Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
In Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference, the Cold Case Posse presented further evidence that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth presented to the public was forged.
One of the points they raised was the presence of handwritten codes next to a number of the informational boxes on the COLB, and suggested that the codes did not match the substance of the information typed into the boxes in certain cases, providing one more indication of digital tampering.
The link for this thread is a Vital Statistics Instruction Manual issued by HEW revised August 14, 1961 which refers to some of the codes used for birth certificates at that time (which was in a link found by freeper Natufian). (Obama was born in early August according to his COLB, so we don't know if this manual or an earlier version was actually used, even if we believe the part of the document on which the codes appear was actually derived from an original 1961 document.)
Discussion so far has focused on the coding for race of the father, indicated as "9" on the COLB.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
One theory offered to explain why Obama presented a digitally-altered COLB is that Grandma Toot originally submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed document (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff). This document was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
According to this theory, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Highway where grandparents Stanley and Toot were then living as the address both of the mother and where the baby was born.
Where Stanley Ann really was at the time of birth is a matter of speculation, since she was first seen with the baby in Seattle and the daughter of the family with whom grandparents Stanley and Toot were living does not remember any new-born infant being brought to the house.
This document submitted by Grandma Toot was automatically included in the information delivered by the vital statistics department to the newspapers for recent births, and therefore would explain the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might look at, it was considered necessary to change this into a normal-looking birth certificate that someone born in a hospital would have.
The “home birth” story was too thin, especially since if anyone interviewed the family with whom the grandparents were living and they said no baby was born in their home, the whole story would collapse. On the other hand, in the case of a maternity hospital, lots of babies were being born there and it would be no problem if no one specifically remembered this particular baby and privacy laws would prevent an examination of the records of the hospital.
If true, then THE INFORMATION OF MOST INTEREST ON THE COLB WOULD BE PLACE OF BIRTH ON THE ORIGINAL UNALTERED DOCUMENT -- WAS IT A HOME BIRTH OR A HOSPITAL BIRTH?
Looking at the Instruction Manual, it indicates on page 14 that a hosptital birth or with a physician in attendance should be coded “1.”
In the case of a home birth, if a midwife attended it should be coded “3.”
If it was a birth at home, and neither a midwife nor a physician was present, then it should be coded “4.”
Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.
This handwritten number is cut off and only the right side of the number appears.
However it is clearly NOT a “1” and clearly NOT a “3”.
It looks like the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present.
This would be one additional point of evidence, in addition to the other evidence presented by Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, that Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
Above is full link to article containing the instruction manual link.
courtesy ping
Are you familiar with the source of this article?
the kenyan born commie was born july 22 not aug 4 which gave ann dunham plenty of time to return to hawaii and then onto seattle late august.
It is likely that someone claimed Obama was born under a coconut palm tree on King Kamehameha Avenue, Honolulu, and Obama later amended his “vital records” to say he was born at Kapiolani hospital.
And all legal in Hawaii.
Clearly there needs to be further digging as to the proper sources of the coding instructions in 1961.
And this thread is NOT to debate the coding for father’s race, since there is a whole ‘nother thread on that topic.
The purpose of this thread is to invite comment on the apparent evidence, based on this source document, that Obama’s COLB was originally coded as a “home birth.”
In 1961 if a white woman had a black baby lots of people would be talking and lots of people would remember.
... Home birth was debated years ago. It was also use for the people not born in HI and is sometimes termed “birth without a primary medical witness”
If you can find the BC from the ruler in CHina IIRC you’ll find he claims “home birth” too.
Guess it all depends on the meaning of “home” or where home is.....
Back then, most women spent nearly a week in the hospital after a birth. (the ave. non-complicated birth). My mother spent nearly a week (60’s)
The one point that I am very curious about is that, to my knowledge, there has NEVER been any confirmation from Kapiolani, much less any records.
Yes, I know they would need permission to say anything, but what is there to hide?
If Obumbo was born there, he should be quite anxious to show the proof.
Am I missing something?
I don’t know where he was born. I do know not one person in politics has the balls to ask.
Cowards every one.
We have a nation run by cowardly rich politicians.
No you aren’t. I wrote them a letter back in 2009. They responded back saying they could not verify it for privacy reasons. This was around the time they were using the letter written on WHouse stationary by the President, that Kapiolani was using for fundraising. When the questions about this letter ensued, it “disappeared” (essentially)
That manual is useless except as fodder for even more speculation.
