The Post & Email–Fake news site and Birtherism’s last bastion–Part 1

The Post & Email is a blog run by a Connecticut resident named Sharon Rondeau. She describes her blog as an “electronic newspaper”.  The blog was founded during Birtherism’s glory days by a mysterious character named John Charlton in August 2009. Not much is known about Charlton, who is still listed as the founder of the P&E on the about page.

Mr. Charlton is a natural born American Citizen and devout Christian who founded The Post & Email as an act of faith in Christ Jesus in order to give the common man a vehicle to report the news in his own words to the world. He believes that our country belongs to the people, and that the best natural protection for it is that the people be given a voice in the public forum.  Mr. Charlton is not a registered member of any political party, though he is a staunch opponent of Communism and Fascism.  He started The Post & Email as a blog in August 2009 and converted it to an electronic newspaper in December of that year.

This is the first in a multi-part series about the Post & Email. In future articles I will cover who runs it, how it distorts the news, and the seamy cast of characters it supports and attracts.

Anti-birther, attorney, and author of the book Bulllspotting, Loren Collins determined that Charlton was a pseudonym for a person named John Bugnolo. Loren didn’t use any fancy investigative techniques. He merely sent the P&E a small donation and waited to see who endorsed the check. Although the Post & Email was incorporated in Wyoming Bugnolo (Charlton) appears to live in Massachusetts. I was able to find that The Post & Email, Inc. was originally incorporated on January 28, 2010 in Wyoming with John  C. Bugnolo listed as the sole officer. The filing listed an address of 2710 Thomes Ave. in Cheyenne, WY.

This address turns up as a small house pictured below:

2710 Thomes ave

Looks can be deceiving however. It turns out the the same address is home to 2000 Wyoming corporations including Wyoming Corporate Services, Inc. who registers all these corporations to help hide their true identity. This operation was the subject of an article published by Reuters titled Special Report: A little house of secrets on the Great Plains published in 2011. The authors Kelly Carr and Brian Grow wrote:

The secretive business havens of Cyprus and the Cayman Islands face a potent rival: Cheyenne, Wyoming.

At a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people, more than 2,000 companies are registered. The building, 2710 Thomes Avenue, isn’t a shimmering skyscraper filled with A-list corporations. It’s a 1,700-square-foot brick house with a manicured lawn, a few blocks from the State Capitol.

Neighbors say they see little activity there besides regular mail deliveries and a woman who steps outside for smoke breaks. Inside, however, the walls of the main room are covered floor to ceiling with numbered mailboxes labeled as corporate “suites.” A bulky copy machine sits in the kitchen. In the living room, a woman in a headset answers calls and sorts bushels of mail.

A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as “shell” companies, paper entities able to hide assets.

Other filings show that in March 2010 Sharon Rondeau was added as the Director and President of The Post & Email, Inc. with a business address at 2710 Thomes Ave. in Cheyenne, WY. By the end of 2010 the annual report no longer listed Bugnolo as an officer but listed Sharon Rondeau as President and Director and Gerald Rondeau as Treasurer and Director.

In September 2011 Sharon Rondeau filed to dissolve the Wyoming corporation. All the corporate public documents can be found at the Wyoming Secretary of State web page. I searched the Connecticut Secretary of State’s web site but could find no indication that the Post & Email incorporated in Rondeau’s state of residence.

I searched for information on John Bugnolo. I could only find a few hits. There is a John Bugnolo on Facebook who lives in Massachusetts, and that matches an address given on some of the P&E corporate documents.   I am pretty sure this is John Charlton. He certainly matches Charlton’s political leanings. His Facebook page features hatred of Islam and has all sorts of right wing nutbaggery. However, there is no mention of the Post & Email or any association with it or Sharon Rondeau.

This is an example of Bugnolo’s venom:

Worthless Canadian Trash Justin Trudeau…to bad they don’t have the second admendent [sic] as in the USA. This piece of Socialist Garbage would be 7 feet under already!

Oddly enough, John and his brother Dimitri have formed a company to market board games that is called Bison Games, Inc.

Bison Games, Inc. was registered in Wyoming in 2015 under a different address and a different registering agent than the P&E. This time Bugnolo used United States Corporations, Inc. This appears to be another corporate registration mill in Wyoming consisting of one person.

In upcoming articles we will address questions like who is Sharon Rondeau and what passes for news at the Post & Email.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Birthers and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

485 Responses to The Post & Email–Fake news site and Birtherism’s last bastion–Part 1

  1. I invite anyone who has had a comment deleted at the Post & Email to leave a comment here. I find Sharon Rondeau’s comment policy and the way it is enforced to be a joke. She is very protective of her biases and her chosen few lunatics including people like Walt Fitzpatrick.

    Her comment policy isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on. I’ll cover that too.

  2. I also invite any defenders of the P&E to comment here. All I have received so far from their side is one profanity laced comment from an anonymous coward hiding behind a TOR server and fake email address.

    • trader jack says:

      Hell, I will defend their right to tell lies to the public, everyone does it.
      And as to blocking, Dr.C has blocked my last 7 comments about his and your beliefs.
      And you will receive no profanity from me.

      • tbfreeman says:

        Thanks for admitting you tell lies in public.

        • trader jack says:

          you can not see responses that might challenge you as the moderator deletes them to prevent you from seeing any responses
          But it does allow you to claim that they are afraid to respond to you.

          I am , of course, responding to Dr. Conspiracy’s blog.

          • Welcome to the blog.

            The reason your second comment went into moderation is that you used a different email address. Since you had a comment approved with each email you should be able to comment without moderation.

            Comments which violate the blog comment policy are subject to removal or editing of course.

            Doc is very tolerant. If you had comments not approved or removed I would bet there are valid reasons. He let Cody Judy publish gibberish that contributed nothing there for years. He only banned Judy when he linked an article that went after Doc’s wife.

          • tbfreeman says:

            “But it does allow you to claim that they are afraid to respond to you.”

            A common-enough occurrence at the P&E. Which is the subject of this article, BTW.

          • Jack Osborne lies as he always does. He broke the commenting policy about a dozen times on Doc C’s blog. He often would derail topics off the original subject and then troll the other commenters on the blog.

      • Northland10 says:

        No, everyone does not tell lies to the public.

      • Probably because you’ve violated his commenting policy about a dozen times over and he’s allowed you to post under several sock puppets and unbanned you several times only for you to continue to break the policy.

      • Pete says:

        Hell, you won’t get any profanity from me, either.

        Dammit.

  3. Andrew Vrba, PmG. says:

    I see no one from the P&E was brave enough to step out of their comfort zone. Aside from occasional drive-by remarks, birthers dare not venture from their echo chambers. Reality is pain for them.

  4. tbfreeman says:

    I believe, in addition to her capricious commenting “policy,” that Rondeau has soft baned my IP address.

    • Very likely. She might let two or three factual comments through moderation but then her patience wears thin. There are a few sacred cows you cannot touch. Anything critical of her best bud loon Walt Fitzpatrick is grounds for immediate banning.

  5. In his latest bit of insanity at the P&E Walter Fitzpatrick says he is disqualifying grand jurors, instructing how his presentments will be made, and commanding that he choose the attorney who will work with the grand jury. It’s really something. Rondeau of course accepts the rantings of a complete lunatic as if they were normal and that he could really do this legally.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/07/21/fitzpatrick-disqualifies-three-member-grand-jury-panel-requests-new-hearing/

    Hopefully this crazy person will be placed where he can hurt no one including himself in the near future.

    • trader jack says:

      I am not an adherent to Fitzpatrick’s challenged the way the 3 person panel was chosen.

      Whether the two appointed members read his statements I can not tell from what is posted., if they didn’t he has a valid point.
      I do not know the Law in Tennessee, but if he challenged the foreman and the foreman recused himself, then the law must support some of his conclusions.

      Calling him crazy seems a little strange.

      • Northland10 says:

        The Grand Jury foreman was a victim in Fitzpatrick’s most recent felony conviction. To ensure impartially, it would be appropriate for the foreman to recuse himself.

        He did not recuse himself because law supports anything Fitzpatrick says, but only because Fitzpatrick’s own criminal history involved the foreman (IIRC, harassment).

        • Exactly, Fitzpatrick is demanding a new grand jury. Fitzpatrick is sick. He should have medical assistance for his mental condition. He has already been convicted twice and gone to prison for charges related to trying to impose his own will on a grand jury. Now he is back at it again. It will end badly for him.

          He has a long history of run ins with authorities including domestic violence. Here is his record from the days when he lived in Washington.
          https://web.archive.org/web/20150325055207/http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/doing-the-walter-fitzpatrick-rap.html

        • trader jack says:

          No one is a victim by being accused of something and reported to the grand jury, as there has been no determination of whether the accusation is true or false.
          we may believe that the person in innocent of any such accusation, but we do not know that. and there is no assumption of innocent in a grand jury investigation, is there?

      • tbfreeman says:

        Fitzpatrick accused the grand jury foreperson of a crime; although there’s no evidence that the foreperson committed a crime, the mere appearance of partiality (such as being accused of a crime) is sufficient for recusal. Fitzpatrick asked, and he received; the only thing unusual under here is why Fitzpatrick is engaging in this behavior.

        Fitzpatrick was asked to name his grand jurors, and he selected the first two. That they did not act as he wished is not their fault. The grand-jury panel determined Fitzpatrick failed to show that a crime had been committed, and that ends the matter.

        Fitzpatrick has gone to prison twice due to his pathological obsession with the court system. Fitzpatrick has been told many times by many people that he’s wrong, yet he refuses to listen. If that’s not crazy, then chose stupid or plain ole evil.

        • In the latest article he called Judge Donaghy a criminal for sealing the records of the grand jury proceedings. Apparently Rondeau signs on to that nonsense. Walt claims she is hiding evidence of a crime. The grand jury and prosecutor looked at his evidence and there is no crime.

          He is free to publish his 400 page screed any time he wants. I am sure Rondeau will accommodate him.

          • trader jack says:

            are you sure that the Grand Jury ever saw it, as it seems to me that the 3 member committee did not submit it to the Grand Jury, or do you think that the Grand Jury investigated it and filed a report with the judge?

            • tbfreeman says:

              The three-person panel wasn’t required to submit anything to the full grand jury; nor was the grand jury required to investigate anything; nor was the grand jury required to file a report with the judge.

              The three-person panel, as the law required, listened to Fitzpatrick’s complaint. It then concluded there was no legal or factual basis for concluding a crime had been committed.

              • trader jack says:

                that is what happens when you believe one side or the other, you ignore the stated facts, which was the basis of the complaint. the appointed chair person, appointed to others and then decided the claim was baseless, and the plaintiff stated that the facts were never discussed and the two appointees did not read the complaint before voting.
                If that is true, do you believe the hearing was fair.
                I have no knowledge that any evidence was shown, read,,, or discussed, as , the complaint may have been sealed.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  The only person ignoring anything is you. Fitzpatrick lies, repeatedly. Fitzpatrick can’t read the law correctly. The grand jury gave Fitzpatrick all the process he was due: it heard his complaints, and ruled them to be meritless.

                  There is no indication that the grand jury, the judge, or prosecutor did anything out of the ordinary, other than the whines of the dissatisfied customer who went to prison for previously doing this exact same stunt. A conviction upheld all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

                  Fitzpatrick has made the bases for his complaints well known, but he not — and cannot — specify an actual crime that anyone has committed. But you’ll ignore that as well.

  6. I will get to part 2 soon. Life has a way of interrupting. Could Rondeau please slow down with the crazy articles? I will never catch up at this rate.

  7. trader jack says:

    OK, when Doc did his segment on the date alignment, he implied that the registrar, stamped the documents., and stated that his wife thought that they were all date stamped quickly, unless, that is , their is some other method of doing it.
    I stated that the registrar, local, has to review the four pages of the governmental form, and assure that it meets the standards, that, of course, would require perusing four pages of information, and deciding whether or not it would need to be returned for correction
    Obviously few people can scan printed form for accuracy and do that quickly, you may disagree.

    Next, I found that the department attorney stated that the documents were bound in binders, yet the could not be file and so bound, if the files have to amended,corrected, or even sealed and replaced with new birth certificates,

    If you remember Nordyke’s birth certificates were photocopies which indicates that they were not bound like a book as they were done in1967
    Further, an adopted person, would need to have their original birth certificate removed and sealed and a new birth certificate would be created to replace it. I know of no way to replace pages in bound volume

    All of that has nothing to do with where Obama was born, just that discussing things that might be erroneous, might cause a person to arrive at a wrong conclusion.

  8. The Nordyke certificates show curvature on the left as if they were in a binder. There are binders that allow sheets to be inserted and removed. What’s your point?

    • trader jack says:

      absolutely, but the HDOH said they were in Bound volumes, Bound volume specifically require that the document not be able to be removed from the volume and replaced with a different document
      If the volume is an binder with releasing capabilities you take the document out of the binder take it to the copier , make the copy, and take the original back to the binder and re- insert the original back into the correct space in the volume.
      Ergo, no curvature of the copy, as the original is laid flat on the scanner plate
      So, someone is in error if they claim the curvature is due a book type binder.

      • It could also be controlled by procedures. For example, there may be only certain special circumstances where a binder is allowed to be opened to remove and seal a birth certificate under court order or in the case of adoption. A binder would not be opened for merely making a copy.

        You are getting into the minutia of birth records about which you nor I know much. So which is much more likely? That you don’t know the procedures or a grand conspiracy happened?

        • trader jack says:

          now a binder , if used, is used for the explicit fact of being able to remove the form to amend, correct or modify the document,
          Some states have laws that specifically state that the BOUND copies must be bound in such a way that there can be no modification of the bound documents.
          Which is why ring or post binders are used when necessary,
          I know the procedures for governmetal gencies as I worked 30 years for the State of California , and spent six years in the USN and had to amend the journals as the new rules where issued for the handling of ordnance supplies.
          I don’t know if there was a large or a small conspiracy, but I do think that the birth certificate was questionable.
          A 500 page binder of birth certificates would be hard to make complete copies of the documents unless the pages could be removed for copying due to the thickness of the bound documents.
          Open any 500 page book and see how great the curvature of the page is , if it is the middle of the book., especially if the pager is document paper.

    • trader jack says:

      If you look at the negatives of the Nordykes birth certificates you may notice that they are showing some sort of pebble surface around the top of the bc, indicating, to me, that they are laying flat on a surface to be photographed.
      the probably were on micro-film in a negative status and the negative was printed out, and reversed in a scanner.
      Remember that, if they were in a bound status, that the bulk of the document was about 500 page,and the numbers would be about 2/3 of all the document underneath it and the curvature would be much greater that shown on the Obama bc.

      Doesn’t make a damn now, except to show that some things shown may have been in error , or I am in error.

      • I’ll take the latter.

        You can see the curvature clearly in the shadow of the lower sheet with the date and signatures that was used to hide the lower part of the form on photostatic copies. The original was below this cover far enough to cause a shadow. It was in a frame or under a glass.

        Scanners didn’t exist in 1966.

        • trader jack says:

          Copiers did, namely Xerox, however that confuses the problem.
          the lower part of Nordykes was not to hid the information, but simply to attach the certification which they could not put directly on the form.

          It is possible the the apparent curvature was on the microfilm when the original was microfilmed from a book.
          No way to tell.

          • You are the one who brought up scanners. Flatbed scanners didn’t exist in 1966. The only scanners were drum scanners used to send pictures over wire.

            • trader jack says:

              No Xerox had a copier in 1962, the 813

              • You are confusing a copier with a scanner. They are two different things. Early Xerox copiers were not scanners. Look up the term xerography.

                • trader jack says:

                  I did, and know the difference, both perform the same thing, which is to make copies of a document.
                  I used Xerox in 1966 when I was in the state service. We used them to copy documents.
                  I used to tell the secretaries to go make a copy or two of the document

                • If you knew the difference you would not have used the terms interchangeably as you did.

            • trader jack says:

              However, drum scanners with their superior resolution (up to 24,000 PPI), color gradation, and value structure continued to be used for scanning images to be enlarged, and for museum-quality archiving of photographs and print production of high-quality books and magazine advertisements. As second-hand drum scanners became more plentiful and less costly, many fine-art photographers acquired themI did, and know the difference, both perform the same thing, which is to make copies of a document.
              I used Xerox in 1966 when I was in the state service. We used them to copy documents.
              I used to tell the secretaries to go make a copy or two of the document

              • So in what file format were these 1966 scanned images stored? TIFF, JPEG, PDF? Obviously the answer is none.

                I realize Xerox copiers were in use in the 1960’s. These were not digital devices. They worked by exposing an image of the document on to a selenium coated drum that had been electrostatically charged. The areas exposed to light on the drum lost charge. Darker areas were still charged and picked up dry ink. The drum then imprinted that dry ink on a sheet of paper. The dry ink was set with heat.

                This conversation about scanners and copiers has nothing to do with the Nordyke certificates.

                • trader jack says:

                  Of course it does, The nordyke file was copied in 1966, or so, how was it copied?
                  You state there were on flat bed scanners, I said there were copiers.
                  Now, the Xerox could not, as far as I know, reverse black to white, but they were reversed from negative to positive and then copied out as positives
                  If there were no copiers then how were they copied with the certification on them.
                  And if there were no scanners then the curvatures were not really there.

                  Even strange why would they be microfilmed with the certification on them, a duplicate in negative created, then printed in black and then white,

                  Just strange actions on birth certificates in HDOH

                • Since it is a negative it was almost certainly a photostat. That was the typical method of copying vital records until Xerox copiers became ubiquitous. Other methods like thermal and wet process didn’t produce copies that would last.

  9. trader jack says:

    First things, first, Why was Nordyke birth ceritificate shown as being microfilmed with an attached certification attached to it. They are not certified when filed away in a binder,
    So the certificates had been certified and then microfilmed and then photocopied in some way, for some unknown purpose
    very strange.

    • The photosat was made in 1966. The signature sheet at the bottom was added then when the photostat was made. That’s how the copies were certified. The pebbly background might be a sheet of certificate paper that the Nordyke copy was placed on when WND photographed the certificates. It could have even been a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate that the WND reporter brought with him.

      The border doesn’t appear to be there when Mrs. Nordyke holds up her copies in this photo.
      .

      • trader jack says:

        Neither does the curvature, however, your statement that the certification was added at the time of photostating would seem to indicate that you believe that the bc was not in a book at the time of photostating but the certification was added and then it was photocopied.
        What would be the reason for that.
        Now she is holding up ;negatives of the certificate and obviously they are not acceptable as true documents as copies of certified documents are not certified document.
        Now I may be in error, but I don’t think negatives are copied out as negatives in any governmental agencies, especially in full document size.

        Just more strange stuff in birth certificate area!

        • You completely misunderstood what I said. The bottom part was added in 1966 when the certified photostat copies were made. The slip of paper was used for certified the copies. The original certificates may have been in the book when these were made. It is likely they were. I can’t say with certainty though. The image of her holding up the copies is of poor quality so the curvature might still be there. Let me explain this slowly. When a certified photostatic copy was made a slip of paper with the date and signatures was placed over the original to certify the copies.

          Negative photostats are perfectly acceptable as certified copies. What Mrs. Nordyke is holding up are two certified photostat copies. The photostat process produces a negative image. That is how it works. If you wanted a positive image you had to do a photostat of the photostat which degraded the quality.

          You really should stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

          • trader jack says:

            “All regular microfilm copying involves contact exposure under pressure. Then the film is processed to provide a permanent image. Hand copying of a single fiche or aperture card involves exposure over a light box and then individually processing the film. Roll films are contact exposed via motor, either round a glass cylinder or through a vacuum, under a controlled light source. Processing may be in the same machine or separately.

            Silver halide film is a slow version of camera film with a robust top coat. It is suitable for prints or for use as an intermediate from which further prints may be produced. The result is a negative copy. Preservation standards require a master negative, a duplicate negative, and a service copy (positive). Master negatives are kept in deep storage, and duplicate negatives are used to create service copies, which are the copies available to researchers. This multi-generational structure ensures the preservation of the master negative.”
            and they can make positive or negative copies.

