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.
I seem to recall five or so possibilities at the minimum. And they remain possibilities. They tend to provide much more plausible explanations as they do not require a person to invoke conspiracies.
So to answer your question, I think the folks you spoke with at HDOH are inaccurate when they try to describe how the process was done in 1961. A process of which they have no first hand knowledge. Nor even second hand knowledge. And in all likelihood was before they were even born.