state registrar, where they were given a number that same day. Kapiolani submitted theirs on Fridays - another reason why the Factcheck COLB doesn’t fit for a Kapiolani birth: the “date filed” is on a Tuesday, when all the BC’s for kids born after office hours on Friday, Aug 4th until right before the BC’s were delivered to the state registrar the following Friday would have a “date filed” of Aug 11, 1961.

People have talked about the earlier BC’s being on the bottom of the pile when it was given to the state registrar, and then being numbered from the top of the pile down so that earlier births may well have had later certificate numbers. That is true, for BC’s processed on the same day. That’s why the little girl who was born on the 4th probably had a number slightly later than the Nordykes’. There was probably one other person born between when she was born and when the Nordyke twins were born.

But a person who received a certificate number on a different DAY wouldn’t have that reverse-order effect. That’s why Obama’s “date filed” is the revealing item. It messes up what would otherwise have been a really handy substitution between Obama and this little girl, since she was born at the time and place where he wanted to claim he was born and had the birth certificate to match that time and place. Too bad (for Obama) that he screwed up the “date filed”. It reveals all.

******

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say above. Maybe it is just me. I have read it over and over, but I still can't seem to grasp what you saying. Sorry.

So to help me, could you please go into more detail and use shorter sentences in your explanation above? Thanks.

I have enjoyed reading most of your other messages. It is just this one message above that is giving me problems. Thanks.

:)

Excerpt:

"That’s why 0bama’s “date filed” is the revealing item.

"It messes up what would otherwise have been a really handy substitution between 0bama and this little girl, since she was born at the time and place where he wanted to claim he was born and had the birth certificate to match that time and place.

"Too bad (for 0bama) that he screwed up the “date filed”. . . . "It reveals all."

. . . . Check out # 127.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2513997/posts?page=127#127

[Thanks, urtax$@work.]