          • trader jack says:

            “When copying a page with a large area of contrast, such as a dark photograph in a page of newsprint on positive microfilm, or an extensive light area on negative microfilm, don’t rely on the automatic setting. Select the type of film you are using before hitting the print button, since the machine often misinterprets this type of image and will print the opposite. If you mistakenly end up with a negative image from positive film, or vice versa, when using machines in the Archives and History Library, ask a staff member to replace the copy for you with a corrected image. We will do so at no extra charge. If you have already taken the film off the machine, we can put your negative copy on the regular photocopier and produce a reversed positive
            You can’t make a new Photostat after the certification is added, as that would require replacing the original photo on the reel

            • David L says:

              “Both Rectigraph and Photostat machines consisted of a large camera that photographed documents or papers and exposed an image directly onto rolls of sensitized photographic paper that were about 350 feet (110 m) long. A prism was placed in front of the lens to reverse the image. After a 10-second exposure, the paper was directed to developing and fixing baths, then either air- or machine-dried. The result was a negative print, which took about two minutes in total to produce, which could in turn be photographed to make any number of positive prints.”

              • trader jack says:

                Notice the documents being copied are in front of and below the machine and they are apparently taped down on the board . Seems a hard way to make a copy of a Photostat that is not on the roll of sensitized paper in the machine

                • David L says:

                  Read the link I posted below to the 1921 advertisement for the Rectigraph Company’s machine. It tells how to make positive images from the original negative create by the rectigraph.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  You are not making a copy of a photostat, the photostat IS the copy. It’s a very easy way to make a copy of something in a book, especially if you want a certification statement to be added, as all you have to do is place a sheet of paper with the certification (typed statement, datestamp, and signature) on top of the plate of glass holding the book open. You can then trim the resulting sheet of paper with the negative image as needed and then emboss with a seal.

                  And all of this done without the use of microfilm.

                • trader jack says:

                  So, you don’t think that the Xerox changed the copying method in the 1960’s. Uness you are talking about the HDOH.
                  First things first, the copy in the binders, which are probably loose leaf, is the original, Now I worked for the state of California accepting documents for review and I never saw a Photostat copy of a birth certificate, and I worked for CalVet handling veteran’s loans.
                  I saw blue prints , but nothing else that was not white!
                  To make a Photostat, according to the information posted on this site, means that it the image was transferred by light , from the original to sensitized paper where converted it to a white on black image on a strip of paper that was very long and not individual pieces of pager.
                  Now perhaps you believe that the machine made individual copies, and there may be such machines, though, it does require developing to produce the image
                  Not practical to copy one document when you need to issue a copy.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Too bad Traitor Jack can’t read more than a sentence, or he would have found his objections to the photostat process to be unfounded:

                  How the Rectigraph is Operated.
                  The Rectigraph is as simple to operate as the ordinary blueprint apparatus and may be run by any office boy of ordinary intelligence.
                  The magazine holds a roll of sensitized paper 350 ft. long. The drawing or blue print to be copied is place on the copyboard, an exposure is made, a turn of the crank runs the paper into the developer, a turn of another crank cuts the paper and places it into the hypo ready to be washed and dried, the entire operation taking but a fraction over a minute.
                  It is not necessary to place the hands in the solutions – the machine is entirely automatic.

                  Well, that seems quite practical to me. You seem to be treating photostats as rolls of portable camera film, that can only be developed at a single time. The reality is that by the 60s, a single photostat copy could be made in under 2 minutes, without requiring the rest of the roll to be developed. In fact, xerography at the time was only made faster by the fact that it didn’t have to be dried, and more convenient only because it creates a positive image rather than a negative image. But a Photostat cost less than a Xerox to operate.

                  Oh, and I see traitor Jack is once again lying about how the originals were kept. The HDoH has stated that they were bound in books of 500, not kept in loose-leaf binders. Any changes to the document after the record was created typically required a court order, and would have been made by hand (in field 23 on the 1961 form) or by creating a new original record bound separately with a cross-reference between the records when the first is sealed, such as with adoptions. [this is to address Traitor Jack’s next lie in his sequence, which is that the original records could not have been bound because adoption]

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              There was no reel to begin with, as there was no microfilm involved.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      Very simply, it was not shown as being microfilmed at all. The Nordyke birth certificates are photostats of the original bound records, with a slip of paper with the certification laid over them (likely the same slip of paper), and then the photostat copy was trimmed and embossed with the HDoH seal. There was no microfilm involved.

  10. David L says:

    The pebble surface looks like carpet.

    These images are from the Star Advertiser article on the Nordyke twins.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

    Look at the bottom of the certificates, there is a clear shadow over the pebble surface made by the certificate. The reporter must have set them down when he/she photographed them.

    You can also see the curvature of the horizontal lines of the printed form. And the over exposure along the top of the sheet of paper that contains the registrar signatures.

    1959 certificates – both show curvatures of the horizontal form lines.:

    These two certificates show the difference between typists. For the first one (1959 Territorial certificate), the entries are irregularly spaced in the boxes but the second the entries are perfectly aligned. One typists used margin stops and tab settings to enter the information on the form, the other didn’t.

    • David L.

      Great comment. You are probably correct on the carpet. Notice these other birth certificates are all negative images made by a photostat machine too.

      If you look at the certificates from Kapiolani in that time period there are similarities in the typing and even the letter displacements horizontally. I suspect the same nurse or clerk typed all the birth certificates on the same typewriter.

      • David L says:

        They continued to use photostats until the end of the 1970s.

        • Good find. It appears Hawaii had changed the birth certificate form by 1971.

          I also wanted to mention that there are some positive images of the Nordyke certificates to be found on line. I think these were created in a photo editing program to make them easier to read.

    • trader jack says:

      Even more interesting , look at the size of the impressed seal and compare it to the others.
      Also, just interesting, u.k.lee is the registrar , and Richard K. Lee is the director.

      • David L says:

        That’s V. K. Lee as in Verna K. Lee.

        1961 Polk Directory.

        Remember that the photostat copies are not 8×11 (see image of Elenore Nordyke holding the two birth certificates for scale). Also this image of Edith Coats’ 1962 birth certificate.

        Her certified copy was issued in 1984 and is not a photostat.

        • trader jack says:

          It seems that people can not observe that the copies all appear to have been cropped or resized.
          And that photos have to be authenticated to be used as evidence in legal work.

          • tbfreeman says:

            Good thing there’s “no legal work” pending. And if there were, that the parties wouldn’t have to rely on photos.

            Because certified copies (not photos, and neither cropped nor resized) of Obama’s birth certificate were entered as evidence in court cases, and the court had no problem accepting them.

          • David L says:

            You do understand the cropping and resizing was done by the Department Health when they issued the certified copies? These people put images of their birth certificates on the internet for illustrative purposes only. But if they needed to present their birth certificates as evidence they would not present photos but the certified copies.

          • David L says:

            Do you understand the cropping and resizing was done by the Department of Health? The DOH determines what size the certified copies are. For example this wallet-size birth certificate that Iowa use to issue.

            These people put images of their certified copies on the internet for illustration purposes only. If for some reason they needed to present their certified copies for legal purposes, that is what they would do.

            • trader jack says:

              You may be correct that that is issued, but it can only be used for limited purposes and will not qualify for all usage
              No, I do not understand that the DOH crops the documents, they may, or may notl

              • David L says:

                We know for a fact the original birth certificate is cropped.

                Zoom in on Gretchen Nordyke’s birth certificate. Along the left margin there is addition information that was cropped out. You can see pencil notations and that the forms horizontal lines continue to the left, off the page.

                You can see the same things on President Obama’s birth certificate.

                • trader jack says:

                  And of course you realize that modification of a certified copy voids the copy. But perhaps that copies she is holding are not certified copies

              • @trader jack

                Would you care to elaborate where a state certified copy of a birth certificate cannot be used? A link or two would help.

                • trader jack says:

                  Dam , that is an an interesting post, of course, if you believe the comments they were gone by 1974, I suppose by the good old Xerox copier.
                  You know, thinking about it, that HDOH was not using a Photostat machine, as the documents were on microfilm. And it appears, as though the Photostat was a large copier that would not be using 8,16, or 35 mm film.

                • trader jack says:

                  if the birth certificate does not contain the necessary information required by the laws, they must be reissued with the correct information of the document.
                  One example was the requirement for full names on the birth document, which required the addition of Stanley to Ann Dunham Obama

                • David L says:

                  “You know, thinking about it, that HDOH was not using a Photostat machine, as the documents were on microfilm.”

                  There maybe microfilm copies but the originals are still kept in bound volumes.

                • trader jack says:

                  YES, because it is marked Void on the surface. But that does not mean that you could not use it for some purposes.

          • Northland10 says:

            I have an old birth certificate issued from the county in 1974ish. The actual certified copied was cropped from a larger version which contained various data used by the state and CDC for health and birth statistics. That data is not necessary for use on state certified certificate so it is cropped off (not to mention various privacy concerns for the person and their parents).

            Since the State of Michigan has said my old 1974 certificate should not be used because it does not have the current security features, I ordered a new one (not that I had a need but I was also curious). It is not cropped because it is data pulled from the state’s vital record database and laid out to look like an old certificate but printed on new security paper, with various control numbers (vital record request number, certified copy number, etc.).

            Of course, Jack just makes up stuff to troll with.

            • trader jack says:

              I make nothing up as you can verify all that I say.

              • Northland10 says:

                You make claims without any proof or evidence. It is not my job to figure if your claims are true.

                • trader jack says:

                  everything is good evidence until it has been examined under cross examination.
                  the fact that you don’t believe it , does not make it untrue.

                • @Trader Jack
                  Certified birth certificates and other vital records hold a special place in the law however. They fail under a hearsay rule exemption in the courts and are accepted as prima facie evidence of the facts they contain.

                  The burden of proof falls on the challenger of the vital record to prove that fraud was committed or someone signed under duress for example. Nothing the Birthers have put forward even comes close to achieving that level of evidence against the birth certificate of Barack Obama for example.

                  There may be examples but I have never seen a case where a state issued birth certificate was successfully challenged. I am not talking about a simple forgery but one where it was issued by the state. I suspect if they existed they would involve a late or amended birth certificate.

                • trader jack says:

                  Prima facie evidence! Except for the fact, yes, fact, that simply means that the court will accept them as evidence, subject to rebuttal in subsequent proceeding , where they can be challenged.
                  Bustamante Xlll , google it!
                  Do you really think that with the modern copying machines that all bc’s are true and correct.
                  There has been no evidence that shows that the BHO is true , or false, as no one has seen anything but a copy of what is said to be in the HDOH files.
                  I am just saying that birth certificate issued by the government are simply copies of what some one filed at some time or another
                  You have seen , I assume, the birth certificate that seems to show the birth certificate file for BHO that was signed by Grandmother Dunham, Is that one true or false, not to mention Pollands copy that shows a different date that HDOH’s, which you know is fake , but could pass all of the tests that were applied to HDOH’s issuance of a birth certificate.
                  written comments by the HDOH are assumed to be true and accurate, are they

                • tbfreeman says:

                  “everything is good evidence until it has been examined under cross examination.
                  the fact that you don’t believe it , does not make it untrue.”

                  Says the person who thinks birth certificates can never prove identity.

                • trader jack says:

                  surely , you have never read the IG’s report on birth certificate fraud, or do you think that possession of a birth certificate means that you are the person described in the birth certificate?

                • tbfreeman says:

                  You can’t decide whether everything is true until disproven, or nothing is true until verified.

                  Regardless of your personal failings, the rest of the world knows that birth-certificate fraud in general is a possibility, but not proof of fraud in any particular instance.

    • trader jack says:

      If the documents were Photostats the underlying service might be what is showing, but , from the machine picture, it looks as though the lighting was from above and the two documents could be Photostats made at the same time. and would show no curvature as they are lying on a flat surface.

      • David L says:

        Read this article about the original photostat machines.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=-SBHAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA9&lpg=RA1-PA9&dq=Rectigraph&source=bl&ots=3KBQO11U94&sig=viVoI6KATv0JdUhpo_Z3wPHsyFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqsuPXrcbVAhXCeCYKHSKcDqcQ6AEIZzAR#v=onepage&q=Rectigraph&f=false

        It specifically says it could make copies from bound volumes. And that was in 1921, so I’m sure it did not lose that ability.

        • trader jack says:

          And, of course, you are right, but that was 40 years before the birth date of the subject of the discussion, are you absolutely sure it was still around in 1961,66, or later in Oahu?

          • David L says:

            Here are two images of phostat machines in 1954.

            • Northland10 says:

              Wow, those things are quite large. It’s amazing how much technology has progressed. Besides the regular multi-function devices (copier, scanner with email, network printer, and for those who would actually hook it up, fax), a simple phone can do the same thing.

          • David L says:

            And from 1951.

          • David L says:

            Title 19 §338-19 allows DOH to make photostatic copies of records. Section was last updated in 1959.

            Title 19 §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]

            • trader jack says:

              well, I appreciate that information, and it absolutely correct, but it d does not mean that they were still using them after the more useful Xerox came into existence.
              I worked for the State of California from 1954-82 saw a Photostat copy on anything in the file of the offices I worked in. There were blue-prints for building, but never letters, that I can remember that is, but then I am 94 years old. LOL

              • Northland10 says:

                trader jack: but it d does not mean that they were still using them after the more useful Xerox came into existence.

                But it also means they could have still used it. Some governments are rather slow on changing their processes and equipment. To this day, it would appear that Hawaii is somewhat behind on using paper with extra security features to their certified copies or adding the various control data to the document such as the AFS number (request number of the order) or a unique copy number.

              • David L says:

                The 1979 Jenna birth certificate was still a photostat. But the 1984 Coats birth certificate was copied onto security paper.

                That narrows down the time frame for when the change occurred in Hawaii.

  11. I am still working on Part 2. Sorry it is taking so long. I will give you a bit of a tease: Sharon Rondeau has a somewhat interesting background. Nothing shady or anything like that. It’s just surprising she ended up doing what she is doing at the P&E.

  12. Pingback: The Post & Email–Fake news site and Birtherism’s last bastion–Part 2 Sharon Rondeau | RC Radio Blog

  13. Northland10 says:

    trader jack says:
    Prima facie evidence! Except for the fact, yes, fact, that simply means that the court will accept them as evidence, subject to rebuttal in subsequent proceeding , where they can be challenged.

    To challenge it, they would have to provide strong evidence that the subject was born elsewhere, at a different time, or from different parents. This is something birthers have always failed to do.

    Just because fraud has happened in others states, or fraud could happen, does not mean fraud has happened. A child can steal a cookie from the cookie jar, but that does not mean that we suspect any child of stealing from the cookie jar, especially when there are no missing cookies.

    • tbfreeman says:

      Unsurpirisingly, U.S. v. Bustamonte does not say what trader jack thinks it says: “Our holding today does not question the general proposition that birth certificates, and official duplicates of them, are ordinary public records “created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial.” Melendez–Diaz, 129 S.Ct. at 2539–40. But Exhibit 1 is not a copy or duplicate of a birth certificate. Like the certificates of analysis at issue in Melendez–Diaz, despite being labeled a copy of the certificate, Exhibit 1 is “quite plainly” an affidavit. See id. at 2532. It is a typewritten document in which Salupisa testifies that he has gone to the birth records of the City of Bacolod, looked up the information on Napoleon Bustamante, and summarized that information at the request of the U.S. government for the purpose of its investigation into Bustamante’s citizenship. Rather than simply authenticating an existing non-testimonial record, Salupisa created a new record for the purpose of providing evidence against Bustamante. See id. at 2539. The admission of Exhibit 1 without an opportunity for cross examination therefore violated the Sixth Amendment.”

      The court plainly says birth certificates are acceptable.

      • trader jack says:

        You are in error the courts said it was not a birth certificate but an abstract of information contained on the birth certificate. Abstracts are usually not acceptable for birth certificates.
        Do you believe an abstract is a copy of a birth certificate?

        And do you believe that a certification of a record means that the contents of the record are true and accurate?

        If I have a certified copy of my brother’s birth certificate and I present it to someone as evidence of my identity , does that make me my brother.?
        If the state issues me a birth certificate that shows that my father was not my birth father, but is my mother;s husband, doe that mean he is realy my father,.
        Truth is seldom easy to determine from a certified copy of a birth certificate.

        • tbfreeman says:

          Thanks for proving that you read. Bustamonte is about many things, but not birth certificates.

          And no one has said that a birth certificate is a form of identification, as it is evidence of an event, i.e., birth. Any more strawmen?

          • trader jack says:

            Of course Bustamante was about birth certificates, which is why the final decision was that the man was not a US Citizen.
            Even though the State of California gave him a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born in California. Which, according to you was prima facie evidence that the facts on that document were true and accurate.
            Oh, I take that back, the states never say the information is true and accurate , but only state that the information is on file in the record.

          • tbfreeman says:

            Thank you for proving — yet again — your utter inability to read. Bustamante’s conviction was vacated. Because the federal government did not properly prove that he was a citizen of another country.

            That the federal government attempted to rebut the prima facie showing is again stating the obvious; congratulations.

    • trader jack says:

      you may be in error as the IG in his report said it is simply a matter of looking at the birth certificate to see if there are apparent defects in the document. Simple examination of the documents is all that is required to establish reasonable doubt.
      Note that the state department now requires full signature on the documents and that documents that do not have that on the face are not acceptable for some reason or another.
      the fact that 100 dollar bills are counterfeited in some state usually means that you should check your hundred dollars bills when you accept the bill You do notice that clerks usually check them with a pen or light to determine possible errors,

      • tbfreeman says:

        trader jack has amply shown that his doubt is not reasonable.

        Certified birth certificates are good enough for any court in the United States; that they are not good enough for trader jack is his concern alone.

        • trader jack says:

          actually , they are good enough for most courts because all it says it that the information on the form is on the form.
          As you may know,that the HDOH allows for correction, amendment, and changes to the birth certificate after filing.

          Which means that if you get a certified copy of a birth certificate , look at it, and see that there is an error in the form , you are allowed to make changes to bring it into compliance with the truth facts.
          Does that not mean that the first bc was not true, becauee it had to be corrected?

          And yet you believe it is prima facie true on its face when issued.

          Strange!

          • tbfreeman says:

            Congratulations, you have the stated the obvious by providing an example of prima facie.

            • trader jack says:

              https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2681.pdf

              Interim Decision #2681
              born in hospitals or other facilities where births are registered would be
              unjust. At the same time, there can be little dispute that the opportu-
              nity for fraud is much greater with a delayed birth certificate.
              This is not an issue easily resolved. Our use of the term “prima facie”
              in
              Matter of Herrera, supra,
              was perhaps misleading, thereby creating
              an inference that a delayed birth certificate, unrebutted by contradic-
              tory
              evidence of a birthplace other than the United States, would
              establish in every case a petitioner’s status as a United States citizen.
              This
              was not our intent. Such a rute would be unwise and an unwar-
              ranted
              restriction on the District Director’s adjudicative function in this
              area. Rather, it is our position that each case must be decided on its own
              facts with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence presented as to the
              petitioner’s birthplace

      • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

        Note that the state department now requires full signature on the documents and that documents that do not have that on the face are not acceptable for some reason or another.

        You keep repeating this lie even though I have pointed out to you many times that you are wrong. The state department does NOT require parents’ full signatures on birth certificates. It requires parents’ full names to be PRINTED on the birth certificates. Full maiden name meets this requirement for the mother – verified by the fact that my birth certificate met the requirements to get my passport 5 years ago, despite the fact that my mother didn’t sign with her full married name, but did have her full maiden name.

        • trader jack says:

          Ah , WKV, you know that you do not have to have a birth certificate to get a passport, don’t you, so whether your birth certificate met the standards is not a factor, as your other information just was sufficient to met the standards of your passport issuer.

          • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

            So your claim is that a standard driver’s license and a photograph is sufficient evidence to get a passport, even though neither of those documents is listed as proof of citizenship? Because that and the fees are the only things other than my birth certificate that I submitted.

            Gosh, you’re stupid.

            • trader jack says:

              I was born overseas. I believe I was a U.S. citizen at birth
              because one or both my parents were U.S. citizens when I
              was born. But my birth and citizenship were not registered
              with the U.S. Embassy when I was born. Can I apply to
              have my citizenship recognized?
              Whether or not someone born outside the United States to a U.S.
              citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when
              the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but
              usually require a combination of the parent being a U.S. citizen when
              the child was born, and the parent having lived in the United States
              or its possessions for a specific period of time. Derivative citizenship
              can be quite complex and may require careful legal analysis

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                Which addresses nothing.I was born in the United States, to parents born in the United States. I submitted a Certified Copy of my Birth Certificate, my state-issued Standard Driver’s License, a color photograph, and the required fees. Nothing else. If according to you my Birth Certificate was inadequate to use because it lacked my mother’s full name in her signature, even though it had her full maiden name, what other document I submitted contained met the requirement?

