Posted on 03/24/2013 4:25:35 PM PDT by butterdezillion
“If they started at 01 then most probably the Nordyke BC#’s are fabricated as well. That would mean that all the BC#’s we’ve been allowed to see have been fabricated.”
Ok, now assume for the moment that they did start at 01 (which I think is logical, what other number would they begin a new year with?).
If you look at Edith Coates’ 1962 birth number, it also appears out of place. She was born on June 15th, 1962 at Wahiawa Hospital (same as Sunahara). Her BC# is 08498.
If they started numbering at 01 than the last number in May, 1962 is 07400 and the last number in June, 1962 is 08842. That puts Edith’s BC at the end of the numbers, almost 1100 BC’s were number ahead of hers and only 344 after hers.
Like Sunahara’s, Edith’s BC was numbered late in the sequence. Coincidence? Does the fact they were both born at Wahiawa make a difference?
Being born at Wahiawa would make that BC# make sense. There weren’t very many births in the outlying islands, and the biggest one (Hawaii County, with Hilo in it) would already have been numbered before Oahu. So the Coats BC# would be towards the end of the sequence. Maybe should be even closer to the end of the sequence.
I need to go to church. I’ll have to look at this later.
“Being born at Wahiawa would make that BC# make sense.”
Ok, again assuming they start numbering at 01 in both 1961 and 1962. And assuming the numbers are correct.
August 4th, 1961
Sunahara with a number of 11080, means there were 1137 BCs numbered before hers and 322 afterwards.
June 15th, 1962
Coates with a number of 08498, means there were 1097 BCs numbered before hers and 344 afterwards.
If we then look at averages we see approximately:
Hawaii (Hilo & rest of County) = 100 births per month.
Honolulu (City only) = 680 births per month
So even before they start numbering the rest of Honolulu County they have accounted for almost 800 births. And the other three counties (Kalawao, Kauai and Maui) contribute about 125 BCs after Honolulu and Hawaii Counties are numbered.
Admittedly we do not know the actual chronological distribution of the approximately 600 births in “the rest of” Honolulu County for those two months, but it doesn’t look to me that Virginia Sunahara’s BC number is all that unusual.
Please add me to your ping list! Thanks in advance.
But Sunahara’s BC# is unusual in comparison with all the others. So take your pick. Either they numbered from 01 and Sunahara’s is right but everybody else’s is wrong, or they numbered from some other number and they’re all wrong.
The only way we’re ever gonna know what numbers these people really have is by looking at the 1961 microfilms, the paper documents, the computer transaction logs, and the write once read many (WORM) discs that have the scans of the BC’s. Neither the HDOH nor any of the BC’s put into the public since Obama’s eligibility became an issue can be trusted, because the HDOH has contradicted itself at every turn and fabricated both documents and BC#’s.
The Coats BC is the only one I’ve seen that doesn’t have any of the handwritten codes on it. I have no idea if it is genuine or not. A detailed analysis of her BC# shows it is about 113 too early for what is expected based on the CDC’s statistics.
I have seen a COLB that I believe came from the HDOH because the seal seems authentic. The BC# for that birth is about 300 later than it should be if they started numbering at 01. Is that just normal statistical variation? The City of HOnolulu had 18 births/day in that year so that discrepancy is a variance of 16 days’ worth of Honolulu births, or else the city of Honolulu itself had a much, much higher proportion of the whole state’s September births than the average proportion for the year.
I’m not a statistics whiz, but I can add, and the numbers don’t add up. Part of the trouble is that the CDC doesn’t tabulate births that happened on Oahu outside of Honolulu; it only tabulates the births that happened within Honolulu and the births on that island that were to mothers who lived in the city of Honolulu, versus mothers who lived outside of city limits. That could skew the numbers somewhat also, if people who lived outside of Honolulu had their babies inside Honolulu. (
But I don’t know if they would have done that. Kapiolani was the biggest birthing hospital but in 1961 it had 60 beds. If women stayed in the hospital for 3 days (and it’s likely that they stayed longer than that) Kapiolani could handle 20 births/day maximum. I’m not sure how many Queens Hospital could handle. The average number of births/day for the City of Honolulu in Aug of 1961 was 22. I’m not an expert, but just looking at the numbers I’d say it would have been pretty “iffy” as to whether a woman in labor could find a bed at one of the Honolulu hospitals, if very many women outside the city limits also had their babies there)
In any event, the numbers within a particular year should be consistent with each other if they are genuine, which is why I used the Nordyke BC#’s as the baseline for my analysis. Whether the HDOH started with a number other than 01, or whether the Nordyke BC#’s are fabricated, I don’t know. But the BC#’s in August 1961 are not consistent with each other or with the HDOH numbering from 01.
This is why we need to see the records that would tell us what is genuine and what is not. That’s all there is to it. Nothing from the HDOH can be assumed to be genuine; they’ve falsified too many records, told too many lies, and broken too many laws.
“But the BC#’s in August 1961 are not consistent with each other or with the HDOH numbering from 01.”
How about if they were alphabetized by last name within each geographic grouping?
I know you don’t believe that, I’m just asking what if they were, how would they fit together?
It wasn’t that long ago that you would not have believed that they collected the certificates for the entire month before numbering.
Have you heard the recording of Verna Lee and Jerome Corsi? That might clear up what exactly she said to him.
Have a good Easter.
Thank you. I wish you a blessed Easter as well.
Here are the parameters for the BC#’s if they started with 01:
Jan-July BC#’s 01 - 9948
Hawaii Co BC#’s 9949 - 10049
Aug Honolulu BC#’s 10050 - 10732
Aug Non-Hon Oahu BC#s 10733 - 11289
Now let’s look at what we’ve got:
Ah Nee 9995 (numbered with July instead of August)
Susan Nordyke 10637 The first 13 letters of the alphabet would have 589 names; the last 13 letters of the alphabet would have 94 names 86%/14%. I checked this against a sampling of last names from 5 days of birth announcements, which was an 81%/19% split). This is a stretch but not impossible.
