“I’ve got a new post up on my blog, showing how the 4 anomalous BC#’s fit together.”
In your post you say the Stig was born at 4:47 p.m. but when his BC was shown on CNN it listed 8:49 p.m.
At the 3:10 mark.
Also I’m confused by the tables you use. Table 2-1 shows total births occurring in Hawaii as 17578. The table you use are based on residence not place of occurrence.
Table 2-2 is births by month by place of occurrence.
Residence is determined by the county of residence of the mother. But not all Hawaii residents had their babies in the county of their residence or even in Hawaii. Table 2-1 shows that for births that occurred in Hawaii, 70 were for non-resident (intracounty and interstate) and that 58 women with Hawaii residence gave birth outside of Hawaii. So the math looks like this:
Hawaii resident births = 17,508
Intracounty births = 50
Interstate births = 20
Total births in Hawaii = 17578
To get the total number of births to residents of Hawaii, take the number of births to non-Hawaii residents (20) and subtract that from the total (17578-20=17558) and add the total number of births to residents of Hawaii that occurred in other states (17558+58=17616).
In numbering the BCs, do they start each year at 1 and number them sequentially? If so the first child born in 1961 would have the number 151 61 00001 and the last child would be 151 61 17578.
If that is the case than the first child born in August would be 151 61 09943 (adding up the monthly totals January thru July) and the last child in August would be 151 61 11402.
Does that seem right to you?
I have no way of knowing if they started with #1, which is why I calculated a starting point for August based on the Nordyke BC#’s. 10,539.
9943 for a starting point is 596 off from that. That’s 27 August days’ worth of Honolulu births.
I can’t see that because if I put on my computer the Flash plug-in that’s required my computer freezes up constantly.
I’ve enlarged and looked every which way at the image at http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/img_0035-small.jpg and that first digit looks like a 4 no matter what I do.
Maybe the group here can look at it and give me a consensus as to whether I’m seeing it right, but it looks to me like there is a leg sticking out at the bottom.
