Free Republic

That article cites a birth certificate with number 151-61-07236 . Has anyone actually seen an image of it? Or is that just a lie?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/200XNAT_web_with%20clearance%20revisions-acc.pdf

That is the official CDC document which outlines the database data standards for the uniform US certificate of live birth.

This is the document which controls things like how many digits of the year (61 vs 1961) are shown in the data. It confirms that there is a serialized certificate file number six digit numeric data field called “FILENO” and also an 12 digit Auxiliary State file number called “AUXNO” - since this document probably governs the new electronic system Hawaii uses to print off new short form abstracts, this might help explain some of the slight differences.

It also gives the allowed data entries for Parent Race and “African” is not an allowed entry.

If, somehow, Obama’s “birth record data” was made to conform to this database, it would be interesting to know how the term “African” made it onto the abstracted data.

The stamped serial number at the top of a long-form was stamped AT THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AT THE TIME OF FILING. That is why it is called a “file number” - and it can be proven easily that this was the case. Anyone working at the Registrar General’s office could confirm it, but also, there is simply no other way to account for the known fact that file numbers correspond to birth dates for ALL KNOWN long-form certificates that have ever been published.

Simply put, if the blank forms were distributed to the many hospitals and local registrars all over Hawaii in stacks, then the numbers of any given certificate would not correspond to the birth dates, because one hospital would get all the “low numbers” and another would get the next stack, and so on.

For example, we know that in 1961 there were 17592 births registered in Hawaii. Therefore, serialized filing numbers near 10650 correspond to early August, assuming that people are born with nearly equal frequency each day of the year.

This pattern is consistent for the years (and decades) worth of published certificates. See :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2303014/posts?page=198

For example, the January births have low serialized file numbers, and the December births are later. There is no way to do that with pre-numbered blank forms. For example, if the first baby born in Hawaii happened to be born at a hospital that had a stack of pre-numbered blanks with high numbers, then that baby would have a high serialized file number, even though he was born Jan 1. This is not what is observed.

The file number was not pre-stamped on the blanks distributed to the hospitals. The question is, why would Obama have a higher number than the twins, despite his form arriving at the Registrar’s office three days (and presumably about 100 certificates) earier than the Nordyke twins.

Is there any evidence of “batch” filing? No, there is not.

TOTAL Hawaii births 1996 to 2006:

18451
17419
17567
17032
17515
17043
17446
18066
18238
17922
18986

note the “resident births” stats are different than total births stats given here: http://hawaii.gov/health/statistics/vital-statistics/vital-statistics/vs_sbook/020108.html

Birth RATES over time for HI are shown here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/statistics/vital-statistics/trend_graph/birth_chart.html

(which is why the 1930 Decosta certificate has such a high number 10259 despite being born May 14 - there were more births that year)

I find it remarkable that I can see an original birth record from Hawaii in 1855 with a few mouse clicks but I can’t see Obama’s : http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/vitalsta/index/assoc/HASH156c/0a659111.dir/doc.pdf

The publication of the Nordyke certificates is reason to re-analyze other published long-form certificates to figure out when things were stamped and by whom.

There is a 1963 Hawaii long form (with blacked out names and other specifics) that circulates on the interwebz. This is a certificate from U.S. Army Tripler General Hospital, in Wahiawa, island of Oahu, Honolulu, Hawaii.

In this case, a “local registrar” (name redacted) was used, and the field #20 “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” was 6 Sept 63, which is typewritten. The local registrar in this case happened to be a LT COL, MSC, USA and so he was probably someone located at the military hospital who also served as a local registrar on behalf of the state.

Then it was later filed with the Registrar General and stamped (with a similar style of stamp to the Nordyke documents) SEP 10 1963.

This confirms that there were some cases where a “local registrar” would accept a document and then only later would it be stamped in field #22 with a date it was accepted by the Registrar General.

