A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Diogenes]

Yes. Absolutely right. Now could you tell that if it didn't have the "Local Registrar" box?

Another thing. How could the Delivery Doctor have signed it if the birth was in 1961, while the document itself is from 1967? Did they send him the new birth certificate to sign, or did they simply copy his signature and CLAIM he signed it? If they sent him the new birth certificate to sign, what would they have done if they couldn't locate him 6 years later?

Would they LIE about it? Hmmm??????

You are going to have to make your point clearer.

I was getting ahead of you and jumping straight to your point. Presumably you've given a sample of your own adoptive birth certificate. You are using it to declare that Obama's long form certificate, even if a 100% accurate and valid document, is inadequate because it lacks the evidence from yours to rule out adoption.

No, my point is that you cannot simply accept at face value what Bureaucrats print on paper. Especially when they are being coy. They WILL Mislead, and it will be perfectly legal for them to do so.

I believe the critical information on this newly released "abstract of the record) is accurate. It has the signature of a Doctor attesting to his birth in Honolulu. I don't think they can lie or mislead about this. I think manipulation of birth certificates has SOME limits, and I think this is one of them. Ergo, I believe Obama was born on the soil in Honolulu Hawaii in 1961. But this document doesn't explain why he acts as though he's hiding something.

That is to say, you are now claiming the long form document you previously gave as an example is not good enough, despite your claiming that it would be. You are claiming that the long form you gave as an example of what was adequate, in fact never was.

When I use the term "Long Form" I mean Original. It never occurred to me that anything else would be produced. Now that I see Obama (and/or Hawaii) is still playing games, I now specifically say "Original." And by "Original" I mean a document that looks like and contains the same language as, OTHER birth certificates from Hawaii from that time period. In any case, it no longer matters to me. I think other evidence gives a more accurate picture of what happened.

You demanded the release of a document, and then declared not good enough when it was with such emphasis as to prove it never actually would have been good enough.

The quibbling point here is whether this is *THE* document. I say *THE* document looks just like other people's birth certificates from this time period. You, on the other hand, seem to think that Obama , gets a "Special" form of the original that is different from everyone else's. Why you would believe that it's okay for his form to look different from others, I simply cannot comprehend. (And i'm not even getting into the layering thing.)

For your finale, you have the nerve to ask why Obama just won't come out and show yet another different document and end all this. It never ends.....

No, I'm asking why he came out and showed a different document instead of the one which was asked for, all the while CALLING it the document that was asked for. Again, I don't even care what it says anymore. Even if the bureaucrats are being completely honest (Which I do not believe) THEY may have been misled in 1960. The Father's name on the Birth Certificate is whatever the mother says it is. They have no way of determining the truth, and must take the mother at her word.

I'm fairly confident that Barack Sr. was NOT at the hospital for the birth. This is why his age is listed wrong on the Birth Certificate. He never acted like the Father of Barack, and i'm pretty sure he isn't.

[bcglorf]

And by "Original" I mean a document that looks like and contains the same language as, OTHER birth certificates from Hawaii from that time period.

It does.

It is identical to the example you yourself gave.

The sole difference between the copy Obama gave, and the copy you gave is that the copy you gave was stamped at a different time by a different person. The wording on the signed certification of the copy has changed from the time your example copy was requested and when Obama's copy was requested.

If that's not good enough for you, there is no helping it. The only course is demanding Hawaii change it's boilerplate back to the wording you like better, or for Obama to get a timemachine and go back to when your copy was made so he can get a copy with the same certification boilerplate on it....

[Diogenes]

And by "Original" I mean a document that looks like and contains the same language as, OTHER birth certificates from Hawaii from that time period.

It does.

It is identical to the example you yourself gave.

The sole difference between the copy Obama gave, and the copy you gave is that the copy you gave was stamped at a different time by a different person. The wording on the signed certification of the copy has changed from the time your example copy was requested and when Obama's copy was requested.

If that's not good enough for you, there is no helping it. The only course is demanding Hawaii change it's boilerplate back to the wording you like better, or for Obama to get a timemachine and go back to when your copy was made so he can get a copy with the same certification boilerplate on it....

Beating my head on the wall....


If the document was 50 years old, it would HAVE that verbiage.

You have just admitted my point. It is a LATER copy of a RECORD. It is NOT a copy of the original.

[bcglorf]

And by "Original" I mean a document that looks like and contains the same language as, OTHER birth certificates from Hawaii from that time period.