                • trader jack says:

                  The statement I posted before your answer happened to be from the immigration service site, but , it also happened to actually be my situation in life’

                  I do have a copy of my birth certificate that was partially destroyed by the fires during the Japanese invasion of the Phillipines.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Answer the question, Traitor Jack. I submitted a Certified Copy of my Birth Certificate, my state-issued Standard Driver’s License, a color photograph, and the required fees. Nothing else. If according to you my Birth Certificate was inadequate to use because it lacked my mother’s full name in her signature, even though it had her full maiden name, what other document I submitted contained met the requirement?

  14. trader jack says:

    Oh, by the way, No original birth certificate is filed as a Photostat as the record kept in the binders are the first pages of the birth record, so they can not be Photostats

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      Nobody claimed the original, bound records were photostats. It’s the certified birth certificates created in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that are photostat copies of the original, bound records. The available photostats all show the curvature expected from copying from bound volumes.

      • trader jack says:

        You believe they were copied from bound volumes? LOL.
        The files are contained in binders containing 500 birth certificates, Now visualize, if you can, a 500 page ledger opened at the 141the page, laid flat on a glass sheet and copied by a Photostat machine without a cover, Assuming the binder is 4 inches wide, what would the curvature of the top page be as there would b 359 pages underneath the top page.
        It is simple arithmetic.

        • tbfreeman says:

          Is this your life? Haunting a comments section with perpetually off-topic and unconvincing nonsense?

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          4 inches thick?! How heavy a paper do you think they used?!

          Traitor Jack is missing a great number of key variable in order to figure out the curvature mathematically. Also, he is forgetting that for the machine described here, the book would be laid flat under the glass plate. So we would need to know the weight of the glass, the stiffness of the spine, how the weight of the glass was distributed, etc. However, I can do a reasonable proxy of what Traitor Jack described, using one of my old textbooks opened to the equivalent page on my home copier.

          The results are unsurprising. If the weight is evenly distributed, the text near the binding is horizontally compressed due to the significant curvature of the original page, and horizontal lines are not curved. If the top of the book is pressed down harder, the lines on the page increasingly get more curved towards the bottom, as the text is increasingly compressed horizontally (and curving with the lines); the reverse happens when the bottom of the book is pressed harder. Pressing harder on the middle of the book creates increasing curves the further away from the pressure point, compression of text following as before.

          So yes, my experiment supports the conclusion that they were copied from bound originals. Thank you for playing, have a nice day.

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          It occurred to me that my experiment failed in a major aspect to duplicate the workings of a photostat machine. To wit, a modern scanner like my home machine has a moving scan bar that does not have a defined focal point (only a focal length). In contrast, a photostat is essentially a photograph, and as such does have a focal point. This plays a significant role in how the curvature of a page will appear. I redid my experiment using my camera phone, and ended up with results much like my last scenario, in which I pressed on the center of the book, but without requiring any pressure at all. The further away from the focal point, the more the angle diverges from vertical. As a result, the apparent curvature increases.

          My apologies for forgetting about the fundamental differences between the technologies. I kinda had it in my head, but couldn’t quite articulate it at the time.

          • trader jack says:

            But, you forget one thing, WKV, the photostat machines were great big thing, the document were laid in the bed, and the image passed through a prizm into lens, then the length of the camera, (yes, it is a camera) onto the photosensitive paper. Then the paper had to be developed, dried,, and cut into what are known as photostatic copies.
            There is never a glass placed on the original to flatten the document.
            Oh, hell, I make that statement thinking I am right, but willing to be shown that there was a piece of glass heavy enough to compress the pages of a 500 page book for copying.

            Everything else is debateable, I guess.
            As to the size of the binder I looked at the picture of Onaka in front of the shelves and it looks to mee that they are 4 inchs wide, but could be 3, they have to allow for the covers and post or rings if they are looseleaf.

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              But, you forget one thing, WKV, the photostat machines were great big thing, the document were laid in the bed, and the image passed through a prizm into lens, then the length of the camera, (yes, it is a camera) onto the photosensitive paper. Then the paper had to be developed, dried,, and cut into what are known as photostatic copies.

              Turn a crank, wait ten seconds, turn a second crank, wait a minute, and all that has been done for you. You make it out as if it was some elaborate dance that took weeks to complete, but it’s as simple as turning two cranks and waiting a minute. Everything else is the same as what you would get from a Xerox. Gotta position the book? Same with a Xerox. Need to trim the page down to just the certificate? Same with a Xerox.

              As far as the glass plate goes, pretty much any plate of glass large enough to put over a document and thick enough to withstand being handled will be heavy enough to flatten a bound volume sufficiently for a photostat. Heck, the picture on my phone is very similar to the BCs shown above, without the plate. And most of the pictures I found showed a glass plate for the documents.

              Why do you believe the HDoH is lying when they say the originals are in bound volumes? Everything about the appearance of the certificates indicates they were bound. You literally have zero evidence that they were in loose leaf binders. All the evidence, including the statements of HDoH, shows that they were bound.

              • I speculated a while back that the binders might be a kind that can be taken apart to handle amended birth certificates or court ordered changes. You are correct that there are other ways of handling those cases without opening binders. Indexes and cross references would work.

              • trader jack says:

                Did you even look at the picture posted a few days ago, and you think it is turn a crank , turn a crank and every thing is done.
                Damn things send the exposed film to the dark room for developing and handling,
                And note the size of the bed where there documents are laid to be copied, and darn if I see any glass to be put on the documents.
                Perhaps you can show the machine that takes two cranks and ,presto, you have a single Photostat to display
                Back to your personal attacks again?

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Not only did I look at the pictures posted, I followed the links, read and posted the product literature describing the operation, looked up additional pictures, and tracked down a number of patent applications. Here’s a quote from a catalog for a Rectigraph brand photostat machine, which was linked earlier, and which I posted yesterday:

                  How the Rectigraph is Operated.
                  The Rectigraph is as simple to operate as the ordinary blueprint apparatus and may be run by any office boy of ordinary intelligence.
                  The magazine holds a roll of sensitized paper 350 ft. long. The drawing or blue print to be copied is place on the copyboard, an exposure is made, a turn of the crank runs the paper into the developer, a turn of another crank cuts the paper and places it into the hypo ready to be washed and dried, the entire operation taking but a fraction over a minute.
                  It is not necessary to place the hands in the solutions – the machine is entirely automatic.

                  https://books.google.com/books?id=-SBHAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA9&lpg=RA1-PA9&dq=Rectigraph&source=bl&ots=3KBQO11U94&sig=viVoI6KATv0JdUhpo_Z3wPHsyFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqsuPXrcbVAhXCeCYKHSKcDqcQ6AEIZzAR#v=onepage&q=Rectigraph&f=false

                  One of the pictures posted earlier, clearly showing a glass plate over the document:

                  https://i0.wp.com/assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/37179/image.jpg?zoom=2

                  A glass plate isn’t necessary, but they were definitely used, and the shadow cast by the slip of paper with the certification shows that one had to have been used.

                • Northland10 says:

                  The previous previous page in WKV’s link has information on the Photostat brand. In the method of operation it specifically says, “The copy is made directly on a roll of sensitized paper. No intermediate glass plate, film or other negative has to be made.”

                  Further along it says, “The print is developed and fixed in the apparatus itself, this part of the process, as well as focusing and exposing, all being mechanical.”

                  I would suggest you stop insisting something works a certain way until you have actually checked to see see if that is true.

                • David L says:

                  “And note the size of the bed where there documents are laid to be copied, and darn if I see any glass to be put on the documents.”

                  I posted this image that shows a glass plate sitting on the documents to hold them in place. Shame you didn’t look. At them.

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh,David I sae them , but I did not see that piece of glass on that one. It looks like a folio being copyied , so yes glass was used.
                  The problem is that it is seldom a good idea to take a photo through glass when the document is being lit from above.
                  But I still don’t know how the would cout a page out of 350 feet of sensitized paper to make a single copy.

                • Northland10 says:

                  Don’t know how they would cut off a sheet of paper from a larger roll? Your trolling is getting sloppy (as is your late night/early morning typing).

                  I guess we had to wait much later before somebody invented a paper cutter or established a trade agreement with France to acquire a similar cutting device.

                • trader jack says:

                  the t roublle is that the paper is on a roll in the machine, and , if you will notice it has to be developed, which is not done in the machine, but in a separate room, , and can not be exposed to iight, until developed and fixed.
                  how do you propose cutting the paper, developing the paper, drying the paper in the machine and fixing in the image with two cranks. and turns.

                • Northland10 says:

                  You obviously did not read the Google Books link or WKV’s quote from them.

                  “… a turn of the crank runs the paper into the developer, a turn of another crank cuts the paper and places it into the hypo ready to be washed and dried…”

                  And from the folger.edu link
                  “After about ten seconds of exposure, the operator winds the paper forward for the next shot, moving the exposed paper past a sheet trimmer and into the chemical baths that develop and fix the image. ”

                  And, as the all say, the developing and fixing are done in the machine.

                  As for lighting with glass, the lights are offset not direct, just like lowering glasses a bit creating a slight angle to avoid reflecting the flash.

                • trader jack says:

                  Why thank you for that information, but that is a Rectigraph and not a Photostat. But now I see where you get the two crank thing, now show me on a Photostat machine where there are any cranks, or a place for developer and hypo to be placed and then dried,
                  The pictures of Photostat machine are shown about and quite different from a Rectigraph.

                • trader jack wrote:

                  Why thank you for that information, but that is a Rectigraph and not a Photostat. But now I see where you get the two crank thing, now show me on a Photostat machine where there are any cranks, or a place for developer and hypo to be placed and then dried,
                  The pictures of Photostat machine are shown about and quite different from a Rectigraph.

                  Are you always this obtuse? “Photostat” became a generic term for photocopy machines just as “xerox” became a generic term for electrostatic copying machines and the process. The Rectigraph machine produced phototstats

                • Northland10 says:

                  RC says: Are you always this obtuse?

                  Trader appears to be doing his normal trolling. I specifically mentioned above that the Photostat brand was described in the same Google Book link given by WKV. That link says the print is developed and fixed in the unit through mechanical means.

                  And yes, Photostat became the generic term, but that would not matter for Trader’s question since the info for the actual brand was already provided.

                • trader jack says:

                  I don’t suppose that you understand the developer, hypo, and fixer, are considered hazardous waste, do you?

                  Are there two cranks on the Photostat machines, are the chemicals in the machine , or not
                  And you do know that they use two different types of paper, don’t you?

                  Hey, you guys will be thrilled that Orly has filed more documents in the cases, won’t you?
                  May the courts always render justice, one way or the other.

                • Yes, Orly filed a motion to unseal something she filed two years ago. Orly is just a complete bore these days.

                • Northland10 says:

                  Troll in the dungeon. The chemicals are in the machine, just like they were in a Photo Booth. Remember those? They did not need an extra darkroom either, nor did they even need cranks.

                  For the others who may find it interesting, here is another picture of the Photostat brand, in the 1950s.

                • David L says:

                  Photostat machine at University of Nevada in photograph dated 1961.

                  Caption reads, “Treasurer Carl Friesen, Potentate Harry F. Linnecke, Recorder John Hostetler, University President Charles Armstrong, who served as president from 1958-1967, and an unidentified woman pose with the new photostat machine, an early projection photocopier.”

                  It appears to be a smaller device.

                • David L says:

                  Another image of same U of Nevada photostat.

                  Caption reads, “University President Charles Armstrong, who served as president from 1958-1967, and an unidentified woman hold a piece of paper as Potentate Harry F. Linnecke of the Kerak Temple of the Shrine stands next to the new photostat machine an early projection photocopier.

                • Northland10 says:

                  David L: It appears to be a smaller device.

                  TrollJack will probably find some issue with newer models gettings smaller. Your new find of a new Photostat in the last 50’s does not help Jack’s claim that they would have replaced it in the early 60s with that new fangled Xerox.

                  I have noticed Hawaii tends to be slow on upgrading how they do their BC’s. I don’t know if they have changed anything since they issued the official BC to Obama (not the special one of the ‘long form’), but I have noticed other states do not even use a hand stamp anymore. The one I recently received from Michigan has the Registrar’s certification and signature either added when printed or pre-printed on the form. I assume the birthers would have an issue with it, but part of the security features include the request/order/afs number and the actual copy number (I had ordered 2 so I can see the red number is one digit different on each one). These new features can trace to the actual vital records department workflow.

                • David L says:

                  Miki Booth’s husband’s Hawaiian birth certhificate is from 1949 and is a photostat. So the DOH used a photostat machine in the ’40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. I’m guessing it was the same one

                • trader jack says:

                  I was a senior property appraiser for California for 24 years and started state service in 1954.
                  As a supervisor of loans in 5 different office in the state, I can not remember seeing Photostats of birth certificates , which were required by the state, in any of the loan applications submitted to those offices.
                  It might be my old age and fading memory, and none of the offices had Photostat machines in any of the offices, but we did have a lot of clerks and typists.

                • Northland10 says:

                  Trader Jack: As a supervisor of loans in 5 different office in the state, I can not remember seeing Photostats of birth certificates ,

                  It is possible that California was providing a “Certified Copy of Birth Record” where the Department of Public Health would retype the information on a separate form, from the record on file. In your office, I suspect they typists were probably using carbon paper to make multiple copies.

                  Here is a 1950s certified copy from California.
                  http://www.vintag.es/2013/07/marilyn-monroe-birth-certificate.html

                  I did find some photostats of 1920s death certificates in California so they may have used them previously.

                • David L says:

                  In a post below I described my California BC as well as my brother’s. Both are photostats.

                  Here is a certified copy of a 1955 California death certificate. It has the same format as my brother’s birth certificate (certified copy issued in 2002).

                • David L says:

                  Example of the bank note paper used by California.

                • David L says:

                  Donald Trump’s photostat of his birth certificate.

                • David L says:

                  1958 California death certificate photostat.

            • Yes, a photostat machine was essentially a big camera. It made a full sized negative copy on photo paper. Some of the photos that Kevin Vicklund posted showed a glass plate was placed over the original book.

              If you look carefully at the birth certificates you can see the shadow of the certification slip of paper that was probably placed on the top of the glass.

              The shadow is lighter of course because it is a negative image. It shows on the Nordyke certificates too. It even is curved at the edge because original in the binder is curved. The curvature of the shadow is more pronounced because the light is coming from below and not from the focal point of the lens.

  15. trader jack says:

    I really don’t know if they have filed the complete birth record on not in the original or made copies of the whole thing.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      So you finally admit that you have no evidence for your five years of claiming that the HDoH was lying about how the original records were kept and how they made certified copies?

      Progress.

      • trader jack says:

        I have never stated that I thought the HDOH was lying about how original records are kept, I have said the birth certificate does not appear to be an accurate copy of what is in the record. And I have never questioned the certification copying process I have said that the subject certification does not appear to be the quality of the other certification shown on other bc’s

        • Which birth certificate? President Obama’s? What’s wrong with the certification?

          • trader jack says:

            Ah, thats is a question , is it not.
            First the certification says it is an abstract or a copy of the documetn on file
            that is , in my opinion, makes the certification in valid as they do not say it is true copy of the document, Ergo, it could be an abstract, and abstract are different than copies and the word indicates it does not contain all of the birth information on the document.
            Further, the document did not have the full name of the mother printed on the document, al though it was signed with her full name.
            Next, the document does not state hen it was filed, , but does say when it was accepted, It is supposed to show the filing date on the document, but perhaps you believe that being accepted is the save as being filed
            The registration stamp and signature have defects in them that might indicate improper handling,

            • Oh, so you are just playing word games with Hawaii’s standard wording on vital records. Now I see.

              • Northland10 says:

                Trolljack has to troll.

              • I am also not sure where there is a regulation anywhere that states “the registrar’s stamp shall always be in pristine condition such that a certificate may be scanned and have the image compressed the crap out of it for display on the Internet without introduction of any anomalies that conspiracy nuts will use to question the validity of the certificate.”

                I’ve looked in both federal and state regs and I haven’t found it yet.

                • trader jack says:

                  Aand you won’t because once that is done to the bc, it is no longer a certified copy that is being shown on the web.
                  A picture of a certified copy is not a certified copy, and all of the supposed compression and OCR, resizing, modification makes any analysis of the accuracy of the document difficult.
                  This combimed with the ability of the agency to issue document that are almost completely fake makes accepance of documents difficult.
                  Polland made a complete copy of the document with one small difference and it is otherwise accurate copy

                • tbfreeman says:

                  “A picture of a certified copy is not a certified copy”

                  And only birthers argue otherwise.

                  “all of the supposed compression and OCR, resizing, modification makes any analysis of the accuracy of the document difficult.”

                  Only difficult to someone untrained, such as yourself.

                  “This combimed with the ability of the agency to issue document that are almost completely fake”

                  That’s also a total lie, but why stop when you are on a roll?

                  “Polland made a complete copy of the document with one small difference and it is otherwise accurate copy”

                  Proving only that Polland may have a budding career as a forger.

              • trader jack says:

                Standard wording must meet the standards set for authentiddity
                The fact that Hawaii says it meets the standards for prima facie, does not mean that the docueent is true.
                Remember that they can certify a dcoument that does not have the birth father or mother on the document, and still certify that the mother is the birth mother even when the dhild has been adopted.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  The document is presumed true until proven otherwise by competent evidence.

                  Your serial lies, misdirections, false conclusions, and plain ole ramblings are proof only of a troll with too much free time.

            • David L says:

              “Further, the document did not have the full name of the mother printed on the document, al though it was signed with her full name.”

              WTF?

              Box 13. Full Maiden Name of Mother

              Do you not understand what a “maiden” name is?

            • By the way, the certified copy issued in 2007 is perfectly valid. You cannot dispute that.

              • trader jack says:

                Which one do you mean, the one with nno folds, the one with one fold , or the one with two folds, or the one that was made by Pollandd and used by factcheck

                Take your pick as they are all suspicious

                • The one the state of Hawaii issued.

                • Still pushing the lie that factcheck used Ron Polland’s image? Yes we get it any document that a black guy has is suspicious to you jack.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  “Which one do you mean, the one with nno folds, the one with one fold , or the one with two folds”

                  trader jack is too dumb to entertain the idea that Hawaii may have issued more than one copy.

                • trader jack says:

                  OH, yeah, I agree with you that the HDOH may have issued extra copies of everything about Obama, and ink their attempt to make hism sieem to have a normal life as an Kenyan in America.

                • Hawaii issued documents to individuals who requested them and were authorized to receive them under Hawaii statutes. How is that anything sinister?

                • trader jack says:

                  oh there nothing wrong with HDOH except for the fact that they hide stuff from the public, or employees, by hiding stuff in safes that only one or two people can access. Best place to keep secrets I guess.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  There is nothing unusual about Hawaii making multiple copies of its records; there is no only-one-copy-at-a-time rule.

                  The only thing unusual is how your delusion leads you to obsessively spam off-topic lies.

                • Northland10 says:

                  When I decided I should probably have a new certified copy of my birth record (to use Michigan’s wording), I decided to order 2 in case I need to actually give someone a certified copy, I would have an extra (not that I have actually needed to use one in the last 25 years).

                  As it happens, the one place I would need it would be on a passport application, but they want you to give them a black and white copy of the certified copy, for the records. I was assuming they would want to see the certified copy at the time of application. It’s moot since they will probably end up using my expired passport.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  There is no indication that Hawaii is hiding anything. Just more lies from the perpetually off topic spamming troll.

  16. I checked my birth certificate. I have a certified copy from 1979 (from another state, not Hawaii). I was out of college by that time. I ordered the copy for a passport application. It was a positive image otherwise made in a similar way to the ones from Hawaii posted here. It appears the original was placed underneath a frame with the with certification and date of the copy on the bottom portion of the overlay. The original was shifted to the left and down so I cannot see the binder curvature and it also cut off half of the bottom boxes of the certificate.

    I seem to recall that I used to have another copy from the 1960’s and it was a negative photostat. It probably was left at my Mom’s place. I think I needed one to enter college.

    • David L says:

      I have two certified copies of California birth certificates (mine and my brothers).

      Mine was issued in 1982 when I needed a passport. It is on white, plain paper with a registrar stamp that is dated August 2 1982 and with an ink, stamped seal (not embossed). The birth information section is a photostatic copy of the original birth certificate.

      My brother’s certified copy of his certificate was issued in 2002. It is on white security paper (fancy engraved border and background), the birth information is a photostatic copy of the original birth certificate. There is an embossed seal.