In terms of figuring out the Work Week in the local registrar and registrar general’s offices, the local registrar signed this 1963 document on Friday Sept 6 1963, as did the parent and the attendant MD. We don’t know if this was the day after this birth or what, since the birth date is blanked out. Both signature dates are typewritten 6 Sept 63.

The Registrar General stamped this document SEP 10 1963, which was a Tuesday.

So we know that in 1963, at least some stampin’ work was done on days other than Fridays. This makes sense, given that workflow would probably be similar throughout the workweek.

The idea of batch stamping of “accepted” dates is clearly preposterous because dates would then be meaningless.

It is still possible that the filing serial numbers were batch-stamped at some point in the work week after the documents were stamped as “accepted” with a date, but nobody has any proof one way or the other. If so, nobody has any idea about last-name-based alphabetization either, but that could explain the Obama filing number relative to the Nordykes.

A second public long-form Hawaii BC is the Edith Costa document from June 1962. This one has a birth date of June 15 1962, 3:51AM, at Wahiawa General Hospital, Oahu, Honolulu, Hawaii. This was signed by the mom on 6/15/62 (typed date), signed by the MD on June 15 1962 (handwritten date with penmanship matching the Richard Y Noda MD signature), and stamped with “accepted” dates in both the local registrar field #20 and Registrar General field #22 with the familiar-looking stamp JUN 19 1962. Again, this one appears to have been submitted directly to the registrar general’s office, since the dates are the same, and the stamp appears to be the same exact identical stamp. In other words, the “local registrar” in this case was actually the Registrar General as well - it was filed at the central office. June 15 1962 was a Friday, and June 19 1962 was a Tuesday. So we know from this document that some accepted date stampin’ work was done at the Registrar General office on Tuesdays in 1962.

We still don’t know anything about whether the filing serial numbers at the top were stamped in batches at the end of the week, or any other way that Obama could have a higher number than the Nordyke twins despite being transmitted to the registrar on an earlier date.

It would be great to get more long forms from Aug 1961 for further analysis of this type. People should look through Hawaii yearbooks for kids born in 1961, and call them on the phone.

A reward fund should be created, and rewards should be paid to any person who publishes their long form Hawaii BC from this era, in order to create a better database of records for analysis. I can’t see any ID theft issues that would result, since a digital image of the document is not the same as having a verifiable stamped document. Plus, it would be a powerful way of saying “We have nothing to hide by publishing our documents, how about you?” to the President. It would be a very powerful statement.

It wouldn’t take too many documents before a pattern emerged which could then explain how Obama’s certifiate could (or couldn’t) have a later (higher) filing number than the Nordykes despite being born first AND accepted by the Registrar first.

For the record, this is my speculation at this point: I think Obama was born in Hawaii, probably not at Kapiolani like he claims. I think his long form certificate indicates either a birth at another location (perhaps home) or some issue with his paternity. There is a remote possibility that it has something to do with his adoption. I don’t think the long form will show he is not eligible, but it will show that he lied about something significant. If his paternity were not as he states, it might even shore up some of the NBC issues relating to his father for him. If it says he was born at home, this creates NBC problems not at a technical level, but rather, at a credibility level. If he would have just said “I was born at home” then people might complain but nothing could be proved. If he lies, he will look very very suspicious even if he really was born at home.

With this, I urge Hawaiian citizens to keep publishing long form certificates, and maybe we should take up a collection to buy them all LifeLock and give them some money for their trouble.

Besides, as we have all learned, a long form Hawaii birth certificate is a worthless document for purposes of ID verification, since anyone can claim to have one and the Hawaii officials won’t say what’s really in the vault. LOL.

I might claim to be Magnum PI’s son so I can inherit a Ferrari. Or maybe I should be young Master Robbins...Hmm...

Another great detail from these two Nordyke certificates - We know the Kapiolani typewriter in use for these certificates had a high capital “H” since it is present on the “Honolulu” and “Hospital” across both certificates. As more and more original certificates from Kapiolani are identified, that would be one more thing to verify on any alleged Kapiolani long form Obama might one day produce.