It does.

It is identical to the example you yourself gave.

The sole difference between the copy Obama gave, and the copy you gave is that the copy you gave was stamped at a different time by a different person. The wording on the signed certification of the copy has changed from the time your example copy was requested and when Obama's copy was requested.

If that's not good enough for you, there is no helping it. The only course is demanding Hawaii change it's boilerplate back to the wording you like better, or for Obama to get a timemachine and go back to when your copy was made so he can get a copy with the same certification boilerplate on it....

Beating my head on the wall....


If the document was 50 years old, it would HAVE that verbiage.

You have just admitted my point. It is a LATER copy of a RECORD. It is NOT a copy of the original.

No, It is a copy of the exact same thing you gave as an example.

You provided an example of what you wanted. It was a COPY of an original record. Obama presented a COPY of that EXACT same original record. The ONLY difference between the COPY you gave as an example and the COPY Obama gave is that his copy has different boilerplate wording on the certification of the COPY. The original document shown is identical in both your copy and Obama's, the ONLY difference is that the certification wording and signature on the copies has changed over the time since your copy and Obama's copy was requested. If the person on your copy went to Hawaii today and asked for the record you desire, they would get EXACTLY what Obama gave, they could no more get the old certification wording on a copy than Obama can.

[Diogenes]

And by "Original" I mean a document that looks like and contains the same language as, OTHER birth certificates from Hawaii from that time period.

It does.

It is identical to the example you yourself gave.

The sole difference between the copy Obama gave, and the copy you gave is that the copy you gave was stamped at a different time by a different person. The wording on the signed certification of the copy has changed from the time your example copy was requested and when Obama's copy was requested.

If that's not good enough for you, there is no helping it. The only course is demanding Hawaii change it's boilerplate back to the wording you like better, or for Obama to get a timemachine and go back to when your copy was made so he can get a copy with the same certification boilerplate on it....

Beating my head on the wall....


If the document was 50 years old, it would HAVE that verbiage.

You have just admitted my point. It is a LATER copy of a RECORD. It is NOT a copy of the original.

No, It is a copy of the exact same thing you gave as an example.

You provided an example of what you wanted. It was a COPY of an original record. Obama presented a COPY of that EXACT same original record. The ONLY difference between the COPY you gave as an example and the COPY Obama gave is that his copy has different boilerplate wording on the certification of the COPY. The original document shown is identical in both your copy and Obama's, the ONLY difference is that the certification wording and signature on the copies has changed over the time since your copy and Obama's copy was requested. If the person on your copy went to Hawaii today and asked for the record you desire, they would get EXACTLY what Obama gave, they could no more get the old certification wording on a copy than Obama can.

I simply do not know how to get through to you. Let's try this.

A Hawaiian Birth certificate from 1949.





Notice the verbiage?

"This certifies that the Above is a True and Correct Copy of the Original Record on file in the Bureau of Health Statistics, territory of Hawaii, Department of Health. "

[Diogenes]

A Hawaiian Birth Certificate from 1961.




Notice the Verbiage?



"This certifies that the Above is a True and Correct Copy of the Original Record on file in the Research, Planing and Statistics office, Hawaii State Department of Health. "

[Diogenes]

A Hawaiian Birth Certificate from 1962.




Notice the Verbiage?


"This certifies that the Above is a True and Correct Copy of the Original Record on file in the Bureau of Health Statistics Hawaii State Department of Health. "

[Diogenes]

A Hawaiian birth certificate from 1971.


{this image screws up formatting - MODERATOR doesn't like that. Also the MODERATOR does not approve of hot linking}

http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpres ... ficate.jpg


Note the Verbiage?


"This certifies that the Above is a True and Correct Copy of the Original Record on file in the Research and Statistics Office Hawaii State Department of Health. "

[seedload]

Diogenes,

Are you playing games or do you really not understand?

The "Verbiage" is NOT on the original birth certificate in any of these cases, including Obama's.

The "Verbiage" is ADDED to the copy.

You are comparing the copy process and verbiage from when the copy is made not from when the document was originally recorded.

In the older documents, the verbiage is added by putting a little piece of paper at the bottom with the verbiage on it when the copy is made.

In the newer document, Obama's, the verbiage (admittedly different) was added with a rubber stamp - after the original page was copied onto security paper.

Seriously, you have to get this and just be playing games, right?

[Diogenes]

Now if you'll notice, ALL of the above examples are white lettering on a black background. The REASON is that they are microfiche negatives. If you noticed, the last one was issued in 1979, and it was a microfiche negative.