Gretchen Nordyke 10638 (comes after Susan, out of alphabetical order)
Obama 10641
Waidelich 10920 (200 into the non-Honolulu births)
Sunahara (born in Wahiawa) 11080 (the first 19 letters of the alphabet have 348 names; the last 7 letters of the alphabet have 208 names 62%/38% split. This compares with the 5-day sample split of 87%/13%) This seems unlikely.
So when all is said and done, Ah Nee and Waidelich are significantly outside the BC# ranges, Nordykes are not in alphabetical order, and Sunahara would require a lot higher percentage of names in the T-Z alphabetical range (38% of the names) compared to what the Nordykes would require (38% of the names for O-Z).
I’d say the alphabetical theory doesn’t hold up too well. Which may be why Verna K L Lee said on tape that they numbered them chronologically within the regions.
The fact that no explanation that the HDOh has given makes sense out of these BC#’s AND the fact that there are blatant red flags in the Ah Nee, Obama, and Sunahara HDOH documents showing these BC#’s.... tells us that these records need to be audited.
Would you agree?
Oops. Ah Nee would be numbered with the Hawaii County BC’s, rather than the July BC’s.
Something else that hasn’t been addressed regarding the alphabetization theory is that the need to alphabetize was supposedly so that they could find the BC’s in the local registrar’s office. But I’ve shown from the retention schedule that the local registrars made copies of the BC’s which were also forwarded to the state registrar’s office. Why make copies in addition to the originals, if not for the local registrar’s own processing?
And a handwritten ledger was also created which would have had the BC’s loosely in alphabetical order as they came in and cross-referenced the parents’ names, which helped them locate the BC’s by variables other than the child’s last name.
Bgill, correct me if I’m misunderstanding something about the process.
You’re correct. When any piece of paper, be it a BC, a deed or whatever, is/was brought in to the local registrar or county clerk it is hand stamped with the date and time. Now, the time isn’t necessarily correct because obviously if several items were brought in at the same time then, for record keeping purposes, they can’t all be stamped the same so will be stamped like a minute apart or whatever time period works depending on how busy that office is.
The registrar, or usually clerical help, will then stamp the registar’s signature and any offical embossing stamp on each document.
Then, each page of each document would be xeroxed so they could be filed in the local office. There should also have been a statement taped to the copy machine glass each day with the date and other filing information so that would be copied onto them. Or hand written onto each.
The original documents could then be sent back to the lawyers or forwarded on to the state registar or wherever.
Next, the local clerical help would index and file their copies. This would be handwritten in the indexes. Births would be logged/indexed three times (baby, mother, father) by hand in alphabetical order in what basically amounts to a loose leaf notebook where pages and be added or removed easily. Depending on how many births there were, an indexes could range from 1 to 5 to however many years each. The very old BC indexes are in bound books but by little Barry’s time they should have been going to the loose leaf style (two metal prongs at the top) which is easily tampered with.
If there was some legal situation where the mother changed the baby’s last name or there was an adoption, the local registar would have to be sent the “new” legal BC and it would go through the same process of being stamped and copied and indexed all over again. But what to do with the “old” BC? Well, slip ups can occur in this step. Sometimes the “new” BC was just taped on top of the “old” BC and you know that scotch tape looses it’s sticky over the years and falls off. Sometimes, they just flat forgot to destroy the old one so it’s still there. As for the handwritten index, you can’t just re-do the thing so they’d either scribble that line of entry out, mark it out with a marks-a-lot or used white out. And we all know that you can sometimes see what was scribbled out, see through a marks-a-lot and white out flakes off or if you’re real curious sometimes you can see the original writing indention through the backside of the paper although that index paper is thick. Then comes the question of how to get the “new” information inserted in the index. Since it’s probably been years between the old and new info, there have been many entries so all you’re left with is to just add the names at the end of the A/B/C...X/Y/Z whatever name section so it’s obviously out of place.
Between the “new” info being recorded out of dated order and the scribbled out “old” entries and the scotch taped adoption record.... well, geez, uh huh, giant red flags! That is why Hawaii doesn’t want anyone to get their hands on the original indexes or see the filed BCs - “Nope, sorry, it’s all digital and we threw out all the original records.” My aunt fanny! No way were any of those records destroyed. Ain’t gonna happen. Registrars are too anal about their records. Throughout history if there’s a fire in the courthouse, people risked life and limb to save the records otherwise no one can prove who they are or what land they owned. They are stored in a warehouse somewhere and you can bet any book that mentions little Barry, including a few years before and a few years after just to be safe, has already been taken from storage and put in someone’s vault. That’s probably why Virginia’s family can’t get her original BC.
Amazing how so many in Hawaii claim they don't have their original long forms. Does not one person there have a file cabinet, a folder of important papers, a safety deposit box, a baby book or a grandma's attic? Hey, even Bill claimed Barry found his in typical white granny's closet.
Back to the filing of "new" bc info - we'd know when there was a BC change coming in in the next few days because a relative would rush to the office and make a handful of copies of the original BC so that info would never be lost.
To be a Natural-Born Citizen one MUST be born IN the United States IN ADDITION TO being born of Parents who were BOTH Americans at the time of that birth.
Jus Soli+100% Jus Sanquinis= Natural-Born Citizen
Jus Soli+One American Parent=Dual Citizen
Jus Soli alone= Anchor Baby
“There is NO ‘President’Obama:
http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/
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.