It would be high on the “Hospital” , “Honolulu” , “Hawaii” and also on the “Hussein” for father and son - LOL

World Net Daily has now covered the file number sequence aspect.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

Mrs. Nordyke is still alive and well. She theorized that because her labor was so long, it is possible that two BC forms for her twins were pulled from a stack the day before the delivery (when she rolled into the hospital), whereas Obama’s mother perhaps came in afterward and had a shorter labor resulting in an earlier birth. However, everyone involved is merely speculating, because even Mrs. Nordyke has no memory of actually seeing Mrs. Obama there at the hospital during the delivery, or arriving at the hospital. Mrs. Nordyke is a very valuable source of 1st person factual information, since she remembers who the attending MD’s were during those days. Her children’s certificates are invaluable sources of verifiable information as well, and serve as references for comparison.

First, I will address the idea that birth certificates are “started” when a pregnant woman rolls in the door.

Most hospitals don’t “start” to fill out BC’s because they document live births, which is not guaranteed (especially with twins in 1961, but true still today). They are filled out a few minutes after the birth and after the “afterbirth” - when the medical situation is stable, no bleeding problems, etc. You don’t know how many live births you are going to have until you have a live screaming baby in your hands. Labor can last several days, and false labor is common. A large fraction of women presenting with a chief complaint of “labor” are not in labor. By the time a woman is known to be in labor (cervix dilation check, etc) the process is well along, and not much time is to be saved by pulling a certificate off the stack.

The only time saved would be the part with the mom and dad’s name, address, and profession, since every other field on the form (including the MD attending at the time) could change with a long labor. Obviously, the time of birth is not known until it actually occurs. That was as true in 1961 as it is today.

If the blank long-form BC papers had serialized file numbers already stamped on them when they were delivered to the hospital, this would further strengthen the practice of only starting to fill one out AFTER a live delivery, since any stillborn children would result in a major OOPS and a ruined serialized document.

We know that the serial numbers correspond at least roughly to the dates of birth / registration in the calendar year, because 10650/17592 is approximately equal to 220/365. The only practical way to make that happen is to have the file number stamped onto the form at the central Registrar General’s office. This is because births are happening continuously at large and small hospitals and doctors’ offices (and a few homes) all over the many islands of Hawaii. They could not all have distributed stacks of pre-stamped blanks, because nobody knows where and when the births will happen. You would have to ship out fresh mini-stacks of serialized blank documents to each location on a semi-continuous basis, that that is just not practical.

Therefore, the whole idea that the forms were stamped with filing serial numbers at the hospital is dubious. They were stamped with this number at the central office of the state Registrar General.

Since we have the long forms, we know that Mrs. Nordyke hadn’t signed it until 8-7-1961 and the MD didn’t sign until 8-11-1961. Therefore, those particular blanks DID NOT leave the hospital until 8-11, the day they were filed and ACCEPTED with the local registrar AND Registrar General.

Presumably, since Honolulu is the capitol of Hawaii, the office of the local registrar and the Registrar General are one and the same, which explains why both blanks on both of the Nordyke forms are stamped Aug 11 1961 with the same stamp, and individually signed by the local registrar. This also explains the “same-day” turnaround between the local and General. This assumption can easily be verified.

We know that Obama’s birth documents are alleged to have been filed with the registrar 8-8-2008, based on his non-redacted short form. We don’t know if that is the date of the “local” or “general” but if his birthplace really was Honolulu (which the short form seems to indicate clearly, legalistic interpretations aside), then his form ALSO reached the Registrar General’s office on or before 8-8-1961 in order to get that date (if he wasn’t born in Honolulu, then he has lied and misleading documents have been vouched for by public officials).

They absolutely wouldn’t roll back a date stamp if his document happened to come in on 8-11-1961 along with the Nordyke’s certificates as part of a batch shipment from Kapiolani. This would be an act of fraud, to certify a document as being on file before it actually is on file.