“When the questions about this letter ensued, it “disappeared” (essentially)”
____________________________________________
Yes, I saw the letter posted on the Internet.
It was very official looking, on White House stationary.
The following buzz was that the White Hut had retracted the letter, for reasons unknown.
If, and it is a big if, he was born in Hawaii, my guess is that it was a home birth, something that would fit his hippie mother.
WND has a pile of documentation that once again make a Kenyan birth also quite possible.
Since we now know that a HI birthcertificate cannot be used without secondary documentation and since one of those is hospital documentation a home birth presents a great deal of trouble for 0. He could also present a family Bible, his baptismal certificate or an affidavit from an older relative who witnessed the birth....:)
IIRC Butterdezillions research points to a delayed birth registration. They were sometimes used in registration of Home births. Requirements for this requires among other things the “signature of parents”. Notice the s. If that included both parents, it may be one of the reasons SR visited over Christmas in 1971. OTOH the number assigned being so close to the twins number would seem to rule out a registration not completed until 71.
Here's my comment...
This is BS! You're trying to force a debate/conversation with information that may not fit the situation!
Without the proper manual everything is still all speculation.
This shouldn't be used as evidence of any sort, apparent or actual.
Home birth? Hell, Obama the narcissist probably claims he was born in a manger.
I posted this a while ago, don’t remember when, but here it is again:
If someone is an Article II natural-born citizen, it doesn’t matter where he or she was born. It could have been in a hospital, a barn, the back seat of a car, anywhere as long it was to two American citizen parents and here in the U.S.A. The first president to have been born in a hospital was Jimmy Carter. Others before him were home births.
Home birth?
So what?
” his baptismal certificate”
_______________________________________
I tend to doubt that he was ever baptized.
I suspect his mother was an atheist..agnostic at best.
I also suspect that Obama, himself, is an atheist.
His hanging out in Ruvrund Wrong’s temple of hate, does not
display any religion.
Even WITH knowing for certain the proper manual, we don’t KNOW that the handwritten marks correspond to that time period.
Since the document is a digital composite, the portion of the document that contains the handwritten half “4” I am concerned with could be taken from, say, an original 1970 document the forger had access to, for all any of us knows.
As Don Rumsfeld might say, we have “known unknowns” and “unknowns unknowns” at play here.
However, if the instruction manual at the link is genuine, and the document used by the forger was an original from August 1961, then it is quite possible that the 14 August 1961 revised manual was the one used — the notations may have been done in September after the end of the month, or even later in the year for all we know.
And even if the coding for federal statistics purposes was done (incredibly efficiently) just mere days after the birth certificate was filed, it may well be that the “revisions” didn’t affect the code numbers for hospital vs home birth and the instructions for that were the same in both the prior and the revised manual.
As Sheriff Joe noted, to REALLY get to the bottom of this in a final and conclusive manner, we need forensics document examiners to look at the microfilm and other records in the possession of the Hawaii DoH.
Capiche, Boss?
And I would add to your comment that if it IS the genuine and relevant manual for this purpose, it appears we are looking at a birth document that was originally filed as a home birth and later forged to indicate a hospital birth.
You Missed the ;) I was going to say “fat chance” but didn’t want to offend the fat.....
Is it possible we are seeing a different birth certificate bound in a book and the numbers you see on the left really belong to another certificate on a different page.
Don’t know what these look like in their files.
Since Arpiao’s posse proved that anyone can get a “real but fake” Hawaiian birth certificate just by having some people show up and ask (basically), or even a person 50 years old come and get one, then this question has to be asked.
If his parents were BHO and SAD, just born in Kenya (for instance), his mother could easily have gotten a “real but fake” b.c, stating he was born in HI. If his mother was SAD but a different father, then the forger would only have needed to change one name. But the whole shebang is forged.
So, the question is:
Since 0kaka could have easily gotten a “real but fake” birth certificate, WHY DID HE NEED TO HAVE ONE FORGED????
Answer:
Because his so-called life is fake. So the entire thing had to be forged.
Didn’t VI thru Z say they were sorted, piled and coded at the end of the month? How does this document code “home birth” ?..Is it different?
.. and yes it is a four.