  17. Pingback: The crazy cast of characters at the Post & Email | RC Radio Blog

  18. Pingback: Climate change: Deniers call for an end to stupidity. Sounds good to us. - Red, Green, and Blue

  19. Rondeau blocked me on Twitter. It is an honor to be blocked by such traitorous scum as Rondeau.

    • jho@sonic.net says:

      I guess I have more honor than you, as I have been blocked from more sites.

      How do you like the BS going on now with all of the law suits and charge and strange things happening DOJ

      Trader Jack

      Sent from Windows Mail

      • Lol you’ve never had honor Jack. BS going on at DOJ? There’s more proof to support the Mueller investigation than there ever was with the birther stuff.

      • What are you talking about?

      • The difference though is I got banned for pointing out Sharon’s lies and inconsistencies and posting facts.

        • trader jack says:

          and that is what I got banned for, no one wants to believe their fact are not facts,
          but it is nice to see you are still alive although you never believed I was 95 years old
          Trader Jack

          • I disagree. I questioned that you were 95 but I bothered to check and accepted it when the facts supported that conclusion. Fewer than a handful of Birthers have ever accepted plain facts.

        • trader jack says:

          there is one f fact that no one of the supporters have accepted, and that is that HDOH issues certified birth certificates that are not true in fact.
          And you all think that someone has to prove that something is wrong, whereas , if the acceptance of the document is at the will of the acceptor, based upon whether the acceptor believes the document submitted. Just as when you receive a fake $100 bill, you refuse to accept it

          But that is human nature, and not political beliefs
          You questioned my statement as to my age, for no other reason that I disagree with the statements on the blog.. What would you call that decision?

          Y

          • Still making that stupid argument? It’s called false equivalency. If the US Treasury issued multiple letters attesting to the fact that my $100 bill was genuine I would have you arrested if you refused to accept it as legal tender. (I am kidding of course because I don’t think the law requires that anyone accept cash. However, you would have a hell of a time getting me to pay you $100 any other way. )

            There are so few 95 year old people who use a computer so it was logical to question your age. I found your call sign from your email address and from that confirmed your age.

            • trader jack says:

              Oh, I am glad that you stated you were kidding, as many people will not accept genuine $100 bills and demand payment by other means. Some won’t accept cash at all.Because there are so many fake bills around is some areas.

              And you are aware of the fact, yes, indeed , fact, that information on birth records are sometimes absolutely untrue as the state is allowed to issue such documents in cases of a adoption where the information is completely untrue as the birth parents.

              Oh, hell, I know that you will say that I have to prove that is the case in this bc, but, you also know that that can not be done by anyone.
              My biggest problem is I have never seen a certified bc that said it was an abstract or copy of the document, which leaves the viewer of the document to wonder which it is and why it is not just a direct copy.
              Now, today, it is so easy to photoshop something that I am always wondering whether the pictures or information are actually true

              Have a good day, and we both realize it doesn’t matter anyway.

              • You’ve said before that you have an issue with Hawaii’s standard wording on certified copies of birth certificates. It’s been explained to you but you refuse to understand the explanation. That seems to be your problem.

                • trader jack says:

                  How can a person not have issues with a State that will issue a certified copy of a birth record when they know that the information on the parents are not true?
                  That is what the HDOH does when a child is adopted.

                  There are birth certificates shown on these blogs that have “copy or abstract” in the certification, except this particular one issue the Barack Obama.

                  And no other birth certificate shows that printer changed the dpi in the middle of a word.
                  At least none that have been posted.

                  And no other certifier shows the e in the first letter of the signature

                  But believers believe, don’t they

                • Trader Jack wrote:

                  “And no other birth certificate shows that printer changed the dpi in the middle of a word.
                  At least none that have been posted.”

                  Go look at the AP photo of the copy of the LFBC and tell me if it changes DPI in the middle of a word. It doesn’t of course. The change in DPI is because the Xerox scan to PDF did that as I have explained in a series of articles here. The Xerox WorkCentre compresses documents by using algorithms that produce layers with two different resolutions. The background JPG is at 1/2 the resolution of the foreground text monochrome layers. Therefore, if part of a word happened to be touching the form it could be included in the lower resolution background layer. That is exactly what happened in the WH PDF scan to email. I have also posted my scans here that show the same thing happening.

                  “And no other certifier shows the e in the first letter of the signature”

                  It’s not an “e” it’s an “A”. Again look at the AP photo.

                  “But believers believe, don’t they”

                  Oh the irony.

                • trader jack says:

                  Amazing, indeed, that you would consider a copy of a photo the same as the document issued by the whitehouse.
                  I have never considered that a document that has been phot0ed, and run through another computer and printer , has any value at all.
                  But , believers believe, even when it is a document that is not an copy of a certified copy.

                  Now you are saying you can not believe that a printer prints correctly from the input of a document.

                  Actually, but, perhaps, I am in error, it looks as though the form is at higher resolution than some of the other stuff

                  But I will check again.

                • trader jack says:

                  you say it is an A I said it was an E, but it turns out under magnification that is a smiley face, which makes it even more interesting.
                  As to the R in Barak, I think it was a different ink that was not as black
                  Some of the inserted in formation is higher resolution then the back ground, interesting enough, I seem to see some ghost writing in the safety paper above the Hawaiian word in the title.

                • trader jack says:

                  AMENDMENTS
                  Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amendment?

                  An original entry on a birth, death, civil union, marriage, or divorce certificate may be amended by either the private request of an individual or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. An amendment includes changes, corrections, additions, deletions, or substitutions.

                  How to Apply for an Amendment

                  An amendment may be made upon application, but only with the submission of required documentary evidence in support of the amendment. The evidentiary requirements can differ, depending on whether the amendment is court-ordered or, if requested by an individual, whether it materially affects the validity and integrity of the record.

                  In most cases, a fee of $3 is charged for each request for amendment of an item or group of items on a given certificate.

                  Once an amendment of an item is made, that item will not be amended again without a court order or, if a person’s name is to be changed, without a change of name decree

                  That is the HDOH requirements, Very Stringent,.is it not

                • tbfreeman says:

                  traderjack continues with his completely wrong assumptions about birth certificates in general and Hawaii’s specifically. And like ike, traderjack refuses to accept the State of Hawaii’s express certifications and verifications. traderjack has all these unfounded fears about possibilities in which Obama’s birth certificate might be inaccurate, but he continues to not provide any evidence that might show any basis in reality for his fears.

                • traderjack says:

                  A certification simply states that the certification indicates that it is a true copy of the document certified. It makes no statement about the contents of the document. You will note, but you probably won’t, that it simple states that it is referring to a different document that has been filed
                  that document may be true or it may be false, Especially as the document being referred to was completed and the information entered on-to is what someone else believes or thinks or avers, or attests to the information.

                  The state of Hawaii has never disclosed the information on the original document as the original may have been completed by people whom are not privy to the real facts, or have been sealed by court order.

                  Now I will happy to learn from you how a Hawaiian birth certificate differs , in particular, from other USA birth certificate, and how it can be an abstract or a copy at the same time.
                  And, as an side, how come it was never filed? As being “accepted” usually means that it appears to be adequate that some but additional information might be needed before it can be “filed”

                • More ridiculous speculation based on zero evidence on your part. What do the other contemporary Hawaiian birth certificates say on them? Date accepted or date filed? How about Johanna Ah’nee’s or the Nordykes’ certificates? Do they say filed or accepted? You have to answer that question before making another comment. If you change the subject I will delete the comment.

                  What a stupid comment. The Obama certificate is in a bound volume in the HDOH records and this moron questions whether it was ever filed! This is so typical of the stupid, vacuous Birther arguments.

                • trader jack says:

                  Of course they all say accepted, because they have to be accepted before a number is assigned and before filing.
                  That is why thee is so much problem with acceptance and filing numbers. and why the number don’t match the acceptance dates
                  surely you figured it out before this.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  traderjack’s continuing, intentional ignorance about how birth certificates operate in the reality-based world belie, that for his “concerns,” there is no evidence that President Obama was born anywhere else other than in Hawaii under the circumstances described in his birth certificate.

                  And isn’t “curious” that traderjack has absolutely no “concerns” about, for example, the current president’s birth certificate. No one has ever seen the “information on the original document” (whatever that word salad means). Maybe it was “completed by people [who] are not privy to the real facts”?

                • trader jack says:

                  Of course there is other evidence he was born otherwise, A statesman in the Kenya Legislature recorded that comment in the legislature, a Kenyan birth certificate, one or two of them, were published, and a letter from a minister visiting in Kenya, wrote that Ann Dunham flew back with her to the United States in Aug 1961
                  So,, your statement is false, you just chose to believe that it can not possible as BARACK says so
                  I don’t know if one is any better than the other, although most dismiss them as it does not agree with what they personally belief

                  Beliefs are hard to amend or change, just like religion.
                  You free to make your own decision , even when you are wrong,

                  Basically my problem is the bc, and not when or where he was born.
                  as even he may not know where or when he was born

                • So Trader Jack admits there is nothing at all unusual about the fact that Obama’s BC says “accepted”. It’s on every birth certificate from the same era. That’s a good start. No, there is nothing wrong with the numbering either. That is a discredited argument.

                • trader jack says:

                  Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

                  Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

                  Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.

                  Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.
                  In 1961, the birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospitals.

                  Instead, the numbers were stamped to the birth record by the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu.

                  yep, there is nothing wrong with the numbers, except they to reset the date stamp to match the earlier bc..

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Ah’Nee was born almost three weeks after Obama and the Nordykes but her number is lower than theirs.

                  Numbers were added at the end of the month by the DOH after the certificates were separated by geographic region and alphabetized by last name.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  “A statesman in the Kenya Legislature recorded that comment in the legislature, a Kenyan birth certificate, one or two of them, were published, and a letter from a minister visiting in Kenya”

                  A statement by random legislator is not proof of a birth; legislators put lies into the record all the time (e.g., the Congressional Record). A letter from some random minister (if such a letter even exists) also is not proof of a birth. You couldn’t register a child for Little League with a letter or a legislative record!

                  And there is no “Kenyan birth certificate”: Just a forgery peddled by a convicted forger who can’t prove that he even was in Kenya. That traderjack believes a forger’s wares is just as good as a duly certificated government record, which would be accepted anywhere, only shows how shows how dishonest he is.

                  And “accepted” and “filed” are synonymous: the long form says “accepted” and the short form says “filed.” But, just like how is wrong about the batch certification numbers, traderjack just loves to tell the same ole lies about Hawaiian birth certificates.

                  But, hey, traderjack is free to continue believing that his non-facts are facts. Just no one is buying.

                  And for all of traderjacks “concerns” about birth certificates, he continues to show no doubt about the current president’s original documents, despite having never seen them.

                • trader jack says:

                  Heck, there is no proof of anything about the problem being discussed! There is evidence, nothing more.
                  As to taken statements at face value, that is done all over these blogs. Look at all of the evidence , or against , and try to find something that is proof of anything.

                  Because, dear friends, proof is in the minds of the readers who look at the evidence, and there is little evidence that is proof worthy.
                  The Certified Copy or Abstract is one or the other, and no one knows which it is
                  There fore the information is completely accurate or limited in information as to what is in the document
                  The Issuer of the certified copy has , with complete legal right, to issue document that are truthful only the fact that a child was born at that time or place, nothing else, as that is all the doctor asserts in his statement. Ergo, the doctor does not know that the other information on the docment is true or false.
                  You all believe that a doctor said the he participated in a birth procedure where Stanley gave birth to a child. you believe Mrs. Nordyke was in the hospital at the same time as the Obama birth.
                  You believe that the person who found the Kenyan bc forged it , and you can no longer prove it was forged than that was not forged. You believe that Dunham and Obama were legally married because she said so, You believe Obama had a childhood relationship with Obama sr, because Obama said so.

                  accepted and filed are not synonymous, as I can file my tax form and it might not be accepted. But, it would be accurate to say I submitted by tax form, and it was accepted, but not filed as I forgot to sign them.

                  Try to find out what is true or false and not believe people who are trying to sell you something. Never take advice that might have an inherent bias.
                  I know as much about Trump as I do about Obama as I do not know where either of them were born and I can not tell anything about Trump’s birth certificate as I have never seen it.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  traderjack is hopelessly lost in his little world where he can’t evaluate sources’ credibility: to him, some random person saying something on the internet is just as valid as a duly certified government document that is legal proof accepted everywhere. Fortunately for the rest of the world, there are laws, processes, and procedures to validate the confidence to be given to information.

                  Hawaii’s birth certificates literally use “filed” and “accepted” interchangeably. But traderjack lies and said they have legally distinct meanings when the HDOH uses those terms. It is this kind of dishonesty that people use to evaluate credibility, and to conclude that traderjack has none.

                  Traderjack is the worst kind of concern troll: a boring one. But I eagerly await his efforts to remove the current president, as traderjack has no idea if he’s really a U.S. citizen.

                • trader jack says:

                  And, the sign of a losing discussion is to say that the other side is a troll, and has no honest
                  Just another Democrat I guess.
                  Oh, I have an idea that Trump is an American Citizen, because if he wasn’t the DOJ would be all over the world with the news,

          • That’s how things work Jack. You’re the one making the accusation. The onus is on you to prove it. Thus far you’ve never provided any proof that the birth certificate was fake or that the DOH lied. All you’ve done is repeat over and over the same discredited nonsense you’ve pushed since your days on the Amazon boards.

            • trader jack says:

              I know that the HDOH did not lie when they said that it was a “copy or abstract” of the document filed in the files of the Hawaiian Department of Health. It is a copy of a document created by some one else, submitted to them as written, and the HDOH has no further information about the original document.
              But like any document certified it is subject to challenge as the veracity of the information contained upon the document
              It says they were married, and there is no marriage record of file, so they claim they were married in some other form or another, which might be true.
              The little difficulties with the printing or copy of the original document is, to me, quite strange, as most done digitally are very accurately
              You look at the Nordyke copies which are much more accurately copied and wonder why copies especially requested by the President of the USA and start to wonder how such a sloppy copy would be issued to such a high ranking individual.
              But, hey, believe as you wish, I care less.

              Just as an aside, I had a pleasant night one time with a female member of the Pogue family a long time ago in San Diego. LOL

              • tbfreeman says:

                “But like any document certified it is subject to challenge as the veracity of the information contained upon the document”

                It has been 10 years, and traderjack still has no credible information to “challenge” the veracity of Obama’s source documents. And traderjack has no information about the current president’s source documents, yet has no “concerns.”

              • So again you have no proof that Obama’s Birth certificate is a forgery?

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh, and Obama Sr, passport has different birth dates on them First was 34 , second was 36, so which is correct, or do you not believe the passports pictures.

  20. trader jack says:

    You see how easy it is to let your mind confuse things, You could not believe I was 95 because I was disputing your positions, If I had said I was 18 you would not have taken the action to check my age. Hey, you understand I don’t take offense at anything people say, because in 95 years I have been called everything possible, unless , someone makes up a new vitriolic noun.

    lol

    • trader jack says:

      Some people do not believe the DOJ, The FBI, The attorneys of the world , the church the bible and then get upset because I choose not to believe HDOH when it issues a Certified document and then refuses to say it is a copy or a document or an abstract of a document.
      As to credible evidence , you refuse to believe anything that conflicts with your beliefs
      It Is kind of like the Kenyan BC, which everyone refuses to believe in because it couldn’t possible be true, as the purveyor of the document at one time had trouble with checks an was convicted of a crime.
      The background of the supplier of a document should be considered but it should have no effect upon the consideration of the document for accuracy.
      The errors in that document has the same type of errors that is on the HdOH form

      And as they are copies of a document you should always consider the possibility of fraud and not just say one is true and the other is not true.
      No one of us, or other posters have ever seen an original of either document, so they should both be considered possible of being fraudulently issued.

      • No people don’t believe the Kenyan fake because it was created by a convicted forger who tried to sell it on ebay. Because said convicted forger couldn’t get the date format right, the hospital administrator’s name right, the right administrator, Obama’s father’s birthdate and used a clipart image for the footprint. That and the administrator listed on the document has denied ever issuing it. It’s not true because the entity involved has denied it was ever issued or that one existed in kenya for Obama. There are no error on the Hawaii certificate let alone “same type of errors”.

        So again you have no proof the Obama birth certificate for Hawaii is fake?

        • trader jack says:

          The date is correct , as shown father’ s passport where the signer was day, month , and year, and the birth day of Dunham was month,day, and year. Government official usage confirmed usage of day, month and year.
          There goes you first point
          You can not challenge a certification regardless of what the signatures or names are unless you can prove it false, Now it well be, but that is why the have certifications.
          Names of other parties are not shown on this document and may or may not be accurate.

          another point lost

          Next we get to footprint, unable to confirm source of footprint whether clipart or original as original might have been converted to clipart to cause doubt on document.
          questionable

          Never seen a document from Kenyan Government denying authenticity, but might be true,
          but whether the document would be true or not might be questionable as governments do strange things to protect politicians
          Kenyan document has signature on cert, actual, HDOH has rubber stamp
          I don’t know if it is true or false,
          Did you read LDS letters to the Congress, and his court documents

          • Mark Bellison says:

            For the mother, the Smith birth certificate shows month, day, year but only the year for the father. At the time Smith put the document up for sale, the month and day of Obama’s father birthday were not publically known.

            Heltan Maganga was not the Chief Administrator on the date the Smith document was signed. He became Chief Administrator in April, 2009. He also spelled his first name Heltan not Helton according to his Linkedin webpage.

            https://ke.linkedin.com/in/heltan-maganga-1b898027

            So where could did Smith have gotten his info? In June, 2009 a Kenya newspaper article about a cholera outbreak mentioned Chief Administrator of the Coast General Hospital Helton Maganga.

            https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/1144017299/cholera-kills-eight-20-taken-ill-at-the-coast

            • trader jack says:

              BHO sr. birth day are different on the two passports. Both methods of using the date were used on the birth certificate and were both used in thatc country if you look at the Passports, both methods are used.
              You used the phrasing asking where LDS go the birth date assuming therefore that he put it in the birth certificate. There is no evidence that he touched the bc, before it was certified.
              Helton, or Heltan, signed the certificate with the name stated in the certification, why would he do that if it was not his real name.
              Signing certificates is sometimes assigned to a clerk, when authorized by state, such as using in rubber stamp instead of a signature

              I do not support any of the support, I just point out errors when others make them
              Did you read his court depositions where he explains how he got the darn thing and why and when he was there.
              Did you read his letters to Congress?

              • Mark Bellison says:

                You misunderstand the date issue.

                For the mother the format is mm/dd/yyyy

                For the father the format is yyyy

                He does not list a month or a year. Ever see a certificate without the month and the day for a DOB? Smith could not know what the father’s birthday was because it was not public information in June, 2009.

                Both Heltan Maganga’s written signature and rubber stamp printed name are misspelled.

                He was not the Chief Administrator in February, 2009 when Smith allegedly obtained the paper.

                Kenya birth certificates do not use this format even today they use the British format of entries in columns.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  That should read “He does not list a month or a day.”

                • trader jack says:

                  now you are asserting that you know the sex of the person who typed the original document that is known as LDS Kenyan BC?
                  How could you be aware of that, or are you making the assumption that LDS typed the document while he was in Kenya?

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  The Chief Administrator in April, 2009 was Dr. Othigo, not Dr. Maganga. Dr. Maganga could not have stamped the Smith paper as the chief administrator.

                  https://www.nation.co.ke/InDepth/-/452898/560148/-/tqw6oqz/-/index.html

                • trader jack says:

                  What do you mean he COULD not have stamped the paper? That is a determinative statement. Actually what you mean is that it is a possibility that the document stamping may have been done by someone other that Dr. Maganga . Government workers has all sorts of ways ot get signatures on documents. If Othigo was not there , do you think that all work ceases.
                  It appears that the document was stamped and sealed by someone and the signature verifies the document.
                  Onaka”s signature was rubber stamped and no-one can prove it was his hand that put the certification on birth certificate.
                  It proves or disproves nothing.

                • trader jack says:

                  And if take the time to examinee the Passport pictures of Obama , Sr.l you will find that the date of the passport is month, day, an year, but the signature of the approval of the passport is day, month ,and year.
                  That indicates that both ways of dating were used in the Kenyan government so it is a non-factor in determining validity of a Kenyan document, That was in 1059 an the same thing ot the 1964 passport

                  If the document is authentic, and I do not know one way or the other, the day of birth of the father shown man not have been known as the father was in the USA at the time, and the mother may not hve known the complete birthday of the named father, only what had been told to her by the father. named on the birth certificate.
                  The dispute on the dating was never based upon the date of birth of the father as it is indisputable as 1936 on that document, but his first passport was 1934,
                  The dispute was simply on the day, month, year, versus month day and year shown in the documents.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Now you are simply being stupid.

