Somebody may have filed the paperwork later in one case, or the lady at the desk just grabbed the certificates randomly from the folder.
Somebody doing laid back baby paperwork in Hawaii in the early sixties would have no idea this was going to be part of some presidential internet investigation almost fifty years later.
In the big picture, this tidbit is meaningless.
By itself it maybe meaningless but on the contrary it's only in the big picture that it's meaningful. When you consider the whole context, ie every individual piece of evidence from Obama not remembering which hospital he was born in, to spending million+ dollars to concealing his certificate, to the hospital suddenly declaring it had 'destroyed' all hard copies, to the lack of witnesses to his birth, to his gramma claiming to have witnessed his birth in Kenya... ad inf.. suddenly this new find takes meaning.
Dead, I would think that the hospital he was supposedly born at would have the birth data in sequential order. If it is not, then he wasn’t born at that hospital. It would imply though that he was born in HI, otherwise the number would be far off from the sequence.
Yes, it could have been a mistake. A freeper here said his birth certificate from that office had the wrong year stamped on it.
However, it opens the door for more investigation.
“In the big picture, this tidbit is meaningless.”
No, in the big picture, this MAY be a vital piece of information. We don’t know yet.
It IS another small tidbit that is out of kilter, another small anomaly (of the many anomalies) in the saga of Barak Obama’s Top Secret Birth Certificate.
Your scenarios are realistic, but the tidbit still has meaning as a part of a larger pattern. It has meaning because it doesn't prove anything.
I can’t agree with you more, the information concerning the date on that document is completely irrelevant. But take this into consideration, say you are looking for a new job. You spot a great accounting job online, that requires you to have at least four years experience in accounting. So when you go in for your interview with résumé in hand, the employeer notices you put down information stating you worked as an accountant for 6 years. So they give you the job, while at work, the boss says “before we can allow you to help clients, we need to see evidence showing you’ve been in this field for at least four years.” So you bring in a copy of your résumé, and point out that it says you have six years experience. Is that proof? No. If you HAD experience, you would bring in old check stubs, a copy of your taxes, or a document from your previous employer. The fact that you would bring your résumé brings about concern if you really are trying to show actual proof. Now, this relates to mr. Soetoro in this way, when someone is claiming you are lying, or trying to deceive them, wouldn’t you bring out ALL the proof you can get? The fact that there hasn’t been a full copy of his BC obviously shows that’s the best he can come up with. It just doesn’t make sense that an innocent person would hold back evidence that could COMPLETELY clear him of all charges. Why feed the speculation by saying what you have is good enough, if you actually have the proof to remove all doubt? That fact alone says there is a reason we haven’t yet seen any original documents. The only official documents I could find were from Indonesia. Where it states he was an Indonesian citizen of the Muslim faith. I’ve seen it, so tell me where is the evidence that says in wrong?