Looking at the manual you provided, it seems to support my own theory of why a digitally-altered birth certificate was presented to the public.
My theory has been that Grandma Toot submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff) document, and that this was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
On her document, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Hwy where 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 explains the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might have a 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.
So it would not surprise me to see Barack Obama listed as the father and coded as “9” - “other non-white” on the birth certificate.
Rather, under my theory the information of most interest would be place of birth on the original unaltered document - was it a home or at Kapiolani Hospital?
Looking at the manual you provided, 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 it is the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean that the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present, perfectly consistent with my theory as to why Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
“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.”
The problem with that is if you look to the left of box that has the address of the mother (box 7d)there appears to be a printed “?”. To me, it looks as if the document has additional fields to the left of the printed portion of the birth certificate. This might be the medical information required by the state and the NCHS.
Good analysis