                  The rubber stamp on the Smith paper says,

                  Helton Maganga
                  Chief Administrator

                  And there is a stamped date of Feb 19, the day Smith says he got the paper from the hospital.

                  HELTAN MAGANGA WAS NOT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR IN FEBRUARY, 2009

                  I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you.

                • trader jack says:

                  So you say,but you can present no evidence ow who was chief aminstrator at the time, whereas you know Magamga was administrator in 1909, but you don’t know when he took over from the lady
                  You just want it to be true that he was appointed after the bc date.
                  Even more interesting you assume that somehow LDS knew he would be appointed to the postion after Othiga , or what her name was left, and had a print stamp made up showing the future chief administrator
                  Heck it is ok to thing things like that just as I can think the Onaka did not sign the Hawaiian bc as it is a rubber stamp, with defects n the stampl
                  Believe what you want
                  I just point out inconsistencies in argument

                • Trader Jack, in addition to being the oldest Birther, may also be the densest. I’s hard to to measure something that dense though.

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh, you just have to sharper. the date stuff is trivial an mean nothing ,, if you look at Seniors passport you will see they just both date formats, in you look at the date stamp, I don’t think I have ever seen one that starts with day, goes to month , and then to year.
                  You say that Othigo was chief administrator in April and that has nothing to do with February, there has nothing posted that shows who was chief administrator in Feb.
                  You attribute too much ability to LDS to think that he can forge that document in 9 days and have it listed on ebay after Magamga was CA, and during that time he creates a date stamp,learns the signature of Maganga,, writes in with good handwriting, learns the signatures on the doctor and and the takes a picture of it with a bunch of natives,.

                  Worrying about a first name variation, when it has been shown that it is spelled both ways is not very productive

                • trader jack says:

                  No it is not hard , you just have to be sharper. lOL
                  The date stuff, is trivial as Obama’s statement that he had long experience as a child with his father
                  which is not under consideration
                  How could he have known what a Kenyan bc looks like, as I don’t seem to be able to find one on Google Have you found a different one on Google
                  Every one except me seems to think he was never in Kenya and therefore must be disbelieved

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Again with more stupidity.

                  April 13th, 2009

                  Newspaper article says the Chief Administrator of Coast General Hospital is Jennifer Othigo.

                  June 19th, 2009

                  Newspaper article says Chief Administrator is Helton [sic] Maganga.

                  June 27, 2009

                  Smith’s Kenya birth certificate appears on E-bay as item number 16034492806.

                • trader jack says:

                  The date of the certification is feb 19 2009, now how, if LDS was forging it, know that Maganga would be in that position in June 19, 2009, You think he is seer or something
                  And I notice that the newspaper said it as Helton ,not Heltan,
                  So the newspaper destroyed one of your positions an the ability to foretell the future destroys the other.
                  Look, I don’t know what the problems are with this thing. The LDS file a court document and swore it was true, he submitted it to all of Congress swearing to the truth of the document and no one answered him, or reported him to FBI for false statements to Congress
                  And now his half brother showed the Kenyan bc, and it was touted around the Nairobi college last year.
                  They believe it, the Minister o Lands believed it, and the document exists.
                  So some believe and others doubt, and the doubters are Democrats LOL

                  And they all believe the government will never tell lies or frame people. The wonder is why is LDS still alive

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Here is another newspaper from January 2nd, 2009. It also says that the Chief Administrator Coast General Hospital was Jennifer Othigo.

                  https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/1144003097/pumwani-records-16-births-at-new-year

                  So timeline is now:

                  January 2nd, 2009
                  Chief Administrator is Jennifer Othigo

                  April 13th, 2009
                  Chief Administrator is Jennifer Othigo

                  June 19th, 2009
                  Chief Administrator is Helton [sic] Maganga

                  June 27th, 2009
                  Smith posts his paper on E-bay with the misspelled name.

                  Smith doesn’t Need to be a seer, he just needs to know how to use Google.

                • trader jack says:

                  /what you all do not seem to understand is that a named administrator is not always present or available to sign documents , due to the fact that the might be at a meeting, sick, or on vacation, or otherwise not be available
                  there is always someone available who can sign things for the boss if it is a fairly routine operation, and many bosses assign simple jobs to aids, just like the President does not sign all the letters sent from the White House, as they have machine signers , etc.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Once again you ignore any evidence that does not fit your bias.

                  Othigo was Chief Administrator in January, 2009 as the newspaper article clearly says. And in April as the other newspaper article clearly says.

                  Provide independent evidence that Maganga was CA in February, 2009 since the newspapers clearly show that Othigo was the CA in January and April, 2009.

                • trader jack says:

                  Very easy, Othigo assigned mganga to handle the certifications as they were not significant enough for her to put here name on. after all she signed the birth certificate and you can not certify your own work, in government service. So he had to sign an certify those birth that she assisted as a doctor.
                  So, he had a separate stamp to certify those birth where she as performing doc.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  “after all she signed the birth certificate and you can not certify your own work, in government service. So he had to sign an certify those birth that she assisted as a doctor.”

                  Serious question for you.

                  Are you on hallucinogenic drugs?

                  Othigo got her medical degree in 1977. She was maybe nine or ten years old in 1961.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  “the President does not sign all the letters sent from the White House, as they have machine signers , etc.”

                  This stupidity on so many different levels.

                  Oh, according to Smith, Chief Administrator Dr. Othigo was present at the hospital when he was there. From Smith’s blog:

                  “I remember talking with doctor Othigo on 19th day of February, 2009 while I was physically present at the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. I knew that she was a member of the administrative staff at CPGH but I had no personal knowledge of her acting as, or not acting as, the Chief Administrator of CPGH on that specific day.”

                • trader jack says:

                  even better now you use LDS statements to confirm that Othigo was there when most of the posters say he wasn’t there at all.
                  Well , that shows that you believe he was there, you just don’t believe he got a brith certificate at that time.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Smith’s statement proves the ridiculousness of your speculations.

                  You can’t have both Othigo was there and a non-Chief Administrator signed and stamped the paper.

                  It is now up to you to prove Dr. Maganga signed or stamped any birth certificates before he became Chief Administrator.

                • Sorry Joker Jack but Maganga has denied ever signing it. So your claim that Othigo had Maganga sign it is nonsense. He also wouldn’t have the power to sign as “Chief Administrator” the fact is Lucas lied. He didn’t bother scouring articles to find out who the hospital administrator was at the time and made a mistake. Just as he made plenty of other mistakes on his forgery. Such as only having a birth year for Obama’s father.

                • Mark, Lucas only claimed that he met Othigo after he got caught in his lie on his forgery about who the chief administrator was. After it was pointed out to him that Maganga wasn’t there when he claimed he traveled there. It was Lucas again trying to backpedal his lies. Jack is so gullible he pushes them.

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh, well, you seem to forget the Obama Sr.. was born in a tribal society, and , as evident in the birth dates used by him, might never have had a birth certificate. and who ever filled out the basic information, especially if Obama Sr. was not present would take the latest age statement that was used on his passport issued by Kenya. Or do you deny that Obama Sr. lied about his age when applying for his passport Although it might be possible that he actually found out he was younger than he thought he was,
                  But, then again, Grandma was there when Obama was born and may have used the year and not the date.

                • trader jack says:

                  It was never pointed out to LDS that Maganga was not there, it was pointed out that Othiga was named as the Chief Administrator, but that does not mean that Maganga was not there, just that as he signed as Chief Administrator that the claim might be in error
                  It is important to be accurate in your statements. Not one of us knows whether Othiga or Maganga were there only that LDS said that Othiga was there, and the document says the Maganga was there, so it is possible that both were there or not there If one of those statements is true then all the statements are true.
                  Now the problem is that LDS is the only one who said those things, and that leads to the possible support for all of his statements.

                  What fun.
                  LOL

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Pogue,

                  In remember that – he didn’t know about the January/April 2009 newspaper articles that named Othigo as the Chief Administrator (she lists that position on her LinkedIn profile and the date 2007 to 2009). So he made that part up after never mentioning her before.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  “just that as he signed as Chief Administrator that the claim might be in error”

                  To be accurate the claim is that Maganga signed it and stamped it with a stamp that identified him as the Chief Administrator, a position he did not hold at the time.

                  To clarify one point – Dr. Maganga began work at CPGH in April, 2008 and works there to this day. But he did not become the Chief Administrator until some tiem after April 13th, 2009.

                • trader jack says:

                  And the other thing you need to do in life Is not believe all of the lies people tell to protect their beliefs of political positions.
                  Hell, I don’t know if he was convicted of forging government document, or just forging checks, or drivers licenses
                  It takes skill to fake government documents, so you must think he has the ability to fake government documents.
                  Ok, that is possible.
                  But there is no way, in my opinion , that an American can go to a country like Kenya , and set up a forging operation that can assemble all of the necessary document and information to do that birth certificate
                  He has to assemble the signature of the doctor create a stamp with the name of Helton Maganga, , get a blank copy of the bc, create the signature or Maganga, and assemble it all in the time after Maganga was appointed CA

                  It is more possible that he was scammed by the hospital staff who forged it and sold it to him
                  Which do you think is more possible
                  Do you think him that good or do you believe the Kenyans more liable to scam an American’

                  It is just like all of the scams in the world, isn’t it
                  Fake goods sold as true goods, and people fall for it.

                  You have to believe that LDS thinks it is true based upon his actions
                  Posting it on ebay and selling it there would expose him to great risk financially if found to be fake.
                  Testifying in court should have been allowed to determine the validity of the copy, but the powers did not want to test the truth of the documents if they could keep it out of court.
                  He submitted it to the government and congress and no one came forth and said it tested to be a fake, they didn’t want to expose it one way or the other especially with all of the politicians who needed it to be fake, but couldn’t take the chance of it not being fake
                  It is strange that not one of the documents has been tested by Government for authenticity

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Your faulty assumptions are that Smith would have to travel to Kenya to create a forgery. That this is a government document even though it looks like no other Kenya certificate of birth registration. That it is Helton [sic] Maganga’s signature without producing other copies of his signature to compare it too. That Smith could not buy a six-line hand stamp.

                  https://www.simplystamps.com/6-line-custom-rubber-stamp

                  The reality is that Smith could have generated this entire document without leaving his living room.

                • trader jack says:

                  Of course he could , as you just stated, but , also, HDOH could have faked their document
                  The question is not if it could have been done, but was it done.
                  there is less evidence of an improperly done masterpiece, which most people saw the defects right away, where-as LDS’s bc you had to get into information not on the document itself

                  But, perhaps,KENYA had a better printner than the Whitehouse

                • trader jack says:

                  I am wondering if you are using birth registration as a descriptive term to limit the consideration that a record of birth might be completely different then the registration certificate
                  It must be obvious tp you that if a midwife can submit a record of birth it would not look like a birth registration certificate.

                • Nice excuses Jack. Lucas filled in the birth year because he didn’t know the birthdate that Obama Sr used. Just as he got the health administrator wrong. Lucas is a piss poor researcher and terrible at his scams.

                • trader jack says:

                  No one on this board knows
                  Obama sr. birth day has he has shown two different days as shown on his passports
                  Oh, LDS forged the passports tooLOL

                • Maganga wouldn’t spell his own name wrong and wouldn’t say he was chief administrator like it says on Lucas’ forgery. Maganga also said he didn’t sign it and the hospital never issued such a document. Lucas lied and you keep making excuses. Do you have any proof whatsoever that the HDOH put fake information on the BC Jack? Any proof whatsoever?

                • trader jack says:

                  As HDOH does not put any information on the record of birth as to the facts of the birth than they can say whatever they want to say on the birth certificate as they have the legal right to amend , correct , modify , the birth record, and then issue a birth certificate that states it is a true copy of the birth recoord

                • I’ll ask you once again Jack do you have any proof the Hawaii BC is a fake? Do you have any proof it was “amended, corrected or modified”?

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh, for heaven’s sake, Pogue, you know that no one can see the original, except for the HDOH employees, so no one c an verify that the information on the bc is true information,
                  Only the original birth record can verify the truth of the information on the bc, and even that can not be sufficient to satisfy the believers.
                  When you trust a pdf of a document that has layers, and that allows the document to be altered at will, you are a true believer.
                  Have you any PROOF that the Kenyan BC is fake, No you have statements from some one or the other who are not under oath, and , if fact, politicians?

                  Almost all of the supporters, or believers, jumped to the conclusion that the Kenyan was fake, because the HDOH was prima facie evidence of the truth of the copy, and ignored that fact that the birth record might the forgery , not the BC
                  No-one can prove anything to the satisfaction of the other side, If an Angel came down carrying the Kenyan BC it would just be declared a fake bc, because the HDOH has to be true or we have been scammed by the Democrats.

                  Take your choice, believe what you will, and realize that everyone might be wrong, or they are both true or fake.

                • That’s a lot of words Jack and still you avoided answering my question. Maganga has said that it’s not his signature, that he didn’t issue it, that his staff didn’t issue it and that there is no birth certificate for President Obama in Kenya. So yeah there’s proof right there that Lucas’ forgery is a forgery. Not to mention all the bad research Lucas put into crafting his forgery.

                  No one ever gets to see their original. All you ever get is a copy. Do you have any proof that the Hawaii document was fake? Do you have any proof that the HDOH forged, edited, modified, altered, etc the Hawaiian birth certificate?

                • trader jack says:

                  No, Pogue, you have proven nothing, as I have proven nothing, We have both submitted words as evidence , and proof is in the minds of the readers of the words.
                  You believe the words you posted as someone you trust spoke those words and you are taking their word for it.

                  I read the words and ask myself “Where is the evidence that the words written or spoken, are, indeed, fact?”
                  Are the writers of the word biases, or unbiased, where did the information they have written come from?
                  If you would hand those two bc’s to a young person what would that person think about the
                  documents, if that person had know knowledge about the children described in the birth certificates.

                  An honest person would look at the birth certificates and see no significant difference in them, but if they had a bias, one way or the other, they would make a decision based upon their biases, and select one of them as true.
                  I do not know which one is true and accurate as they both have problems , and it is possible that both are fakes.
                  Actually , people can look at their originals with a court order, and originals can be required by the courts.

                  Ask yourself a question
                  Why is it that if you google birth certificates you will be faced with lots of ads telling you that they can get you a birth certificate quickly.

                  Do those companies have access to the birth certificates that is banned to the public, is so, why can’ the public have the same access

                • Wow Jack a bunch of words and still you avoided my question as you always do. No, a dishonest person would look at the scan of the Hawaii certificate and the forgery created by Lucas Smith and claim they are on equal ground. The issuing authority hasn’t verified the Lucas Smith forgery. In fact the Chief Administrator listed on it has denied he issued it. Denied his staff issued it and denied that Kenya has a birth certificate on file for President Obama. A dishonest person would use a report that has no relevance to Hawaii to try to undermine Hawaiian certificates. A dishonest person would take a convicted forger’s word without him ever showing he ever traveled to Kenya. So again you continue to be dishonest.

                  I’ll ask you again do you any proof that the Hawaiian BC is fake? Do you have any proof it was altered, amended, changed, etc?

                • trader jack says:

                  How do you know that the issue agency did not verifiy the issuance of the LDS birth certificate as the the certification is the verification. How do you know the Chief Administrator denied he issued it? How do you know that the staff denied they issued it?
                  It has relevance to the Hawaiian bc as one of them , or both of them may be fake! You do not KNOW that the document is fake, and that it was forged by LDS as you do not know who the producer of the document is.
                  If this one is true the other is fake/
                  .one of them has a fake signature, one of them has errors in the certification, one of them has smeared information in the certification, one of the has a blurred date stamp, and one oh the has printing errors in the document, and one of them has nine layer in the pdf, and one of them shows signs of changing of the document, And one of them shows printer errors.
                  And one of them may be fake.

                  If you can demonstrate to me that printer can change dpi in the middle of a word then you might have a chance of showing me that I am wrong and you are right.

                • trader jack says:

                  For each image, Word determines whether there is a difference between the window (the original page) and the viewport (the printed page). When differences occur, for example, if the size of the page content according to Word does not match the size of the page it will print to, Word will scale up or down the total number of pixels it prints by using the ratio between the window and the viewport
                  Now when the layer that contained the R in barack was pulled that the R was changed the new R did not match the original, and Word expanded or compressed it to fit in to the text by using the ratio as stated, thereby changing the pixel count and making it different that the rest of the letter is the word.
                  So the document was changed in the printing by Word

                  Perhaps, LOL

                • trader jack says:

                  “Many agencies and organizations request that individuals provide their birth certificates to receive a benefit or service, or to support the issuance of other documents often used for identity purposes (e.g., driver’s license). However, agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship, or identity. For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate.”
                  “With the exception of detection by highly trained Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff, information we obtained indicates many altered or counterfeit birth certificates and genuine birth certificates held by imposters may go undetected. Officials who use birth certificates to determine eligibility for services and benefits say they fail to detect many fraudulent documents, and the ones they do detect are “only the tip of the iceberg.” In attempting to identify fraudulent birth certificates, SSA, public assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles, and some Immigration and Naturalization Service staff indicate their efforts to detect fraudulent birth certificates focus only on obvious alterations, such as erasures, smudges, white-out, misspelled words, offset margins, poor seals, dates that do not match, or photocopies. However, information we obtained indicates birth certificates are vulnerable to fraud beyond the obvious in the following areas.”

                  Note that statement “poor seals” and then try to find the legible seal on HDOH birth certificate and see how legible it is on LDS

                  Oh that doesn’t mean anything does it?

                  LOL

                • How do I know? Issuing authority in Kenya has denied issuing it. Maganga is on linkedin. He’s been messaged and he’s relied that he didn’t issue it and neither did his office or his staff. He also said there is no birth certificate for President Obama in Kenya. So again do you have any proof HDOH forged or faked the birth certificate for President Obama?

                • trader jack says:

                  “View the profiles of professionals named Maganga on LinkedIn. There are 1200+ professionals name Maganga, who use LinkedIn to exchange information, .”..
                  Now, tell me, Poque, which Maganga are you quoting.

  21. trader jack says:

    Have you ever seen a 2/2009 bc with Othigo’s signature on it That might convince me. that is if the signature is on the certification

    • Mark Bellison says:

      Have you ever seen any other Kenya birth certificate?

      • trader jack says:

        I think so, but it was a while ago, when I was perusing LDS blog , when he presented another bc that was a couple of years younger for a different person,
        But, hey I know you will just say he forged another one of them.

        • Lol your proof that you saw another Kenyan certificate is based on the word of a convicted forger who forged a fake kenyan certificate and then tried to back it up by creating another forged kenyan certificate? Okay… yeah

          • trader jack says:

            A close mind can never think of new cocepts or ideas, not if it conflicts with his pet beliefs. Strange ,I pointed out the LDS might have been scammed by a Kenyan,, but that is ignored as it doesn’t meet your points of view that it is all LDS forgery background that makes the thing invalid

            • It’s not open mindedness that allows you to believe stupid conspiracy theories that you can’t prove. There’s no proof Lucas ever went to Kenya. He has refused for 9 years now to provide any proof he left the western hemisphere and went to kenya.

              • trader jack says:

                Yeah, you would believe anything he says, LOL
                Get real, Pogue,lei
                I cant prove anything about any of my travels as I have no passport LOL
                How am I going to prove I was in Honolulu in the 1930’s and that I lived don the LuaLualei radio station and climbed on the 600 foot towers.

                • If Lucas traveled to Kenya he could easily have provided some proof of it by now. 9 years he has avoided it. Just like you’ve avoided providing any proof that the Hawaii certificate is fake.

                • trader jack says:

                  Why would LDS say anything to people whio claim he is a forger ,and that anything he produced would be claimed to have been forgeds
                  If he presented his passport would you believe the birth certificate from Kenay

                • Well there’s progress right there Jack. You admitted he produced/created the kenya forgery.

                • trader jack says:

                  Big article in the paper this morning. hundred being denie Passports because the government thinks their birth certificates are fake,
                  Why that can not be true , as birth certificates are certified to be true, aren’t they.

                • You still don’t get that there is a difference between a birth certificate forged or altered by an individual and a false document issued by the certifying authority. The former happens while the latter never happens. It’s for making stupid comparisons like this I put you in moderation.