I thought about that and had a look at the Nordyke certificates from which it appears best as I can tell that the small area to the left of the vertical line is still part of the same page and not the prior page.
“Home birth? So what?
_________________________________________
No one is disputing that a home birth is fine, as long as it was in Hawaii.
The dispute is over what country he was born in, and Obama’s obfuscation.
So it’s another box that has been altered. why did no one notice or did they notice and not comment at the news conference.
Your memory is probably better than mine on that.
It does like a four to me as well, but it's very hard to tell. It certainly does not look like a one or a three.
The notation in the same place on the Nordyke certificate is also hard to tell. I think it is clearly not a three or a four, and if it is a one there is a period or smudge at the bottom of the character.
The ‘oh, he was born at home’ would certainly be reasonable if you wanted to claim he was born in Hawaii (ie: American since I’m sure Toot knew the immigration laws at the time which said he wouldn’t even be a citizen at all if he was born outside the US) and not have to provide a hospital record.
Dr’s palms could have been greased to be the signing doctor.
The posse should have the ability to examine better than you and I...Frmail your way.
...it appears...
It appears that you're going to keep trying to push that square peg through the round hole, no matter what anyone says, based solely on conjecture since you can't use a manual that wasn't in effect at the time.
You can't presume that the coding was the same thing before the revision was made. You need the manual covering the time frame in question.
If it really is a "4" we are looking at and if we are reading the right instruction manual, then I don't think there even WAS a signing doctor if "4" was used.
No money necessary...The signature was more of a “the information on this form is as it was given to me” type. It was NOt a verification of that material only... Like a witness signs a will.
Look, everything is speculative in the absence of having experts look at the original microfilm and other records in Hawaii. There is only so far we can get based on looking at these various materials.
Everyone can look at what we have here with their own eyes and form an opinion.
For example, you yourself are speculating that the coding was done within ten days after the birth; we don’t actually KNOW that.
It doesn't matter when the coding was done as the two separate manuals would be used according to the date of birth.
All of the births before the 14th would be coded according to the old manual and all of the births on and after the 14th would use the new one.
And at least I'm not speculating that a manual that wasn't in effect until ten days after the birth is the manual that applies.
How do the two differ or is it just a new printing.
And to play your game...you yourself are speculating that Hawaii even got the new manual in time to use it in the month of August; we don’t actually KNOW that either.
Nordyke has a 6 by the hospital.
There is a better analysis of it here:
There you are speculating again making an assumption as to how the manuals work.
In point of fact, whatever the changes to the revised manual were, it is unlikely that they changed the numbers used in the coding system in mid-year.
If they did, the full-year data would be unreliable. The revisions most likely related to clarifying various things without changing the actual number system in mid-year.
Look at the 6’s on Gretchen Nordyke. One of them looks like what could have been on Obama’s BC. There are two sixes. They don’t look the same.
...or is it just a new printing.
A reprinting is not a revision and would be noted accordingly as only a reprinting.
It could have vast changes that are in no way comparable to the new revised manual.
Any attempt to compare one with the other is an act of futility and to assume that they're the same is to act on evidence not on hand.
The Nordyke long six has a curve to it. Obama’s has more like a straight line used with a 5.
We are not playing a "game."
And yes, that is correct what you say, there would be time required for printing and mailing the manual out to the states, and we don't know exactly when Hawaii would have received the revised instruction manual.
Just more speculation on your part.
I guess I don’t understand the importance of this. There is supposedly an announcement in a local Hawaiin newspaper at the time of birth, just like there always is. And it’s the state of Hawaii, not the infant, who certifies a birth. The infant doesn’t remember, of course. I checked into getting a certified copy of my birth certificate (my old original microfiche used to suffice, but no more), and my state will only issue those “short form” certificates if you were born before a certain year. So I can only get a short printed form certifying my birth. That’s disturbing, but nothing I can do about it. I think the original microfiche should suffice. It’d be hard as heck to forge that. And anyone can see it’s almost falling apart from age.
It appears the Nordykes have the same markings as on Obama’s. Is that a 6 or a 4 or a 1 with a penciled dot on the Nordykes next to box 6c? It’s blurry when I magnify it. The manual Ladyforest has just posted today says a code 1 should be next to box 6c. This is the reason the Hawaiian codings need to be checked out.
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.