Skip to comments.36% Believe Obama is Hiding Biographical Information
Posted on 01/19/2013 9:23:55 AM PST by ABrit
click here to read article
Palmer, you’re not listening. Verifying that something is on a piece of paper is not the same thing as verifying that what’s on the paper is true.
Especially since the BC#’s given for Obama and at least 3 other people cannot be what were on those BC’s in 1961, if we believe either of the contradictory numbering methods we’ve been told were used at the time. The only way Obama could have #10641, given what we’ve been told, is if that BC# is on a totally fabricated NEW BC created at the request of law enforcement - in which case every item on that BC will say whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder?) says it will say. Including the filing date.
IOW, we have good reason to believe that the HDOH BC that Onaka is talking about here is a complete fabrication.
In any event, Onaka would not verify birth facts he was asked to verify even though he acknowledged that those were the claims on the BC. So at the very least we know that the BC Onaka is looking at is non-valid. That’s all we need to know.
That's possible, but it would have to have been fabricated by someone in HI and placed in the book to look like a 1961 paper. Following that the officials would have to make xeroxes to stamp, sign and seal and send out. Multiple officials (not sure how many) would look at the piece of paper in the book and determine (rather easily) that it was made recently.
A far more coherent explanation is that there was a paper entered in 1961. The number is ok if the numbering was done alpha for the entire month. There could be any sort of info on it because we have not seen the original. Then xeroxes of that paper were stamped, signed and sent out. The WH scanned one that they recieved then did stuff to it on the computer. We don't know what they did.
There is no birth record for Obama in the bound book. That is why Hawaii hid the book in a locked room.
Every time somebody is adopted there is a new BC created by the HDOH - made to look as if it was that way from the time of the child’s birth - and anybody who looks at the paper BC in the book may be able to tell that it is a new document. There has to be a way to put papers in and out of the books in the case of adoptions, and that same way would be available for this kind of thing.
The BC’s cannot be numbered by BOTH time of birth and alphabetical order. Are you calling Okubo and Verna Lee both liars? If so, on the basis of what evidence?
The point still remains: Onaka wouldn’t verify claims that he admitted were on the BC in question. Either that BC is non-valid, or Onaka violated the law. What evidence do we have that Onaka violated the law?
(Keep in mind that we DO have evidence that somebody in the other part of the office broke the law by falsifying the 1960-64 index so that it included non-valid (and sealed, even!) records).
That’s certainly possible but then we have to be able to explain how birth notices got into the Honolulu newspapers for the week after the alleged birth. The birth notices were in the “Health Bureau Statistics” sections of the two Honolulu newspapers for August 13 & August 14, 1961.
I’m convinced it was the podium debate. I’m also convinced that it was a question from the illegal alien moderator (Rodriguez or Gonzalez?) about immigration to Keyes where Keyes went on about why there is a need for allegiance and loyalty to this country to become a citizen and had expressed many reasons for legal immigration and gave many reasons why our country needed immigration laws and had surmized his point with why we require our Commander and Chief to be a natural born Citizen for our country to be the President of these United States.
Then Oblah-blah retorted with AGAIN how he was not running for president but as senator.
I watched a replay of two debates that were advertised on WJFK during the Don and Mike show in 2007. C-SPAN advertised the double header debate for over two weeks and one of the selling points was about how they were “unedited” recordings. At the time I was more astonished that C-SPAN was actually advertising on the over the radio for a rebroadcast of an old debate between Keyes and Obama but since I was a big Keyes fan, I paid attention.
What I will never forget is how the C-SPAN host read a letter from either the local or national DNC stating that Obamas did not mean he was not eligible. It blows my mind that this has been scrubbed.
Today I am a little concerned that the (Spanish)??? moderator died suddenly. I told my wife at the time that as soon as this gets out they will have to get Hillary back in the race.
I saw Oblah blah give a scared and defensive response to what Keyes stated that wasn’t directed towards him personally. Which said it all.
Keyes stated that he did not remember and without the “Special” unedited tapes, no one knows the difference.
I can’t even find the date C-Span actually played that double header debate.
Scrubidy- scrub - scrub.
When I did see the re-broadcast, the initial COLB forgery had been released. I do remember that much.
Nothing will come of it.
In fact it has already been denied by Justice Kennedy. Chief Justice Roberts could have granted the stay but instead referred it the full Court. This is SOP for an application that has been denied by one Justice and then refiled to a second Justice. Everything in the stay (stop the certification of California’s Electoral College vote and the Inauguration) have already occurred so the application is moot.
BTW, an application for a stay requires 5 Justices to agree to granting it.
“Are you calling Okubo and Verna Lee both liars? If so, on the basis of what evidence?”
Both Okubo and Lee cannot be right. Or can they? Okubo was not at the DOH in the 1960’s so maybe her version is what she remembers from the time she first came to work at the DOH in 80s? 90s? As the system became more automated and computerized, did they change the way numbers were assigned?
Ms Lee was there in the 1960s but we have not heard the recorded phone call with her so we cannot say what she specifically remembers or said.
At the least the BC numbers do appear to have been collected and separated into regions (Ms. Lee according to Zullo) and then stamped with a certification number (were they also alphabetized?).
The first issue is how were numbers assigned at the beginning of the year (was the first certificate # issued in 1960 - 151 61 00001?). From there one can calculate the numbers that would have been assigned in August, 1961 (based on number of births in August).
Maybe Dr. Onaka could tells us.
Okubo and Lee can’t both be right. The only way to know which is right is by looking at the microfilms from multiple randomly-chosen months in different years.
According to Mike Zullo, Verna Lee said the BC’s were sorted within the geographic unit by order of birth. If anything was alphabetized then she lied in her statements to Corsi, and that would also raise questions of why.
