Of the 3 ways of numbering BC’s that have been presented (Okubo’s, Verna Lee’s, and the alphabetizing theory of Dr Con and John Woodman), none of them work for Obama to have that BC#. And there are several other BC#’s that also cannot work in ANY of those scenarios.
So far there are 3 BC#’s that I KNOW have been altered by the HDOH and another that either comes from the HDOH or else Obama’s people have an embosser for a darn-good fake registrar’s seal. All this can be known because the BC#’s don’t work with ANY of the numbering methods.
What that tells us is that the HDOH reassigned somebody’s BC# of 10641 to Obama. The only reason I can think of for that to be necessary is if he didn’t have a 1961 BC# that would work.
The HDOH has also said that the “date accepted by local registrar” on their record is Aug 8, 1961. If that’s accurate and not fabricated by the HDOH, then somebody reported the birth on Aug 8, 1961. The only reason for a birth reported on Aug 8, 1961 to not have a 1961 BC# is if the BC was not COMPLETED on time.
Another thing I can tell you is that even if the newspaper birth announcements did come from the HDOH, they did not come after the BC’s had been checked for completeness and accepted/numbered by the state registrar. There are Monday births that were announced in the Saturday paper 5 days later - before the 7-day reporting period for the local registrars was even over (whether it was a Friday to Friday timeframe, a Sunday-to-Sunday week, or a Monday-to-Monday week). And we’re talking that the hospital had to get the paperwork done (including signatures of both the parent and the doctor), get it to at least the local registrar, have the local registrar print out a list for the newspapers, and have the newspaper get it all typeset on the linotype for printing of the Saturday morning paper.
I don’t believe that Obama’s announcement was ever in those papers in 1961. There’s too much funny business with the microfilms. But even if it was, and even if the list came from the HDOH (which I have strong reservations about also), it could not have been a list of births that were accepted and numbered. It was just a list of birth CLAIMS that had been submitted - whether complete enough to be later given a number, or not.
There is way, way more to be said but it’s going to take some time to get it all together in presentable form, with documentation and understandable explanation. There is just so much. The ramifications of what was presented at the press conference are larger than most everyone has grasped, but it has to be unpacked before people will see just how devastating it all really is - especially in conjunction with Onaka’s indirect confirmation to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid.
People can’t absorb this all at once. There is so much remedial catching-up to do before the general public will be able to make any sense out of all this.
Concur with most that you say. Only point I’d add if you look at the announcement page the “stripper” lines disappear/are not consistant around BOs announcement....That doesn’t happen in reality. My reaction to that initially was they were fake.
Think I pinged you to the earlier comments about the delayed registered BC. One of the methods was paper signed by parents...with an s. Since change of custody or termination of parental rights could have been done with a mailed affidavit from Kenya, it would have been unnecessary for SR to travel half way around the world....Appears his required signature for a delayed BC would....Isn’t that one of your conclusions?