It would be reasonable to assume that any Original record from that time would also be a microfiche negative, because that's how they stored them in those days.


It is also obvious that the Verbiage " A True and Correct Copy of the Original..." Was pretty consistent for long before and long after that 1961 time period.


Why you keep INSISTING that the weird green thing produced by Obama looks EXACTLY like these other examples, I simply cannot comprehend.

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!





It is a later date reproduction of what they have put IN their records, not an original record itself. It does not even CLAIM to be an ORIGINAL record.

No games being played here.

[bcglorf]

You are restating what I said. Notice WHAT verbiage is different on Obama's copy of EXACTLY the same document as is in each of the copies you provided.

The ONLY verbiage that is different, is the certification of the COPY, not the original document the copy is of. Every one of the owners of the copies you provided would get exactly what Obama got above if they went there today and asked for another copy of the document in the copies you presented.

Am I not getting this through some how? The only verbiage that changed is the boiler plate certifying the copy, the original documents are identical. The SOLE difference is that over time the state changed the wording they use when issuing copies of official documents. NONE of the people in your examples could get a copy today with the old verbiage that you prefer. Does that mean everyone born in Hawaii that doesn't already have a copy with your preferred verbiage is out of luck?

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

Are you playing games or do you really not understand?

The "Verbiage" is NOT on the original birth certificate in any of these cases, including Obama's.

The "Verbiage" is ADDED to the copy.

You are comparing the copy process and verbiage from when the copy is made not from when the document was originally recorded.

In the older documents, the verbiage is added by putting a little piece of paper at the bottom with the verbiage on it when the copy is made.

In the newer document, Obama's, the verbiage (admittedly different) was added with a rubber stamp - after the original page was copied onto security paper.

Seriously, you have to get this and just be playing games, right?

I know they add a piece of paper to the bottom before they print a copy. The point is, the verbiage is always the same. It says "a True and Correct copy of the Original."

Those are legally binding words. They mean that it hasn't been screwed with. Take away those words, and you have no way of knowing that you are seeing the original document. You will see whatever has been entered into the record. Not necessarily the truth.


Now address the fact that the original copies are stored as Microfiche negatives. They are all White on Black background. Obama's is not. It's been screwed with.

[bcglorf]

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!

Oh for pity sake, enough already.

Each of your black and white copies are on slightly different shades of paper from each other as well. Oh horrors, different colors!!!!

The procedure for making copies has changed from the days when your examples where copied. Instead of a blurry black and white photocopy they've moved forward to very clear, well focused copies on security paper. I'm pretty sure the Hawaii civil servants would have a good chuckle though hearing your outrageous horror that it was no longer a copy of the same document because the paper the copy is now printed on is green.

Are you just jerking us all around here?

[seedload]

Now if you'll notice, ALL of the above examples are white lettering on a black background. The REASON is that they are microfiche negatives. If you noticed, the last one was issued in 1979, and it was a microfiche negative.


It would be reasonable to assume that any Original record from that time would also be a microfiche negative, because that's how they stored them in those days.


It is also obvious that the Verbiage " A True and Correct Copy of the Original..." Was pretty consistent for long before and long after that 1961 time period.


Why you keep INSISTING that the weird green thing produced by Obama looks EXACTLY like these other examples, I simply cannot comprehend.

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!

It is a later date reproduction of what they have put IN their records, not an original record itself. It does not even CLAIM to be an ORIGINAL record.

No games being played here.

Not a negative - from those days. Also, you can clearly see that the verbiage that you are complaining about was not on the original because it is on a different slip of paper that was copied together.

So, yes, the document is the same. No, the reproduction and certification process is not exactly the same. Yes, the wording was different back in the 60's and 70's. Yes, the tech for making the copy was different than it is today. Yes, the new certified copy is printed on green security paper which is different than decades ago. Yes the 2011 certification wording is different than in the 60's or 70's. No, none of that seems peculiar in any way.

[bcglorf]

Now address the fact that the original copies are stored as Microfiche negatives.

Or they are stored as physical original documents, and they are black and white because like most of the Canadian government agencies I've worked with they frequently create official copies with a photcopier. Making them black and white.

But that doesn't matter anyways. Even if it's microfiche, why is it "better" to print copies in negative b/w rather than the original black text white background, and printing on colored paper instead of the precise exact shade of yellowish off white the original maybe had.