                • trader jack says:

                  You don’t want to admit it ,do youl
                  Birth records are not birth certificates, They are produced by the birthing center what ever that may be., And yes those birthing records can be false or fake or full of errors
                  When the vital statistics receives the birth records, they check that the i’s are dotted ant the t’s ar cross and make sure that the information is there, and not that it is accurate, as they have no way of knowing that.
                  Birth certificates simply say that the records are as shown as recorded in the offices, which is why submitted the thing fro DJT’s birth certificate asking the receiver of the birth certificate to make sue the information is correct and to advise them if it is not.
                  A flat admission that they do not know if the information is correct.
                  As to the issuance of fake birth certificate you know that the states have authority toi issue birth certificate where every thing is wrong except the time and place of birth.

                  As to forged or altered bc’s how in the world is the public to know whether it is forged or altered IG’s report say that a forged bc us used to get a driver’s license , and then the drivers used to get a real birth certificate. How that works is beyond me.
                  The DOJ was saying that mid-wives would forge the birth records for children born elsewhere.

                  Oh well, that is life as we live it.

                • trader jack says:

                  I m glad that some one asked me about DJT’s birth certificate. I will state that it confirms what I believe about birth certificates, It says , in the information below the registration document that you should check it for errors and if any exist to contact them to make the necessary corrections to the document.
                  Ergo, that they do not know it is accurate and are asking others to notify them in there are errors in the registration
                  So, it has to be challenged until it is confirmed to be complete and accurate , as the agency itself agrees that there may be errors in the document information

                  Just like all birth certificates.

    • Mark Bellison says:

      Here is a 1958 Kenya birth certificate – notice anything unusual?

      https://i0.wp.com/4zoltan.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/kenya-1958-bc.jpg?ssl=1&w=450

  22. Mark Bellison says:

    Here is part of one WND published and it also looks nothing like the Smith paper.

    • Forger Smith was a crappy researcher but there are limitations as to what you can do with Google. His amateurish birth certificate forgery illustrates that very well. It’s funny that nine years later he is flailing around like a flounder in five inches of warm water trying to rationalize the mistakes he made when he created the FKPOSBC. 😆

    • trader jack says:

      Now you present something form as being somehow more to be believe when the whole past is about how bad WND LOLis…

      • Mark Bellison says:

        Wrong again and as usual.

        I’ve never said WND was bad. In fact over the years I’ve many of their articles to disproven morons like you.

        • trader jack says:

          You, or I , can not prove anything, just discuss the differences, in our thoughts about the stuff on the blogs
          You might have missed my statement that nothing you call me , will ever irritate me, as I have been called everything possible in my 95 years
          My father taught me when I was young that if you resort to bad words you can not know enough to continue the discussion
          He attended Heidelberg in Germany and was required to take either side of a subject and defend it from the other side advocates.

          • Mark Bellison says:

            When will we be seeing from you a Kenya birth certificate with Heltan Maganga signature stamped before April, 2012?

        • trader jack says:

          Love that answer, as WND says ;that everything they post is satire or fiction and is not be believed with out outside confirmations.
          and you use their stuff to disprove others point of view or discussion
          lOL

          • Mark Bellison says:

            Where does WND say that?

            Now you’re just making stuff up.

            • trader jack says:

              “Mr. Farley, I am a Christian and a preacher. I do not involve myself into politics, and could care less about the corruption or lack of it that promotes any citizen to the office of President of these United States. It is of no concern of mine that Congress, the Supreme Court or this entire nation ignores the Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen in order to be President. But I cannot tolerate a liar and a fraud, especially one so low as to dishonor his grandmother, or his father in denying the truth about his actual place of birth. That is the only issue this preacher has involved himself with in regards to Barack Obama. Until he steps forward and acknowledges his grandmother, and tells the truth, this preacher will continue to do what is not him to do or tell, “for you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). I enjoy being free! Until Mr. Obama accepts or tells the truth, the lie will bind him hand and foot like a slave to his own conscience.

              By the grace of God alone,

              Ron McRae
              Presiding Bishop
              Anabaptists Churches Worldwide “

              • What does that have to do with Mark’s question?

                • trader jack says:

                  That statement I posted was the Bishop of the Church that was at the interview with Obama’s grandmother and stated that the grandmother definitely stated she was at Obama’s birth in Mombasa and indicated that the grandmother was muted by a relative after making that statement.
                  He was upset that the Grandmother was not believed and , if fact , thought to be a iiar which was a anathema to the society of the area to so label a grandmother as a liar, when he knew that she was not lying.
                  Of course you can claim the Bishop was lying. OK, do what you wish

                  Remember that Obama’s half brother showed the Kenyan bc to the public thereby , possibliy, indicating that that BC was correct and true.

                  I don’t know.

                • He showed the lucas smith forgery. He made no comment other than surely what’s this. He didn’t say it was a true birth certificate. So again where’s your proof of anything jack?

              • Again what does that have to do with Mark’s question?

              • dunstvangeet says:

                Here’s a transcript of the tape. She says that he was born in Hawaii.

                Or in otherwords, Ron McRae lied. According to the very phone call that he says he got this information from, Sarah Obama says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh, for heaven”s sake, you think a Bishop of a church would lie about being in the room at the time of the interview and you would believe a transcript of the interview provided by someone who may , or may not , have been there in the room..
                  And you assert with bravado that Sarah Obama said that when you are not proficient in Kenyan, or Swahili, He said he was in the room with Sarah and was listening to the phone conversation
                  And the interpreter was translating into English and the Bishop said he was mistranslating.

                  But you just cant trust those Africans, can you, but you can trust a blog in the USA

                  LOL

    • trader jack says:

      Why that does indeed look like an authentic birth certificate , just not one issued by the Kenyan government as it was before Kenya left the british empire, and took over there own government business, and it is not certified the dates are right ,and no seal. I cannot contest anything about your statements about that birth certificate except is might be considered the wrong country at the time of 2009 The copy was issued in 2009, if it is a true copy, and things changed a great deal in those years.

  23. trader jack says:

    One of the first things you will learn in your life, or should have learned by now, is to never believe the words of a government employee until he has left the government service and can speak freely, and then make sure he is honest
    That is very difficult to do Just look at the US government today.
    Do you remember that LDS sent the letter to every member of Congress and the FBI, and not one of them replied to him. Remember at that time the DEMs had the control of congress and FBI and DOJ were run be trustworthy people?
    And not one member responded when, at that time, about 50% of the public had concerns about the situation.

    • Mark Bellison says:

      And one of the first things you learn in life, or should have learned by now is never believe the word of a convicted forger when he tries to pass off to you a document that has no province other than his say so.

      • He wasn’t just a convicted forger though. Lucas has scammed people for years. Including his black market kidney sale. The man is a crook and conman but Jack trusts him because he tells jack what he wants to hear.

        • trader jack says:

          I have had no discussion with LDS, don’t know him, don’t really care what you thinkg, I am simply pointing out to others there is the same problem with the HDOH bc, and the Kenyan bc. Both have questionable point and deserve HS
          In fact , they have a different systeim in the births can be recorded by the tribal chies, and then that is sent to DHS where they are filed, an they do not issue a copy of that document just the certificate saying it is on file.
          To through doubt of the provider of information is a known Salinsky tactic, and all to common on boards.

          • There aren’t any “same problems with the HDOH” BC. The issuing authority verified the Hawaii BC. The issuing authority denied the Kenyan fake. Maganga has denied the kenyan fake. The Hawaii BC has no questionable points. The kenyan fake does. You’re claiming there’s a different system for “tribal chies”. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

            Who the hell is Salinsky? Isn’t that the auto parts competitor in the movie Tommy Boy.

    • Where did you pull that from? Remember you’re the guy who has admitted to committing social security fraud so it’s no surprise you believe the word of a convicted forger and admitted child molester over a verified document from the issuing authority of birth certificates in Hawaii. The constitution gives them final say. You’re shit out of luck joker jack.

  24. trader jack says:

    Yess, it should be throw instead of through, but this Lenovo laptop is tough to type on, and read and now I have caught it form you, I blame the computer and not myself.

  25. trader jack says:

    Heck, I just read it somewhere , , probably on FactCheck, or Snopes.
    I don’t keep stuff in my computer, but I was surprised when I read it, as I get WND in my mail every day
    If I can find it again , I will post it with references.

    • Pete says:

      As I’m sure someone has explained to you, probably many times, there was never any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, or that his birth certificate was “forged.” And there was never any real question, legally, that he was constitutionally eligible, either.

      This didn’t stop hucksters from digging up and making up every speck they could find to blow up from something less than a molehill into a mountain and exploiting the gullible and uninformed in various ways. For fame. For money. (Millions, in the case of Joe Arpaio.)

      And in the case of Donald Trump, for momentum toward political power.

      • trader jack says:

        Pete, why is the HDOH birth certificate any more credible than a Kenyan Department of Registration certificate
        You know , do you not, they simply state that they verify the information contained In the certificate is derived from the information supplied by the person, doctor, midwife, or birth site and is not certified to be true and accurate by the relevant agency that is supplying the certificate.
        They simply assert the information is recorded, and supplied to you to show what was recorded in their records.
        You know that all of them can be amended ,changed, or altered, or issued as necessary for the agencies purposes.
        So, if you have an open mind, look at both of the certificates as see if there are any real differences that would allow you to claim that one is true and the other false, with out consideration of outside information

        • 4zoltan says:

          “why is the HDOH birth certificate any more credible than a Kenyan Department of Registration certificate”

          We have never seen a Kenyan Department of Registration certificate for President Obama so not sure what your point is.

          • trader jack says:

            OK,, I agree with you, so I will ask it again, would you have thought either of the were true, or fake,, before someone told you they were true or fake.
            An honest man could put aside the hearsay evidence that was provide to him before looking at the documents and trying to see what the facts are.

            I could not look at the Obama bc with that status as I had been looking at the comments since 2008, where I had never seen the Kenyan document before it was shown and even when I looked at a copy when he was shown to have been posted on ebay, I could not tell it was fake, or true, until others had investigated it and had their opinions posted of the web.

            As I was critical of the support for the HDOH thing since the COLB and realized that the people who supported the HDOH and the COLB were the one presenting their opinions as to the accuracy of the Kenyan as the same faults appear the HDOH and the Kenyan bc, as it seemed to me that they had to be considered with the same standard of proof on both documents

        • You have no proof that the kenyan forgery is from the Department of “registration”. You have a convicted forger’s word who has never presented any proof he ever went to kenya. The issuing authority denies the kenyan fake. The chief administrator listed on the kenyan fake denies it. Once again do you have any proof the Hawaii certificate is fake? Do you have any proof the Hawaiian certificate was amended, changed, altered or issues as necessary for the agency purposes?

          • trader jack says:

            you are absolutely correct, as LDS says it was obtained from staff at the hospital. And he shows him with it in his hand, surrounded by people of the area where he was at the time.

            He says he was there paid the money and got the stuff, and you can not prove that he was not there, can you?
            You can not prove that he forged the document , can you?

            You can not prove the the HDOH is a true copy , as the certification indicates it may be an abstract, An abstract is not a copy is it?

            • You just babble on don’t you?

              • trader jack says:

                no, it is not babbling it is pointing out possible errors in the consideration of birth certificates.
                No , certification is not verification of the facts of the birth , it is simply a notification that a birth has occurred somewhere and some one has filed a document containing their version of the circumstances of the birth

                Refusal to admit that some births are recorded fraudulently, or with omission or errors in the facts indicates that people actually don’t believe that there is rampant fraud in birth records.

                in fact the IG’s report of 2001suggested that submitted bc’ss be scanned for possible indicators of fakeness or fruad

                • You just make it up as you go along don’t you? Where is your evidence of “rampant fraud in birth records”. The 2001 OIG report deals almost exclusively with the creation of fraudulent birth certificates for purposes of creating a false identity by individuals. Obviously that was not the case with Obama since the issuing authority stands behind the document.

                  Please continue to demonstrate your stupidity for us. You are doing an excellent job.

                • The IG report didn’t list Hawaii as a place where these documents were forged. It also didn’t list Hawaii’s DOH forging documents. You have continued to lie about what the IG report says over the years. Both you and Henry Blake pushed this nonsense. Are you going to live out the rest of your days like miserable Henry Blake did pushing nonsense?

                  Do you have any proof that the Hawaii birth certificate was forged?

          • Lucas didn’t show himself surrounded by people of the area at the time. Not once has Lucas proven he went to kenya. One time he posted a video he claimed was from kenya but it was from the dominican republic. Lucas is a conman and convicted forger. He can say all he wants but he has never proven anything other than he’s a conman.

            Yeah I have proven he forged it. Again I’ll ask you do you have any proof the HDOH forged the Hawaiian birth certificate? Do you have any proof the Hawaiian birth certificate for President Obama was forged?

  26. tbfreeman says:

    This is hilarious: this year-old article is about the shamsters behind a sham “newspaper” that refuses to give up the ghost about birtherism.

    There are hundreds of comments here, the majority of which are from a single camping troll of a birther who repeats the same lies that have not convinced a single person. Of course, birthers like Mario Apuzzo showed more tenacity (with comments in the thousands), but even he retired from the field.

    • trader jack says:

      thee are no lies that I have poste on this web. Just because you believe something that someone has told you oes not make a idifferenct comment a lie.
      Can you prove any think is a lie, or not a lie, of course not!
      did I ever say the LDS bc was true, or the HOOH were true, of course not , because I don’t know which is true or false,
      Perhaps you are willing to take the words of Politicians as Proof of anything

      • tbfreeman says:

        Dude, you said that “filed” and “accepted” have different meanings. Yet Obama’s short form from the HDOH says “filed” and Obama’s long form from the HDOH says “accepted.” (With August 8, 1961 being the operative date on both documents.)

        Meanwhile, you continue express no doubt about the current president’s birth certificate, notwithstanding the endless trolling over unjustified and unsubstantiated “concerns” about Obama’s.

        But, please: continue your waste away life on this!

        • trader jack says:

          you continue to dispute my position that the certified copy is absolute perfect and ignore all the things that make it different that the Nordyikes bc, If you want to believe that Onaka signed his name with an e or a smiley face in the first letter, but then maybe you agree with others that it not visible in the signature, Perhaps you should wonder why so many people claimed it as fake right after it came out and they claimed it was fake birth certificate , not birth record.

          I suspected it after the debacle with the COLB and the diverse dates on it.
          Oh well, we can go to our lives believe one or the other because it makes not difference

          What is wrong with DJT birth certificate as I have seen nothing about it anywhere

          more fake news I guess.

          • There is no “e” or “smiley face” in the Onaka signature. That is easily debunked by using the higher res AP photo of the LFBC. I’ve covered that here and Doc has at his site also.

            People found things wrong with the certificate because they hated Obama and claimed for 3 years his birth certificate didn’t exist. (Like Trump did). Obama made them look like idiots when he released a copy of his LFBC. These are the same racist assholes in the minority who voted for Trump.

            Do some research first and quit bringing up debunked bullcrap and fake concerns or I will start deleting your comments. You crossed the line into trolling a long time ago.

            • trader jack says:

              debunked crap, as opposed to truthful facts , derived by looking at a photo of a copy of a document, not the whitehouse document.
              And then deriving that the supposed not an e on the signature is noise generated by a computer or something, and that has been debunked.
              Really
              so all of those people , who even today, can look at that signature and see a smiley face or an e on the first letter of onaka’s signature are just dead wrong , or have bad vision.
              It might have disappeared in the photo you saw , but I have yet to see that signature without a smiley face.
              Hell, I have been looking at this stuff as long as you have and still don’t KNOW if it is a fake or not
              You might KNOW that , but I don’t .

              The mere fact that Doc and you have determined that it is not there, is an indication that it is there or something needed to be explained.
              I remember Doc saying that if you expanded it enough you would see it is just a bunch of dots that somehow or another go on the page, from the printer or something.
              And the TXE was just smearing of the ink from the printer.

              As I have said before , no one can Prove anything, if you have never seen the original, but are limited to things that have gone through a computer.

              This is your last warning. More nonsense like this comment will be deleted. You can clearly see what caused the TXE was uneven inking on the stamp and pixelation in the lower resolution PDF image.

              RC

            • trader jack says:

              You remember that old statement in court trials, What attorneys say is not evidence, and so it follows that what people say about something is not evidence, it is simply opinion.

              And multitudes have different opinions. It is up to the intelligent to discern truth, and , or ,dispute falsehoods.

              There is no way for anyone to say that the opine is truth rather than opine that may or may not be true.

              I have never claimed that what I say is truth , it is simply my opinion of what is being discussed
              I have always stated that I do not know the truth, basically there are two documents that have different conclusion, and they have to speak for themselves, as anything said about them is the opinion of the posters
              Pay no attention as to what posters say about them, look at them yourself and decide if one of them is more worthy of belief than the other.
              Then look at the opinions and see if the opinions meet your standard of determining veracity or not

              • Of course the fact you continue to ignore is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and not i Kenya. Therefore, any Kenyan birth certificate is by default a fake. Since the issuing authority for the actual birth certificates for Barack Obama has confirmed that both the 2007 short form and the 2011 long form were issued by them they are by default authentic.

                The fact that idiots like you see “e’s” and smiley faces where they aren’t is a sideshow.

                • trader jack says:

                  I know no such thing, I have seen a birth certificate that indicates that as a possibility if the birth records have been properly reported.. But there is evidence that the facts stated there are wrong, and that the birth certificate might have been in correct.
                  If you ignore all evidence to the contrary then you can presume it is correct. but many people have stated that the bc is fake, and that clouds the integrity of the document
                  so, on balance it must be assumed to be under scrutiny.
                  If;you believe that all birth certificates are authentic by default, then there can be no birth certificate fraud in evidence.
                  As to the smiley face, simply google it and see if HDOH bc is not described as having a smiley face on the document signature
                  that , again, Is just the opinion of the posters who posted somewhere

              • Do you have any proof that the Hawaiian birth certificate is fake or modified or changed or altered? Any proof whatsoever Jack?

                • trader jack says:

                  I cannot prove anything, not can anyone else on the web, as probed is a status of min of the reader.
                  OJ was proved by court evidence and trial o be quitly but the believers did not believe the evidence and still think he was framed.

                • So then why do you continue to make these claims Ad naseum Jack?

                • I put Trader Jack in moderation. If he keeps posting debunked lies I will ban him.

                • trader jack says:

                  debunked lies are simply truth, right? when you debunk a lie it converts to truth.
                  the adjective is unnecessary.
                  When is truth not truth?
                  When it is not wanted to be believed.

                  Hey, that is just politics
                  Just part of the game, I guess

              • tbfreeman says:

                “I have never claimed that what I say is truth”

                WE KNOW. You are a font of lies.

                • trader jack says:

                  from Obama sr’s book
                  Obama Senior. A Dream Fulfilled – Page 49 – Google Books Result

                  https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9966560394

                  Donde, Fredrick – 2015 – ‎Biography & Autobiography
                  Six months after they wed, the couple were blessed with a baby boy – Barack Obama … He was born on 4 August 1961 at the Kapi’olani Medical Centre for Women … of Honolulu, seven miles (about 11 km) east of the university – the rented home of … specifically to issue a birth certificate in a hospital where he did not work.

                  Whoa, here , boys, Obama senior says different hospital.
                  Maybe that is why they don’t want to claim birth

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital changed its name in 1971 to Kapiʻolani Hospital. In 1976, it began merging with Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital (which had stopped providing maternity services in 1929) to become Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

                  Same hospital. As has been explained to you before.

                • trader jack says:

                  “Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital changed its name in 1971 to Kapiʻolani Hospital. In 1976, it began merging with Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital (which had stopped providing maternity services in 1929) to become Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children'”

                  A strict readiing of that makes no sense.
                  It ssys that in1976 Kapiiollni merged with KCH ti become KMCWC and you then assume that they continued the same names on the documents
                  All I said was that Obama SR said it was a different hospital name than what is on the birth certificate. Now as that was after Obama’a birth where did Obama SR. get the name as it should have been there when It was KMGH

                  Just one of those unexplained things about this stuff.

                • The hospital in which I was born no longer exists. I suppose by Trader Jack’s idiocy that makes my birth certificate fake.

                • trader jack says:

                  I am surprised that you can not see the smiley face when you discussed it so often on Dr.C place and agreed with him that if you take it off of the non-whitehouse pdf, blow it up, and then take liberties in how it is handled in the computer it must not be there.
                  If it isn’t there what were you discussing about the thing that was not there?
                  Everyone can see it, but they just don’t want to call it a smiley face, just something that somehow or another was erroneously placed there when the copy was made.