No matter how you slice it, the discrepancies demand answers, and those answers will only be known when the above microfilms are examined - and when the records of these anomalous BC’s are fully audited.
“If anything was alphabetized then she lied in her statements to Corsi, and that would also raise questions of why.”
That’s pretty harsh - considering she is 95 years old and this was 40 or 50 years ago. It is possible that the methodology for numbering the BCs changed overtime. Maybe in the early 60s they were alphabetized and later they were not. Who knows what she is remembering.
But if they were separated geographically, it makes sense that Virgina Sunahara’s number would not be in the same position numerically as kids born at Kapiolani. In 1961 the county of Honolulu was divided into two vital statistics geographic regions (Honolulu City and the rest of the county). Virginia was not born within the Honolulu city limits so her BC would not be included with the kids born at Kapiolani.
We already have evidence the records were not alphabetized in 1961. The Nordyke twins’ certificates are in chronological order, not alphabetical order, and the newspaper announcements are NOT in alphabetical order. As for the latter, newspaper editors don’t make more work than they need, so they aren’t just going to randomize a list of births. If the births were alphabetized by the DOH before the list was provided to the newspapers, the lists would have been alphabetical in the newspaper.
The newspaper announcements were published days after the births. The numbers were put on the certificates at the end of the month after a month’s worth of BCs were collected.
For example, Stig Waidelich was born after the Nordykes but his announcement is in the same paper as Obama’s.
They could have been alphabetized by last name.
Annnn (redacted) 09945 August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24th
Nordyke, Susan 10637 August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
Nordyke, Gretchen 10638 August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
Obama, Barack 10641 August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8th
Waidelich, Stig 10920 August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8th
Sunahara, Virginia - 11080 - August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th
The first five were born at Kapiolani Hospital, Virgina Sunahara was born at Wahiawa Hospital.
I’ve got an analysis where I showed from the CDC’s numbers why these BC#’s are anomalous. Stig Waidelich’s and Barack Obama’s can easily be seen as anomalous.
And that is true regardless of which of the 2 numbering methods was used.
Another reason to believe that Alvin Onaka is trying to put up red flags so people will realize something is wrong.... is Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate. It’s a State of Hawaii death certificate but it’s got a T.H. (Territory of Hawaii) file number (made out of different fonts, and misaligned) - all those blatant signs of forgery within the same line as the handwritten BC#.
IOW, we know that the HDOH forged at least the line of Sunahara’s death certificate that has the birth certificate and death certificate numbers in it - and blatantly so, as if somebody there wanted us to know they were doing it.
Does your analysis hold true if they started the year off 00001 and run consecutive each month. The first August number would be 09943. IIRC, your analysis has them taking numbers from kids born in July which would not be possible if the numbering system started over each year.
Probably not. A birth ledger was kept in chronological occurrence along with the file or certificate numbers. The idea that they were saved till the end of month is probably a simple misstatement, because it would have required a lot of going back and forth. Spokesbabe Okubo also noted that the numbers were added when the certificates were filed and accepted. Why on Earth would they have a filing date and signature but not add a number until later. It makes no sense.
For example, Stig Waidelich was born after the Nordykes but his announcement is in the same paper as Obamas.
Sorry, but I don't put any stock into Stig's alleged certificate number or the others that magically appeared almost 50 years later. The Nordyke twins birth certificate numbers and the newspaper announcements are enough to show that the certificates were not alphabetized.
No matter how they started the numbers, if they numbered the August births in Honolulu in consecutive order the Nordykes, born on Aug 5th, could not be numbered before Obama, born on Aug 4th.
No matter how they started they could not get hundreds of Honolulu births into the 2 1/2 hour span between Susan Nordyke and Stig Waidelich when, statistically speaking, there should have been about 2 births between - making Stig’s BC# almost certainly the one that Obama has been given.
And if they numbered the BC’s on the “date filed” as Okubo has said, only a very, very rare case (such as Sunahara’s where she was born in one hospital under one name but died in another the next day and given a death certificate under a different name) a BC numbered on Aug 11th (Obama’s) would get an earlier number than a BC numbered on Aug 8th (the Nordykes)
Those are the kinds of inconsistencies that require an audit of the records.
You obviously didn’t listen to Mike Zullo at the July press conference.
BC were collected for an entire month and then processed by regions at one time. That’s when they were numbered.
“No matter how they started they could not get hundreds of Honolulu births into the 2 1/2 hour span between Susan Nordyke and Stig Waidelich”
Unless they were alphabetized. Then an entire months worth of child with last names ending between N and W would be numbered after the Nordykes and before Waidelich.
They can’t be both alphabetized and put in order of birth. We’ve got two numbering methods that have been publicly stated by HDOH representatives - neither of which involves alphabetizing. So where are you getting the alphabetizing from?
In any event, can you agree that the BC#’s don’t jive with the explanations we’ve been given and the only way we’re going to know how they numbered the BC’s is by looking at several randomly-chosen months’ worth of microfilms?
“Weve got two numbering methods that have been publicly stated by HDOH representatives “
Have you heard the tape from Ms. Lee. Until we hear what she actually said it is not “publicly stated”.
I get alphabetizing from the known August, 1961 BCs. The ones from Kapiolani are in both alphabetical (by last name) order and numberical order.
I agree that we do not know the methodology used to number the BCs. Everything you and I have done on this question is just speculation on both of our parts. the difference is that I don’t depend on a department wide swapping of names and numbers over several months.
We will never see the microfilm. But I’ve always been surprised that if CNN could find Stig and WND could find Axxxx that other BCs from August 1961 could not be located. And I still cannot understand why Corsi has refused to publish Axxxx’s and Stig’s certificate numbers as part of the CCPs investigation. Even if only to make a claim that there is number switching going on at the DOH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.