Putting words in my mouth again I see.
Libraries do not in general keep very tight control over their stuff, except to ensure that it doesn't walk out the door. Patrons are left alone with the material, sometimes in "screened" environments, such as cubbyhole.
It turns out, I mispoke. They came from two rolls of microfilm, which, AFAIK, no one has gone back to even look at again. But even if they have, splicing in a single frame in the semi-privacy of a library cubbyhole would not be all that hard.
And who exactly looked? You? Some anonymous guy reporting to WorldNutDaily? Some anonymous poster at Texas Darling. They are also the one who reported that someone else had accessed the microfilm so recently that they had not been re-shelved.
I see. That would only be a problem if you assume the number were based on time of birth. You know this how? So how do you think it's done? And why would you think it's done that way? Pretty much every system that logs things does so in sequence of arrival. Remember this was a paper system, filing paper documents.
What evidence do you have that they are generated in the order you think they should have been generated? The Nordyke twins, born minutes apart, have sequential file numbers. So they don't draw the numbers out of a hat.
Why don't you just change your name to "Defender of The Faith?", since you certainly don't seem to have much curiosity.
I seriously doubt there is the only library that has microfilms of the two newspapers. If someone had altered the documents in the first library, it could be easily checked by looking at the microfilms in other libraries.
Some anonymous poster at Texas Darling.
Oh wow, that's such a credible source /sarcasm.
They are also the one who reported that someone else had accessed the microfilm so recently that they had not been re-shelved.
My my, that is so suspicious. You know, no one ever accesses microfilms at libraries! Like i said, libaries just keep them as dust collectors. /sarcasm
So how do you think it's done?
I have no idea how it's done, and neither do you. But that's your problem, not mine. You're the one making an argument regarding the order of certificate numbers. Until you do have good information on how ordering is done, your argument amounts to nothing more than wild speculation.
Pretty much every system that logs things does so in sequence of arrival. Remember this was a paper system, filing paper documents.
Possibily. But the sequence of arrival need not match the sequence of birth, or even the sequence of the date at which information is received by the health department. That's especially true with paper documents. Bureaucrats don't necessarily processes papers in the order received.
And that's why your supposed "anomaly" with the certificate numbers really doesn't amount to much more than wild speculation.
What evidence do you have that they are generated in the order you think they should have been generated?
Here you go again, shifting the burden of proof. Since you're the one making an argument about number generation, the onus is on you to understand how they are generated.
The Nordyke twins, born minutes apart, have sequential file numbers.
Duh. The same doctor filled out the same BC, and the documents were likely kept together when delivered to the health department. It's very unlikely two twin BC documents would get out of order. But that doesn't mean the health department kept some rigid order when processing documents.