                • It is a characteristic of the human mind to see the human face in inanimate objects. Have you ever seen faces in rocks and clouds? Doc C. wrote a very good article on this in 2013 titled Agency and Patternicity. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/agency-and-patternicity/

                  Remember when people saw the skull face on Mars and it turned out to be nothing?

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Traitor Jack falsely claims that Obama Sr. said that his son was born in a hospital named something other than what is shown on his birth certificate. However, the source Traitor Jack uses is a biography written by Fredrick Donde three decades after Obama Sr. died. It is not an autobiography, and any anachronisms should be attributed to the author, barring probative evidence to the contrary. The paragraph in the book does not in any way indicate that Obama Sr. told Donde the name of the hospital (in fact, it does not appear that Donde ever met Sr.).

                  I would be remiss if I didn’t also point out that Traitor Jack lied about what I wrote. The first hospital name change occurred 10 years after Obama was born. Anyone who expects the state of Hawai’i to alter their birth records simply because the hospital changed its name a decade later is best described as a moron. And of course, Traitor Jack couldn’t even bear to admit that he was wrong and so lied about what he himself wrote.

          • tbfreeman says:

            traderjack can’t even admit that he lied about the HDOH’s use of “filed” and “approved” having different meanings. That’s how intellectually dishonest he is.

            traderjack wastes his life all “concerned” that the source documents certifying Obama’s Hawaiian birth have not been publically revealed, yet he expresses absolutely no concern about the same lack of source documents regarding the president’s birth.

            And the president’s long form is horribly pixelated (as if the letters were copied from a different document!), but traderjack doesn’t waste his days staring into that void, straining to see imaginary smiley faces.

            The presidents of Kenya and United States met yesterday — and neither of them mentioned discussing birth certificates! It is as if this decade-long “concern” about Obama’s was really a proxy for something else.

  27. trader jack says:

    So , VKV you are calling WW2 vet a traitor, that kind of indicates you are a young man not dedicated to the country, I guess. ‘too much playing games with your self to serve the country.

    LOL

  28. dunstvangeet says:

    On the Hospital Name:

    Let’s see, we have 5 birth certificates from Kapiolani Hospital in August of 1961. We’ve seen the long-form birth certificates for 4 of those birth certificates, so we have something to compare it to.

    Barack Obama’s: “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital”
    Susan Nordyke’s: “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital”
    Gretchen Nordyke’s: “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital”
    Joannah Ah’nee’s: “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital”

    Isn’t it interesting how all of the birth certificates match exactly. It’s almost as if what’s on Barack Obama’s birth certificate is what should have been there in the first place.

    • “Isn’t it interesting how all of the birth certificates match exactly. It’s almost as if what’s on Barack Obama’s birth certificate is what should have been there in the first place.”

      Exactly. The hospital name “controversy” is just another stupid Birther talking point that easily falls apart when examined. What a shame that the 95 year old veteran Trader Jack is wasting some of his few remaining precious moments of life blabbering such nonsense on a blog where almost every reader here is too informed to take him seriously.

      • trader jack says:

        It is never a waste of time to discuss matters of interest, where one side seems to always insult the other to divert discussion and confrontation of facts.
        I have lived with a pacemaker in my chest for 15 years or so and realize that I can die in the next hour. That does not make my time more precious to me.

        • Folks insult you because you don’t deal in facts. I could site multiple examples such as equating the Lucas Smith forgery with Obama’s valid certificate of live birth. It is why you were banned as a troll at OCT. Everyone of your “facts” has been addressed head on here.

        • If you don’t want to be ridiculed don’t act ridiculous. No one cares about your woe is me story. You’re wasting what little time you have on this earth repeating lies. What kind of person does that make you besides a dishonest fool?

    • trader jack says:

      Birth certificate are not issued by the hospital to serve legal purposes, They are issued by the Government and the government can only issued what is in the records., and as the government says if there are errors in the birth information you should contact them immediately to attempt to correct the errors.
      So, it seems that you can not be absolutely sure of the information on a bc that your are viewing is 100% correct.

      • tbfreeman says:

        Yet traitorjack continues to express no concern whether the current preisdent’s birth certificate contains “100% correct” information.

        It is as if traitorjack’s selectivity is motivated by darker motives.

  29. trader jack says:

    All of the bcs do not match exactly as the certifications are different!

  30. trader jack says:

    I have never seen faces in clouds or rocks, but, perhaps, you mean resemblances of human faces.
    I saw that Dr. C. thing and I am stunned as to how anyone could write such an articles and claim it debunked the smiley face or the E in the signature,
    Disrupting a pattern and then claiming that the disrupting eliminate the pattern is very strange.
    How ever, I can see, how the usage of the term “smiley face” could be used to divert attention for the fact that there is an “E” superimposed on the down stroke of the letter, or, perhaps the E was placed on the paper before the writing,
    What ever, it is there and you folks tried to divert the truth of the matter by claiming there is nothing there to be seen.

    good old political move. LOL

  31. trader jack says:

    Well, RC, I think I was banned because I kept asking the questions and challenging the beliefs.
    Like the smiley face. There is a smiley face, or an E in the signature, and nothing you can say wil debunk that as everyone can see it.
    When you say you looked at a different pdf that didn’t show it, you were simply searching for one that did not show it, and then neglected to point out to the readers , that it was not the pdf from the whitehouse site, but someother pdf , Ok, that is good politics
    You immediately discounted the Kenyan BC because someone told you, or you were somehow informed that LDS had a criminal background that made it suspicious, so you searched for reasons to disbelieve the document, which is good politics .
    Then you found discrepancies in the LDS bc, but refuse to see the same problems in the HDOH, and say it must be correct because it had the certification on it from HDOH. When the LDS had the same type of certification on it.

    But, both documents were viewed by the public and thought to be false by both sides .
    They said Heltan disavowed it, Kenya disavowed, it ,, or some on said they did, I have seen no letters from Kenya about the think, and statement should be official to be recognized.
    Heck, I don’t know which one is true or false, as they both had problems.
    As to both side, politicians will lie about what the believe or know , according to the needs of the politicians. Do you think the Democrats in Hawaii would tell the truth , if the document was faked, or the Kenyans would tell the truth if it affect their governments relations with the USA

    The USA is accepted to be an honest country , but you would not know it based upon what is happening in the Government today.

    And Kenyan is known for the scamsI .am starting to think the most probably thing was LDS was scammed by the hospital, and Hawaii screwed with the documents to protect their resident when he was running for President.
    But that just a redneck republican 95 year old man seeing what has happened in the past

    • Lucas Daniel Smith’s piece of crap is viewed to be a forgery by everyone. Obama’s certificate is viewed to be a forgery by a handful of idiots like you.

    • No you were nailed for trolling. You’ve made the same claims repeatedly that have long been debunked. You’ve continued to be dishonest and repeating the same nonsense. Yes Hawaii would tell the truth. You have presented no proof that they lied. You have presented no proof that the Hawaii BC is fake. You have presented no proof that Hawaii had a reason to lie. You have presented no proof that Hawaii would fake Obama’s birth certificate. You have presented no proof to show Kenya would lie about Obama’s Hawaiian BC. There is no smiley face, you’re delusional. It’s the result of artifacts from a low quality scan. The “face” doesn’t appear on the high resolution scan which means it wasn’t on the original.

      The Kenyan fake was discredited because Lucas Smith is a conartist. He’s always been one since he was an adult. He’s been in and out of jail his whole life. He’s a convicted forger. He lacks any credibility. Just like you. Lucas couldn’t even get simple information correct naming the wrong administrator, misspelling his name, entering only a birth year for Obama’s father, using a clipart image for the footprint, getting the date formats wrong. Maganga has said he didn’t issue it. Nor did his office. Nor is there a kenya BC on file for Obama.You continue to lie when you say there are the same problems in the Hawaiian BC. There aren’t. No Smith wasn’t scammed by a hospital he never actually visited. Smith lied plain and simple. He tried scamming gullible idiots like you. Which is why the first thing he did once he created his forgery was try to sell it on ebay to make money off it. Smith is dishonest and so are you. You’ve lied consistently for the last 10 years going back to your days trolling on amazon. Why don’t you just go the way of Henry Blake and fade into irrelevance?

      • trader jack says:

        No one has prove anything on thi site or other sites,they have provided information and opinion and have proved zip, as not one has seen the HDOH , just pdf; that went through a computer.
        To cheer you up, LDS is the only one that has seen the original bc’s that has posted on the sites.
        So, as he has seen the original bc that was certified, and you have not seen the original bc fromHDOH which can be consider to be more valid.

        LOL

        • This is the last one of your pack of lies I am going to approve. Several people have seen Obama’s original COLB’s. Savannah Guthrie photographed and one of the two 2011 issued certified copies from Hawaii with her cell phone. We have all seen those. Fact Check was allowed to view and take high resolution photographs of one of the certificates issued in 2007.

          I am not going to list all the problems with Smith’s forgery but here are a few:

          Kenya denies it is real
          The hospital denies it issued it
          The hospital administrator is wrong
          The date format is wrong
          The footprints are not that of a new born baby
          No other contemporary Kenyan birth certificate has been found that matches the form even in the least
          Hospitals didn’t issue birth certificates in Kenya
          Smith can’t even prove he went to Kenya
          No one can prove Ann Dunham was anywhere near Kenya. She was in Hawaii and people remember her giving birth.

          So Smith never saw anything other than the forgery he created.

          Either admit you are wrong on the Smith BC or I will not approve another comment you leave. I just trashed your other two pending ones. It is your choice. You will either engage in honest dialog or not at all.

        • Except you’re the only one who can’t prove anything. You’ve shown yourself to be a habitual liar. FOAD already Jack like your friend Henry. Except the press pool saw the paper document. Did you expect Obama to mail over 300 million copies to every american? You’ve expected that of no president. No Lucas hasn’t seen any original document he created a fake kenyan document. Nothing he’s presented was certified.

          • And like Henry he cannot read and comprehend. His comments are going to the trash where they belong.

          • Jack’s tired argument that he has repeated ad naseum is that he has to see the original records and that a certified copy or abstract can be wrong. This is the same dishonest straw man argument the Birthers have been making since the summer of of 2008 when the first COLB was published. Of course by law no one except designated state employees have access to the original records except by court order. Birthers tried unsuccessfully for years to get that court order and failed because they had no legally valid reason to do so. Jack has no conception (or he is willfully ignoring) how birth records and prima facie evidence works.

            He really doesn’t even trust the original records because they can contain mistakes. He ignores the bushel basket full of evidence that every critical item on Obama’s birth certificate is correct including time, date, place of birth, parentage, and doctor. He is touting the Lucas Smith forgery as of equal validity to Obama’s Hawaiian issued birth certificates.

            As long as he continues to push such nonsense he has earned a ban.

  32. trader jack says:

    filed versus accepted , the truth there of.
    “PCT Article 11

    Filing Date and Effects of the International Application
    (1) The receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application, provided that that Office has found that, at the time of receipt: (i) the applicant does not obviously lack, for reasons of residence or nationality, the right to file an international application with the receiving Office,
    (ii) the international application is in the prescribed language,
    (iii) the international application contains at least the following elements: (a) an indication that it is intended as an international application,
    (b) the designation of at least one Contracting State,
    (c) the name of the applicant, as prescribed,
    (d) a part which on the face of it appears to be a description
    (e) a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims. ”

    Now you may note that the filing can not be done without it meeting the requirements shown, ergo, the filling must be, under this case, accepted before being filed.
    When I filed my tax returns electronically the state that the forms were filed by me,, but not accepted by them, until I made some necessary changes in the return.
    Ergo, accepted and filed are different things depending on usage.

    • No link is provided and this is talking about international applications. What does it have to do with what Hawaii puts on their forms? It is meaningless to the question at hand. Hawaii has used “date filed” and “date accepted” as interchangeable terms over the years. The certificates themselves prove that point.

      • Northland10 says:

        It would appear that Troll Jack has decided not to respond to the mention that his PCT quote had nothing to do with vital record processes. He just went on to other claims.

        I’m SOOOOOOOO surpised.

    • Northland10 says:

      PCT? Patent Cooporation Treaty? Are Hawaii birth certificates governed by intellectual property rights?

      http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a11.html

    • Mark Bellison says:

      You don’t seem to understand that just because an article has something about accepted and filed in it, does not mean it is relevant to Hawaiian birth certificates from the 1950s and 1960s. Fortunately we several examples of Hawaiian birth certificates from that time period.

      WND 1959 Hawaiian birth certificate, DOB 05/__/1959 (Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital)
      Date Accepted – June 2nd, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – June 2nd, 1961 (stamped)

      Brian Hoekstra DOB 09/12/1959 (Tripler U. S. Army Hospital)
      Date Accepted – September 14th, 1961 (typed)
      Date Filed – September 18th, 1961 (stamped)

      James Gravely Jr., DOB 06/09/1961 (Kuakini Hospital)
      Date Accepted – June 19th, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – June 19th, 1961 (stamped)

      Barack Obama, DOB 08/04/1961 (Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital)
      Date Accepted – August 8th, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – August 8th, 1961 (stamped)

      Susan Nordyke, DOB 08/05/1961 (Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital)
      Date Accepted – August 11th, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – August 11th, 1961 (stamped)

      Gretchen Nordyke, DOB 08/05/1961 (Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital)
      Date Accepted – August 11th, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – August 11th, 1961 (stamped)

      Johanna Ah’Nee, DOB 08/23/1961 (Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital)
      Date Accepted – August 24th, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – August 24th, 1961 (stamped)

      Bruce Henderson, DOB 08/25/1961 (Kaiser Foundation Hospital)
      Date Accepted – September 1st, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – September 1st, 1961 (stamped)

      Edith Coats – DOB 06/15th/1962 (Wahiawa General Hospital)
      Date Accepted – June 19th, 1961 (stamped)
      Date Filed – June 19th, 1961 (stamped)

      Alan ____________ – DOB 09/__/1963 (U. S. Army Tripler General Hospital)
      Date Accepted – September 6th, 1961 (typed)
      Date Filed – September 10th, 1961 (stamped)

      As we can see for most cases the date accepted is the same as the date filed. In those cases the dates were applied to the certificate with a stamp.

      In two cases – the date accepted is different from the date filed. Both of those cases were births at Triple Army Hospital with the date accepted having been typed and the date accepted having been stamped.

      • trader jack says:

        Is there any indication that any have been filed before acceptance, or must the HDOH have the document in hand before it can be accepted.
        There are two stages to the birth certificate, it is typed out by the birth certificate and given to the local registrar, where the local registrar stamps it as being filed with him and then it is sent to the HDOH center where it is reviewed and either returned to the birth center for further information or is it accept as being adequate for filing and then signed after the number is placed on the document and it is filed in the records.
        Do you dispute that statement?

        • Mark Bellison says:

          Well there are two certificates which show that they were edited after submission to the registrar’s office.

          Edith Coats’ 1962 birth certificate was stamped as both accepted and filed on June 19th, 1962. There is a correction on the certificate with Verna Lee initialing the change on June 21st, 1962.

          James Gravely’s 1961 birth certificate was stamped as both accepted and filed on June 19th, 1961. There are several corrections made with Verna Lee initialing the changes on June 22nd, 1961.

          BTW the term “filed” is not completely accurate.

          Box 20 is labeled Date Accepted by Local Registrar.
          Box 21 is labeled Signature of the Local Registrar
          Box 22 is labeled Date Accepted by Reg. General

          Verna Lee signed as the Local Registrar for the 1959 WND, Coats, Gravely, Henderson, Ah’Nee and Obama certificates. The Nordyke twins’ were signed by someone other than Lee but whose signature is unclear.

          It appears the Tripler U.S. Army Hospital had its own Local Registrar as both are signed by military officers.

          The Registrar General did not sign the certificates but did sign the certified copies.

          The 1959 WND certified copy was issued on 4-14-1960 and is signed by the Director of Health – Dr. Richard Lee and by the Registrar General – Dr. Charles Bennett

          The 1959 Brian Hoekstra certified copy was issued on 8-7-1961 and is also signed by Dr. Lee and Dr. Bennett.

          Both of the 1961 Nordyke certified copies were issued on 5-5-1966 and are signed by the Director of Health – Dr. Leo Bernstein and by the Registrar General – Dr. Charles Bennett.

          But the system changed:

          The 1971 Janna (last name unknown) was signed by the Deputy Registrar – S. Fujii. The boxes are labeled

          11a Registrar – Signature
          11b Date Received by Local Registrar
          11c Dated Accepted by State

          The 1971 Janna (last name unknown) certified copy was issued on May 8th, 1979 it is signed by the Director of Health – George Yuen and the State Registrar – George Tokuyama.

          Obama’s birth certificate fits the general pattern seen in all of the other birth certificates of that era.

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          Yes, I do dispute the statement, you have the order wrong. There is no reason to believe the birth record is signed by the Registrar General after the number is placed on the document, and in fact all the available evidence points to the final signature being added before the number is assigned. This would also be consistent with best practice: the document is not fully accepted until the final signature is in place, and thus should not be assigned a sequential number lest the document not receive final approval.

      • trader jack says:

        “State and local vital records offices, as the custodians of the records, must register and process these original, generally confidential records. Jurisdiction systems vary widely and by certificate type, which ranges from certificates that may be printed on 100 percent cotton paper with wet signatures for archiving to state-of-the art paperless records received through a secure Internet transmission with a biometric authentication. Regardless of the method, each record is unique, must be logged in, evaluated for data quality, and assigned file numbers.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219870/

        Please pay attention to the last sentence of that paragraph.

        • Mark Bellison says:

          “Regardless of the method, each record is unique, must be logged in, evaluated for data quality, and assigned file numbers.”

          There is nothing to suggest that Obama’s or any of the other certificates from that time were not handled in this manner.

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          Perhaps Traitor Jack would care to explain what he thinks is significant about the sentence he called out, to whit:

          “Regardless of the method, each record is unique, must be logged in, evaluated for data quality, and assigned file numbers.”

          I sure as hell don’t see anything of significance in that sentence.

          • trader jack says:

            must be logged in, you don’t see the value of that, must be checked for data quality, means must be able to meet standards and then be assigned numbers.

            Numbers not assigned until document met standards, not signe numbers when submitted.

            You don’t understand the meaning of thst sentence?

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              I understand what the sentence means. I was asking you what the significance of the sentence was. What about it is important, Traitor Jack?

          • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

            Upon further reading, it appears that the sentence is in disagreement with Traitor Jack’s claim that the record is assigned a file number before it is fully evaluated for data quality.

            • Traitor Jack’s argument (I hesitate to even call it that) is over what is on the Hawaii form in general and minutia like the meaning of “filed” vs. “accepted” and not Barack Obama’s certificate in particular. The only thing he has mentioned are the optical illusions like the smiley face in Onaka’s signature stamp and the “Txe”. These illusions disappear when the best available image of the Obama certificate is examined.

              At some point an argument ceases to be an argument and crosses into an outright lie. That is why Traitor Jack is in permanent moderation. His replies may or may not be approved and could remain in moderation for a day or two if I am busy. Reviewing his nonsense is a low priority task in my life right now.

              • trader jack says:

                Oh, yes, indeed, that is really a technical thing to do, to justify your beliefs, isn’t it. You just search around until you find a document that does not show the errors and then claim with a smile that that image, from somewhere or else, is the same as the whitehouse copyl
                Have you no sense of honor?
                Oh, you looked at Dr. C’s copy and found that there were no errors in it.
                You know I actually respected your comments on Dr. C.sb blog as they showed good procedures and evidence and then you come out with this crap that by lookin at other images you could verify that what shows on the white house pdf was not shown on other images

                I now don’t expect you to post that statement at all.

            • trader jack says:

              I have consistently stated that the number must be assigned at the time of acceptance at the vital records office after signature by the State Registrar
              And that information is so important to the vital records that there should be no errors in the assignment of numbers for the purpose of indexing the damn stuff.

              Hell, I know you guys or girls will never accept anything that would show the tiniest problem with the Obama birth certificate.

              The birth record is not the birth certificate, and we have never seen the birth record of any of the birth certificates mentioned on any of these blogs

              It is like my degree from Cal Berkeley, it simply states I graduated on a certain date, and nothing else about my actions there, including my course grades.

              • No Doctor Conspiracy used the highest resolution image of the Obama LFBC available which happened to be the AP photo of the handout taken by Scott Applewhite of the AP. Only idiots would deal with lower resolution images like the WHitehouse PDF file when trying to examine anomalies. Yes that means every birther who came out with a Youtube video analyzing the LFBC PDF was an idiot.

