Sure, no problem. You read the bit where Onaka certified that the information in the BC posted by the Whitehouse matches the information in the BC in their files? What that means is that the data points (such as name, sex, date, hospital, father and mother, etc., etc.) on one are the same on the other.
If he didn’t say it, he didn’t do it. If those key words coupled with the words “WAS BORN” are not in the verification (male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, Barack Hussein Obama) then he never verified that the birth really happened in that way.
He did say it and he said it about a BIRTH certificate.
All he verified as true was that they have a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama II which makes the claim (”indicates”, which legally means nothing) that Obama was born in Honolulu, and that all the claims that were on the posted long-form are also on their (legally-nonvalid, since he can’t verify how Obama WAS BORN) record.
Where does he use the word "indicate"? I've posted the whole Verification of Birth document and can't see that word anywhere. Perhaps you could show me where it appears? All I can see are words like "Verify" and "Verification" which I'm sure you realize legally do mean something and he verified that Obama was born in Hawaii in Aug 1961
NOWHERE did he verify that any event happened in any particular way, even though specifically and formally requested to verify that the birth happened in the above way.
What on earth are you on about? He was asked to verify the data points. He did so. That's what State Registrars do throughout the whole of the USA. Suddenly that's no longer good enough for you. now you want him to verify the way the birth happened. I know you like to keep raising the bar for the poor guy but I reckon you're pushing credibility to it's limits with that one.
If you aren’t able or willing to “get it” that’s your problem. I’m not going to waste any more time on “Yes, he did” “No, he didn’t.” “Yes he did”...
No problem but, really, I do get it. I appreciate that arguing against hard data that directly contradicts a deeply held conspiracy theory will be stressful for you. However, I'll keep posting this stuff as other Freepers deserve to have the full facts made available to them and not just the fantastical interpretations from the fringe.
I show you a Monopoly $10 bill and ask you if the monetary amount on that bill matches the monetary amount on the bill you have in your pocket. You say yes.
According to your logic, both pieces of paper have just been certified to be worth $10 just because they match - even though both could be Monopoly money.
Now suppose that somebody else had already asked you to verify that you had a legal $10 bill in your pocket. You were legally required to verify that fact if it was true, and you would not verify it.
But you would verify that the monetary amount on a Monopoly $10 bill matches the monetary amount of the bill in your pocket.
It’s clear that what’s in your pocket is not a legal $10 bill, so it doesn’t matter what matches it.