That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.”
I do not know. But there are a number of rational ways that it could have happened in 1961. Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961. You've been presented with a number of possibilities but have chosen to reject them in favor of your conspiracy.
So I say that it remains a perceived anomaly because you are are making the assumption that it should have been done a certain way but have never bothered to show that it actually was done that way. We've discussed this before. If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something. But you don't, instead you try to draw a conclusion from a sample of three and the statement of someone who has no knowledge of the process as it was done before she was born. Read up on aliasing errors in data acquisition and you'll hopefully get the idea.
“If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved.”
That's because CSI is a TV show where the writers can use whatever trope or deus ex machina they need to wrap things up in 46 minutes.
“The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accusations based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.””
My standard of evidence is actually evidence.
“Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.”
And yet I seem do be doing surprisingly well...
I remain hopeful that things will clear up for you when you see the Whitehouse, Lord willing, change hands and the nutty idea pendulum swings Left again.
The best available evidence disputes this.
Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961.
Wich makes all the more important to demand full disclosure.
If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something.
We don't have a few dozen, but there have been several random BCs posted that show a general sequential numbering system that goes along with the chronological order in which BCs are filed. The procedures as explained by a DOH employee support this numbering pattern, so again, the best available evidence supports the idea that the cert. no. is an anomaly and impossibility. Obama's alleged cert. no. is irrationally out of sequence, and the state of Hawaii REFUSES to affirm that the number belongs to Obama despite having statutory authority to confirm who the number does belong to. Why hide the truth when there's no legal reason to hide it?? So far, you're showing that you're good at making excuses that don't need to be made.
I’ve never claimed that the BC’s were numbered in order of birth or even birth date. The HDOH itself has said that the BC numbers are given by the HDOH on the “date filed”. The actual birth date is irrelevant.
The explanations that people have attempted are:
1) The BC# was given at the hospital, or the hospital was given a bloc of numbers to use. (The HDOH statement that the number was given at the HDOH office rules that out as the explanation.)
2) The BC# was given at the HDOH but the BC’s from several days collected and got out of order. (But the HDOH says the “date filed” is the date the number was given, so out-of-order piles are irrelevant. The Factcheck number was supposedly given 3 days earlier than the Nordyke numbers. Yet it’s higher/later. This explanation doesn’t explain anything.)
I have not “chosen to reject them in favor of my conspiracy”. I have rejected them because the HDOH statements contradict those explanations. That is my epistemology; if there are mutually exclusive claims I infer that one or the other of the claims is inaccurate.
What the HDOH has said contradicts what is on those documents. Either the HDOH is inaccurate, or the documents are inaccurate. I have no way of knowing for sure which is which, so I ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
So what do you do in response to these mutually-exclusive claims? Which do you think is inaccurate - the HDOH, or the online documents?
I also want to add that Janice Okubo made that statement after conferring with Alvin Onaka, who was the person in charge of switching the record-keeping system to electronic, including setting up the requirements for the data fields. It was he who decided that they didn’t need different fields for “date filed” and “date accepted” because it is now all done at once electronically, and the only BC’s where the dates were ever different were ones from outlying islands. So this is a guy who had to know what the processes were in the past so he could know what data fields were significant to retain in the electronic conversion.
I know that she conferred with Onaka because they accidentally sent my colleague the whole e-mail history between Okubo and Onaka when they sent her Okubo’s response that I’ve referenced.