It is perhaps possible that the document was dropped off at the registrar’s office on 8-8-1961, stamped with that date, and then later stamped with a file number and filed on the same day as the twins’ BC’s as part of a Friday batch process. Because the Nordyke forms were only brought in to the Registrar’s office on Friday, they very well might have been “on top” of the stack.

However, that still doesn’t make any damn sense.

Hawaii had an average of 48 registered births EVERY DAY that year. Obama’s BC should therefore have not been anywhere near the “top of the stack” on Friday since his form was at the office on 8-8-1961. There should be approximately 48 in the stack for the 9th, and 48 in the stack for the 10th, and some fractions for the partial 8th and 11th. Due to the law of large numbers, there is a statistically significant difference between “2” and “96” even though the second number is stochastic and subject to innumerable sources of random variance. There is no way that on 8-9 and 8-10 only two other BC’s were dropped onto the inbox stack for batch processing.

Obama’s certificate number is alleged to be 10641. His certificate is alleged to have been in the office on 8-8-1961, and it was perhaps stamped with a filing serial number and then filed on a later date.

The Nordyke certificates are numbers 10637 and 10638. They were obviously processed back-to-back at all steps in the process, from delivery, to hospital data entry, to transmittal, to filing.

Obama’s certificate COULD not have followed a completely different path (Kapiolani to the office on or before 8-8-1961, then filed 8-11-1961) right behind the Nordykes, because there were 100 births all over Hawaii between them in the intervening time. Despite transmittal delays from different parts of the islands, a stream of 48 BC’s per day is to be expected.

Now, assume that the filing number is only stamped onto the certificates on Fridays, and the certificates from the past week are placed into “loose” alphabetical order before stamping(which explains the first-name alphabetical order reversal for the twins’ numbers). Under this scenario, there are 48x7=336 certificates to stamp and file on each Friday at the end of the day, in addition to doing all the other work for the 48 that happened to arrive during the day Friday.

The US Census publishes lists of last name frequency distribution for the total US, but there is likely a different pattern in Hawaii owing to the different ethnic distribution of the islands. The only common US names that appear alphabetically between Nordyke and Obama are Norman, Norris, and Norton.

So in other words, it is completely possible that they could be that close, but only if all of the forms are stamped at the end of the week after being put into loose alphabetical order in a stack of ~336.

If there was anything like a continuous process for filing, where documents were stamped with file numbers during the week, it is so unlikely as to be impossible.

Even ONE of the intervening certificates, 10639 and 10640, could answer the question. That person would have an N* or O* name, and would also give a few more datestamps.

Those two numbers should be broadcast, so that anyone born in hawaii within a week window knows to look for their number.

The serial number is called a “file number” on the form, and probably refers to the order in which the document is filed by the registrar. The key thing to note is the dates of birth, and the date of filing.

If the number is assigned at the hospital (Kapiolani) then nothing can really explain why they would give Obama the high number and then give the twins the lower numbers.

If the number is assigned when it is filed at the registrar, then they would have to have skipped over the twins from 8-8-1961 when Obama’s was filed until 8-11-1961 when the twins were filed. The twins mom didn’t sign it until 8-7, and the doctor didn’t sign it until 8-11, so it didn’t leave the hospital until at least 2+ days after Obama’s had already been accepted by the registrar (according to his factcheck short form abstract).

The twins certificates could not have been part of the same “batch” at the registrar’s office because they were necessarily transmitted from the hospital to the registrar days after Obama’s had already been accepted.

If, however, the “batch” processing happened at Kapiolani, they would have had to pull the serial-number-stamped blanks out of order.

It would be nice to know where and when file numbers were stamped. It had to be either before the papers went to the hospital, or after they came in to the registrar. They couldn’t be stamped at the hospital, because hospitals all over the state couldn’t keep from accidentally duplicating.