[DiogenesLamp]

But so what? Maybe his original BC said he was born in Hawaii, but listed his birth as unattended, as some birthers have speculated. Could an adoption decree have caused the state to falsify information about an attending physician, hospital, and the like?

We have already established that an Adoption decree will cause the state to falsify information, now we are just quibbling over the details.

If I recall properly, she had up to a year to get the child examined by a Doctor. Strangely enough, my own birth certificate has a Doctor's signature, 6 years after the fact!

Tell me again what they won't put on a birth certificate because they are too honest?

[curiosity]

We have already established that an Adoption decree will cause the state to falsify information, now we are just quibbling over the details.

The place of birth is no detail; it is, in fact, the only thing on the BC that is relevant to a person's citizenship, and the state DOES NOT falsify that.

If I recall properly, she had up to a year to get the child examined by a Doctor.

Then the BC wouldn't list the hospital as the place of birth, and if the birth was registered after a certain number of weeks, it would be marked "delayed."

Since the BC specifically lists a hospital, and the BC isn't marked "delayed," we know for a fact he was born in the hospital and the birth was registered in a timely manner.

Tell me again what they won't put on a birth certificate because they are too honest?

They don't put a false birthplace nor a false birthdate. The only information they are allowed to falsify is the name of the parents and child, and then that only happens if there is an adoption and the court orders it.