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.
But have they? Or is everyone using the same images which first appeared on the Texas Darling blog site?
Oh wow, that's such a credible source /sarcasm.
That's the point.
The information about the earlier access came from that same anonymous poster. (I may be wrong about the anonymous part, there are references to a Lori Starfelt on the FR thread from back when this all happended, who was working on a PUMA, an "unauthorized" Hillary support group, documentary.) There may have only been one visit to the library, not two. Just to get a print of each of the classified pages which had births for the appropriate birth dates. All of the images on the 'net may be of that same print, original or modified. That's the problem with images on the internet, you don't know where they came from, or who has "touched" them, physically or electronically. People who repeat the story, even news sites, copy the images onto their own site, destroying any metadata on their origin in most cases. So unless a story specifically states they went and got their own images, you just can't "authenticate" anything.
Funny though, they didn't have the Nordyke twins announcement, and they were born the very next day. Now it's true that their certificate wasn't filed until the 11th, whereas Obama's was filed the 8th. The date of the paper was the 13th the Sunday a week after both Obama's birth date, as shown on the Colb, and the Nordyke twins, as shown on their Certificates of Live Birth.
Interestingly, today, one of those papers, the Star-Bulletin, says this of it's vital statistics listing: Each Sunday, the Star-Bulletin publishes Oahu vital statistics for marriage licenses and birth certificates filed with the state Department of Health's Vital Statistics System. The statistics cover the five-business-day period ending the Thursday of the previous week. The dates listed do not necessarily reflect the actual marriage or birth date, just when the information was filed.
So if the same applied in 1961 about the dates shown in the listings But noteThe dates listed do not necessarily reflect the actual marriage or birth date, just when the information was filed. So Obama's would have said the 8th, and the Nordyke Twins the 11th. In '61 the papers may have required more lead time to get the ads set up. But if the state still delivered on Friday, then the Obama and Nordyke listings would have been in the next weekend's paper.
Now that is speculation, but it would not be all that hard to prove, if one had access to the newspaper archives. Look up the newspaper announcement corresponding to someone else born in the early 60s on Ohau for whom you have a CoLB or Certificate of Live Birth. If the date shown corresponds to the date filed as Mythbusters says "Busted". If the date corresponds to the date of birth, one speculation shot down.
(The Advertiser apparently no longer prints the "vital statistics" birth announcements, at least in their on line edition.)
Unfortunately Texas Darlin is now a protected blog, you have to sign up, and I refuse to do that. So I can't even attempt to check the data on the images posted there. Probably couldn't anyway, because I don't have the necessary software to look at the metadata, except in very limited cases. Maybe someone else can take a look?