I looked at the link but didn’t see the relevance of it.
The data points were over years but I compared the dates of filing and BC#’s in comparison with the total number of births for the year, to establish that the order was ascending.
The statements in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report and common sense both say that the numbers are sequential. The mechanics of using a hand stamper would make little sense with non-sequential numbering.
And it matches what Onaka said about the process.
I’m not sure what’s your hang-up.
The anomalies on the Factcheck COLB itself - taken right off the Factcheck images themselves, without any of the computerized analysis by Polarik or comparisons with other COLB’s borders or features that could potentially be inauthentic - tell us the image is a forgery.
The circular seal that supposedly authenticates the document is on a fold line but the seal doesn’t distort when the paper it’s on folds forward. I did the scientific method to check this thing out.
I traced the outline of the seal on the fold and compared it to a circle I had drawn with a compass to be that size. The “seal” was just barely a little taller than wide, and showed no distortion. Then I traced the pre-printed state seal/circle on the top fold. It was obvious where the fold was because the circle was flattened and distorted where the fold was. I checked the angle of the fold by looking at the left-hand edge of the page. The angles were almost identical so the degree of distortion should have been roughly the same.
So then I tried to duplicate the results of either the top circle or the supposed “seal”. I tri-folded a piece of paper so that when I held up the paper to my computer screen the fold lines matched and the left-hand edges aligned. That required an exact angle of fold and an exact angle of the right edge being closer to me. So I was sure that the paper I had was identical to the paper used for that photo.
Then I drew a circle on the top fold that was identical to the one on the Factcheck image, and a circle on the bottom fold that was identical to the “seal” on the bottom fold. So I made sure that I replicated what would have been on the paper that Factcheck says they photographed.
Then I tried to duplicate the results that Factcheck got with their camera. I held up my simulated COLB against my computer screen so the left edge matched - again, requiring specific fold angles and a specific angle of the right side being closer to me. Then I snapped a photo of it, enlarged it, and traced it. The top circles matched. On the “seal” my photo showed distortion that almost made the circle look square on the top, from the top curve of the circle being pulled backward by the paper it was on. It looked a lot like the top circle.
Of all those 4 circles, there was one that was different. I tried the experiment probably 3 or 4 times, and in every instance there was always one circle out of the four that was different: the “seal” on the Factcheck COLB was the only one that was not distorted like the others.
I have never been able to duplicate the result that Factcheck got when they supposedly photographed a circular seal on a fold and got an almost-perfect circle slightly taller than it was wide, which is the opposite of the flattening effect I observed in every other instance.
I know of no way that a round “seal” could have been on that paper and ended up looking like the Factcheck image when the paper was folded. I cannot duplicate that. I’ve invited other people to try to duplicate it. I don’t know if they actually tried it or not, but if they did they never told me that they were able to do it, or how. If you change the position of either the paper or the camera the left-side edges don’t match up so there is only one position that works, and it never results in a “seal” that doesn’t distort.
As with all scientific inquiry, research that is trustworthy is able to be duplicated. If that seal was on that piece of paper before it was folded, then the result woould be duplicated when you repeat the experiment with the same variables. I challenge anyone to duplicate Factcheck’s result.
The Factcheck COLB is obviously a forgery because of that non-distorting “seal” alone, but what the HDOH said - both with the BC#’s AND with the admission of the amendment (as supported also by OIP Director Tsukiyama’s citation of HRS 338-13 when addressing Obama’s records) - just shows that the HI bureaucrats also know it is a forgery.
You’re arguing that it might not be a forgery because the evidence of ascending sequential numbering in every instance is not conclusive. As I noted, the conclusive publicly-accessible evidence of that has been illegally destroyed (if the HDOH told the truth about the handwritten birth index not existing even though it is required to be kept permanently). But though the conclusive evidence has seemingly been illegally destroyed, everything we have supports the scenario that the numbers were given sequentially in ascending order.
And there is the other evidence of forgery also, like the admission of the amendment and the physical, scientific fact that the shape of the alleged “seal” can’t be duplicated on a real piece of paper.
On the relevance of data sampling rates to avoid aliasing...
The classic example is the wagon wheel on TV. If you watch the video of the wagon go by, the wheel sometimes appears to be turning backwards. That’s aliasing, and results from not sampling data at a fast enough rate to give a true picture of what is actually happening.
You sample some data (say a video frame of the wheel) and you see one state. The next sample (or next video frame) shows a different state but is it immediately after or is it sometime later? If the wagon wheel turns at five times a second and you take samples at two times a second you won’t get a good representation of what the wheel is doing.
Another example, say I am baking cookies and they keep getting burned. I’ve set the oven to 350 and I go to check the temperature with a thermometer every twenty minutes for two hours. I get temperatures of:
0 min. - 325
20 min. - 330
30 min. - 330
60 min. - 325
80 min. - 330
100 min. - 330
120 min. - 325
That doesn’t explain why the cookies get burned. If anything the data shows a constant oven temperature and the snickerdoodles should therefore be undercooked.
So I stop and think that I am sampling temperature every twenty minutes for two hours, but the cookies only bake for 10 minutes. I need to know what is happening in that ten minute window more than I need to know what the oven does over two hours.
So I check the temperature every 30 seconds for ten minutes and I see:
0 sec. - 325
30 sec. - 330
60 sec. - 335
90 sec. - 340
120 sec. - 345
150 sec. - 350
180 sec. - 355
210 sec. - 360
240 sec. - 365
270 sec. - 370
300 sec. - 375
330 sec. - 380
360 sec. - 385
390 sec. - 390
420 sec. - 395
450 sec. - 400
480 sec. - 400
510 sec. - 400
540 sec. - 380
570 sec. - 370
600 sec. – 370
So now I know why my snickerdoodles are getting burnt.
I sampled the same process each time. Both data sets tell me what is happening in the oven. But only the second data set has enough information to tell me what is actually happening in the time frame that concerns me.
If you look at discrete examples of behavior of a system over large time periods it doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the behavior of a system over short time periods.
Where vital records are concerned, I hope you can see that looking at three from August of 1961, one from May of 61, two from July of 64, one from January of 65 and four from November of 68 isn’t going to give you anywhere near the same level of useful information as would if a dozen records from a single week in October of 1961.
As for the Factcheck COLB, I think you are simply mistaken in your presumption that because you couldn’t figure it out it must be falsified. Especially since there are a number of photos from that stunt that do show the seal quite clearly.