              • dunstvangeet says:

                The number is assigned in monthly batches. The birth certificates are organized first by area, and then by last name. That explains 100% of the numbers, rather than your theory that they are assigned at the time of acceptance.

                To evidence this, we have 7 birth certificates from August of 1961. These birth certificates are numbered as follows, along with their date of birth:

                Johanna Ah’nee – Aug 23rd – #09995
                Bruce Henderson – Aug 25th – #10286
                Susan Nordyke – Aug 4th – #10637
                Gretchen Nordyke – Aug 4th – #10638
                Barack Obama – Aug 4th – #10640
                Stig Waidelich – Aug 5th – #10940
                Virginia Sunahara – Aug 4th – #11080

                Now, for your theory to be correct, you’d have to suggest that at least 5 of these certificates are out-of-order. I think you can see a pattern here.

                Virginia Sunahara was born outside of Honolulu, which explains why her number is out of order. Other than that, these numbers follow perfectly a last-name alphabetization of the certificates (with a minor exception on Gretchen and Susan Nordyke, with Susan being before Gretchen). Your theory on them being assigned as soon as they are accepted would mean that Johanna Ah’nee, Bruce Henderson, Barack Obama, Stig Waidelich, and Virginia Sunahara would all have wrong numbers, as they have dates that are out of order.

                Instead of trying to make the data fit your theory, you should make the theory fit your data. Your argument on the certificate numbers being assigned when they are submitted doesn’t add up.

                Like I said, these are processed in monthly batches, done by district, and alphabetized within the district. That explains all of the numbers, instead of having to rearrange 5 numbers in order to make it fit your theory.

                • trader jack says:

                  No, it doesn’t it simply means that when the registrar at HDOH has a bunch of document on hand ,and reviewed them as placed on the desk in random order that he numbered them as he approved them.
                  How do you explain the difference in numbers between the twins , where there is a number between them

                • trader jack says:

                  Wahiawa is in the county of Oahu and has the same HDOH registrar to sign the darn things.

                • trader jack says:

                  Assuming you are , the birth certificate come in to the HDOH at rate of about 1000 a month, sit until it come time to number them, then some one has to go all of the bc’s and determine from whence the came, then stack them up by alphabet, and then go through them to determine their acceptability and then give them to the registrar to stamp a number.
                  And that is the way you, a competent business executive would handle the job,
                  A pile of 1000 documents sitting or stored some where with no one to watch them.

                  LOL

                • No, you still do not understand the process. They would be added to a district monthly file in alphabetical order as they came in from the hospitals. If a certificate in this file needed to be accessed it would be easy to find it in the monthly file by last name. At the end of the month they would be batch processed and a number would be applied using a Bates stamp. They would then be added to the permanent files.

                  What is so hard to understand about that?

                • trader jack says:

                  I don’t think you have ever worked in a high paper work office, as most thing are done on computers now.
                  What you suggest is that the local registrars send the records to HDOH in batches , alphabetized , and that HDOH then has the job of mixing the files together, and then storing them for submission to the person who numbers and accepts them
                  It is much easier to handle continuous flow processing where the incoming clerks only have to handle 50 cases a day, insert them into the work flow processes an get them through the process orderly and promptly
                  I have processed 250 loans in a month as I could handle that many, but if 250 came into my office in the same day it would be much more difficult to handle the work load of the loans and handle the administrative works with the staff of 10 office workers
                  Batch processing is very in-efficient for paper work, take my word for it.

                • The only thing I said might be done in batches is the date stamping. As the certificates came in from the districts they would be reviewed and stamped by the registrar. Finally a few days after the end of the month they would all be date stamped using a Bates stamp. I am not speculating. It is the only explanation that fits the available evidence.

                  You keep flailing about trying to find something wrong with the way Hawaii handled vital records. So far you haven’t found anything. I can see why Doc banned you. He knows more about vital records that about anyone I know and you continued to be an idiot.

                  Hawaii has had a workable system for vital records for many years dating back to the days Barack Obama was born. The current registrar, Alvin Onaka has been honored by his peers. “Dr. Onaka was the 2008 recipient of the Halbert L. Dunn Award, the most prestigious award presented by the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS) and regarded as one of the most important honors.”in the field of biostatistics in the United States. He was elected President of NAPHSIS in 2002.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_T._Onaka

                • trader jack says:

                  that is even more strange, RC, you claim that come in, processed and then gather up at the end of the month and file numbered. How the hell could they afford that time wise when you have to have 1000 completed bcs, then pick them up and lile them in bound books.

                  Well,hell, it is a Democratic state so money must not count

                • Why would this process take any more time? At some point they have to be numbered with a Bates stamp that applies a sequential number. I have been assuming you knew what a Bates stamp was but you seem to know so little about processing paper documents that was an unwarranted assumption.

                  It would make sense that applying a permanent number would be the last thing done to the certificates. By holding them in a monthly file that would allow time for a review and registrar stamp to be applied. It would also allow time for any corrections to be made.

                  At the end of the monthly cycle they would be numbered, indexed, and stored in the permanent records. This is an orderly and efficient process. You have yet to come up with any alternative process that explains how the known certificates from 1961 were numbered and ended up in alphabetical order.

                • trader jack says:

                  Well I was a Senior Appraiser and Property agent for about 30 years ,handling home loans, credit applications, construction loans, repossessions, so I guess I can say i understand paper work, plus being an FHA appraiser and real estate broker licensed

                  You must be a skilled statistics expert to determine how a system work from 8 samples out of 15,000 documents
                  Congratulations on your success in that field.

                • That’s hard to believe since you have said so many stupid things about how Hawaii’s birth certificates were handled.

                  I suspect someone in your family is writing some of your comments for you. Some of them are full of typos and formatting errors as written by a 95 year old and some are typed correctly like this one. Regardless they are full of crap and outright lies.

                • trader jack says:

                  It is hard to realize that you might be wrong, isn’t it

                  Point out one lie I posted and let me refute your statement

                  Sure I am 95 and my fingers hit the wrong keys, but , RC, none of the people in my family, agree with me about the Obama bc, and they sure as hell would not know, or type, the things I say or post
                  Yes, they are Obama fans and will not listen to anything, just say that it must be true , because the government of Hawaii says so

                  LOL

                • At least your family has some sense. They probably think you are an idiot and they would be correct.

                • “Point out one lie I posted and let me refute your statement”

                  You said the Hawaii birth certificates are not numbered in alphabetical order. Let’s review again the known certificates from August 1961:

                  Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24th
                  Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
                  Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
                  Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8th
                  Sunahara, Virginia* – 11080 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th
                  Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8th

                  Only an idiot or a liar would not admit that these were numbered alphabetically except for the outlier certificate of Virginia Sunahara who was born in one hospital, transferred to another and died the next day and had a name change. These are all more than reasonable explanations why her birth certificate required special handling and might have been assigned file number later than the others. The Nordykes were twins born the same day in the same hospital and their certificates would have been processed as a pair, possibly in the same folder.

                  Trader Jack is the perfect example of a Birther who will not engage in honest discourse. He has offered no theory as to how the birth certificates were processed or how they got numbered alphabetically. Instead he sticks his head in the sand and denies the obvious facts.

                • But the samples are in alphabetical order and you have no other explanation that fits. Go away idiot.

                  And the Nordykes are in alphabetical order by last name when taken with the other known births except for Sunahara and there are multiple reasons why it was handled separately as you have been told.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  There is no number between the Nordyke twins certificates.

                  Susan – 10637
                  Gretchen – 10638.

                  The certificates for the geographic region of within Honolulu City Limits are alphabetically by last name. Which of coarse makes perfect sense if you need to find one and you have a months worth to search through.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  “Wahiawa is in the county of Oahu and has the same HDOH registrar to sign the darn things.”

                  For once, trader jack said something that was both true and relevant. The ad-hoc explanation of Virginia Sunahara’s out-of-sequence BC number has never sat well with me. I think it much more likely that there was something else that caused the number to be out of sequence.

                  One possibility is that she died a day later. This may have caused her BC to be pulled from the pile. But while plausible, it still didn’t strike a chord with me. For one thing, her short form BC shows a “Filed by” date of 8/10/1961, which means they had at least started to process it a few days after her death.

                  However, when you look at her death certificate, for which we have the image of the very top, you may notice something interesting. Her original first name was Tomiyo, which was crossed out and a new name, Virginia, typed in, with a hand-written date of 8/19/61. That’s nine days after the date her BC was filed by the registrar. Getting the record corrected or modified to reflect her proper name would be an excellent reason for separating the document from the rest of the certificates.

                • trader jack says:

                  Oh,there are a number of reasons that the Sukahara bc is questionable, as to whether a birth certificate was ever filed from Waihiwa , as the baby was transferred the same day of birth , and died the next day at Kapiolania, if the information is true. They should have filed a death certificate the day of the death or as soon as possible, But instead it wasn’t filed anywhere near the day of death as it was filed on a Territory Death Certificate two years after the country became a State of USA.
                  But , hell, everyone wants to adjust their thoughts of the problem on their own beliefs as to what it should be, not what it is.
                  The actions of the HDOH are really suspect in all of these things as their refusal to let her Brother get a long form bc. or even see the thing

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  Please see my comment at the bottom of the page. It explains the geographic regions and why Sunahara’s is not out of sequence.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  The known Hawaiian birth certificates fits RC’s theory not Trader’s theory.

                  Every one with the exception of those two from Tripler Hospital were accepted by the local registrar and excepted by the Registrar General on the same day and all meet the sent to the Department of Health on a weekly basis. From Bruce Henderson’s, it is evident that the certificates were collected and the certificate numbers added at the beginning of the next month.

                  There is no other way to explain the date stamps and the order on the known certificates.

                • Yes, he has no explanation how they got in this order. Now he is complaining that the Nordyke twins are not in alphabetical and that disproves the entire theory. He is an idiot.

                • trader jack says:

                  In fact .RC. Susan was born before Gretchen and that is why the numbers are the way they are.

                • “In fact .RC. Susan was born before Gretchen and that is why the numbers are the way they are.”

                  Of course you don’t know that. You are guessing. It could be that one of the twins was placed first randomly. If births were numbered in chronological order then please explain why Johanna Ah’nee who was born on August 23rd is number 09945 and Nordykes born on August 5th are numbers 10637 and 10638. How about Stig Waidelich who was also born on August 5th? His number was even higher at 10920.

                  Please answer how those are in chronological order before I approve another comment. No free passes. This is your last chance.

                • trader jack says:

                  Well,you are the fount of all knowledge, but you don’t seem to know that when twins ,or higher, are born it is important to make sure that the earlier births are posted first as Inheritance depends upon time of birth, at the numbers are indicators of that necessity.
                  If , as you assume, that no reference is made to birth dates, the birthing indexes would not show the multiple births next to each other

                  Hell, you run the site, put it together as you wish, to hell with what other people believe

                • You continue to display your ignorance. The time of birth is right on the certificates. Susan was born at 2:12 PM and Gretchen was born at 2:17 PM. That wouldn’t change no matter what the certificate numbers were.

                  Now answer my question that you keep avoiding. Why are the known Hawaii birth certificates from August 1961 not in chronological order?

                • trader jack says:

                  So, you believe what any one says if what they say confirms what you want them to say you are infant enough to believe that you can select, or be provide with a few birth certificate and that they are ordered in any particular manner.
                  If , as you claim, they are submitted to the registrar in groups monthly, and processed in groups monthly, then there is no way that they can be in any particular method, as all the sorting is being done by 5 different area and number at local registrar with a local number, submitted in group and then not destroyed in the grouping and numbering process.

                  Now , if maui has 200 births in a month, if they are order by alphabet , they would be sent to Hawaii order by alphabet, now If Waihawa did the same thing, Honolulu the same thing, as well as the other local registrar, then when , and if, the State Registrar did them in order, there would be five different section of the number that are ranked by alphabet, so the string of number would not show a constant ranking by alphabet.
                  And as you firmly assert, that they are by last name and nothing else, then you might find Smith, Joe on both local registrars submission if there was a Joe Smith on Maui, and one on Kauai, with different numbers on the bc for BC as there appears to be nothing available on the numbers to tell which districts they are in.
                  Stop being a bigot and remember to look at both sides of the discussion, even though it pains you soul to think that there might be a problem with things]
                  But then anyone who would accept the word of a person who makes a claim of any assault without any evidence to back it up.is very bigoted in their beliefs

                • A racist scum Birther calling me a bigot? Now that is rich. I never said the certificates weren’t alphabetized by geographic region first. As a matter of fact that has been suggested by commenters here.

                  We have a limited data set to work with. What we know is that the births from Kapi’olani hospital fit an alphabetical pattern by last name for the month of August 1961 and are not in chronological order. They could have also been sorted by first name as a secondary sort field and the Nordyke twins were out of order because they were born from the same mother and processed together. I can see a clerk not being really careful placing the Nordyke certificates in the file to get Gretchen before Susan.

                  The point is that the Obama certificate fits the known pattern. It isn’t out of order and they were not chronological as lying scum racist Birthers still claim to this very day.

                  Now the big item you cannot get through your 95 year old thick scull is that the order the certificates were stored on a temporary basis does not matter. What matters is that once they were numbered at the end of the month they were also indexed. You don’t seem to grasp the concept of an index. The index would contain an alphabetical listing of births over some period along with certificate numbers and date of birth. If someone wanted a copy of their birth certificate in the 1960’s they would go to the DoH or write them with their name and date of birth. Using the index the clerk could find the certificate number and go pull the appropriate volume to make a photostatic copy of the certificate.

                  The certificates could have been stored in any manner and it would not matter once they were numbered and indexed. In modern times the indexing is done on computers. Even the old records have been stored and indexed on computers. The AP ran an article that said Hawaii had a printed copy of the index of births from Hawaii from 1960 – 1964 that contained Obama’s entry:

                  https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Obama-birth-record-is-on-file-1350077.php

                  You might note that this index does appear to be sorted by last name , first name and then middle name. The public copy of the index probably does not contain certificate numbers.

                • trader jack says:

                  No wonder you are so unwilling to consider anything at all if you will believe Dr Ford, when not one of her friend believe the story she has told. Except, of course Democrats.

                • That is a complete lie. It is also your last comment here.

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  “Point out one lie I posted and let me refute your statement”

                  Well you made this false statement.

                  “How do you explain the difference in numbers between the twins , where there is a number between them”

                • trader jack says:

                  Obviously, Mark, you don’t realize that a question is never a statement of fact.

                  Back to basic logic,Mark

                • Mark Bellison says:

                  You made the statement that there is a number between the Nordyke twins certificates number. Your question was how how do we explain it. We don’t have to explain it because it is false.

                • trader jack says:

                  Well,I can explain it easier than to say I saw one that way, but I will admit that statement was in error , but not a lie, because I believed it at the time.

                • Good start. Now maybe you can see that the Obama certificate was not numbered out or order and as a matter of fact has nothing at all wrong with it other than the stuff kooky Birthers imagined. .

  33. Mark Bellison says:

    In 1955 then Chief of the Bureau of Health Statistics, Dr. Charles Bennett and then Chief of the Registration and Records Section of the same Bureau, Dr. George Tokuyama published an article about vital statistics in Hawaii in the Hawaii Medical Journal. The article has several passages dealing with the registration system in Hawaii.

      “A local registrar in each county is responsible for supervising the registration system within his area and for collecting and forwarding certificates to the Bureau of Health Statistics.  In the counties of Hawaii, Kauai and Maui, the county health officer acts as the local registrar; in Honolulu, the local registrar is a full-time employee within the Bureau of Health Statistics.”
     “Beginning in 1901, government physicians worked as local registrars.  In 1950, a change was made to county health officers and the Bureau of Health Statistics’ employee on Oahu, thereby reducing the number of registrars from 35 to four.  Since the central office can deal more easily with four officials than a larger number, this reduction greatly simplified the administration of the system.  With present day communication facilities, the reduction in the number of registrars does not inconvenience the public.”
    

    This second passage deals with birth certificates in particular.

        “The attending physician or midwife must report births to the local registrar within seven days after they occur. If neither was in attendance, a parent or other person must report.”
        “In practice, a hospital where a birth occurs assumes the responsibility for reporting it. Since more than 95% of all births occur in hospitals, this is the usual procedure.”
        “A  nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature.  Finally, the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.”
         “If any question arises relative to items in the certificate, the registrar usually asks the hospital about it rather than the attending physician.  Nevertheless, the legal responsibility for reporting a birth remains with the physician.”
    

    From these passages we can see that the local registrar in the County of Honolulu is a “full-time employee within the Bureau of Health Statistics” and that the hospitals send the filled out certificates “to the local registrar.“

    From the various available certificates we see local registrar Verna Lee signing certificates from several different hospitals. It makes sense that she was located in the central office of the Bureau of Health Statistics. There were obviously other persons who were allowed to sign as the local registrar as seen by the Nordyke twins’ certificates.

  34. trader jack says:

    Let us be logical here, Numbers are identification of a document.
    The state registrar must accept the document after it is logged in checked for validity, and if the registrar is satisfied with it is signed by him as being accepted he gives it to the clerk for the number stamping
    If the number is stamped before the signature, what happens if the state registrar rejects it as not being compliant.
    The number is gone from the stamping machine and can not be used again.

    Now I can visualize that happening to a birth certificate where a child is born, but leaves the country after the receipt by the local registrar , and that number being not in use could be used again for the issuance of a requested birth certificate for a federal agency and would result in an out of sequence number for that reported birth.
    I think I could conceive of that happening in this case, but I don’t know if it did or not

    • Northland10 says:

      First, you’re quote does not specify an order to the process,and number 2, if a numbered certificate is later found to be invalid/non-compliant, the number is voided and marked as voided in whatever control index they used. This is a common workflow procedure when dealing with unique identifiers.

    • Mark Bellison says:

      Verna Lee told Corsi certificates were collected for the month and then numbered. We can see this illustrated by Bruce Henderson’s. He was born August 25 and his certificate was accepted on September 1. But his certificate number is lower than the Nordykes’ and Obama’s.

      • Mark Bellison says:

        The Nordykes’ certificates were accepted by the local and general registrar’s on August 11th. But we know from the Henderson certificate that they were not numbered until early September.

        It seems logical that the local registrar signed them at the time the dates were stamped.

        • trader jack says:

          Well, young one, it is important because the number can not be assigned by the local registrar as there is only one date stamp used to number the documents, and that must therefore be at the vital records office, unless you believe that the Maui office has a date stamp for the bc number. as well as all of the other islands.
          I am assuming that you are referring to the bc number instead of the other date stamps.

          • Northland10 says:

            Verna Lee who signed the certificate worked for the State Department of Health. If I recall correctly, in most cases for Maui, there is no separate registrar, which would explain why on most certificates, the local and general dates are the same.

            One exception is Tripler Army Hospital which acts as a local registrar then sends the certificates to the State DOH so the local dates and the general date are different (along with the local registrar being an officer).

          • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

            No, a date stamp is not used to number the documents, Traitor Jack. A Bates stamp is used to number the document. The BC number is not a date stamp. These are completely different things. Your assumption is therefor wrong, and frankly quite stupid.

          • Mark Bellison says:

            By law, local registrars were required to send certificates filed with them to the Health Department weekly. With the except that “on the outlying islands all certificates on hand on the 4th of the month following the month of occurrence shall be mailed immediately by airmail.”

            So a birth on Maui on the 5th of August would be sent within a week to the Department of Health and it would be numbered early the next month.

            None of which means anything with regards to Obama’s birth certificate as he was not born on an outlying island. According to Dr. Bennett, after 1950 there were four registrars and the local registrar on Oahu was a full-time employee of the Department of Health.

      • trader jack says:

        That is the story according to Corsi, whom you don’t believe at all, but use him as a reference to support your position?

        • The Charles Bennett article is available independently from sources other than WND. It was published in the November-December issue of the Hawaii Medical Journal. WND incorrectly asserted the Bennett article said that the certificates were numbered when they were filed. The article says no such thing.

  35. Mark Bellison says:

    According to the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part II Coding and Punching, Section C Geographic Coding – Final, Hawaii is broken into the following geographic regions:

    Hawaii
    Hilo
    Balance of County

    Honolulu
    Honolulu
    Balance of County

    Kalawao
    Entire County

    Kauai
    Entire County

    Maui
    Entire County

    The cities of Honolulu and Hilo were their own geographic regions. Wahiawa General Hospital is in a different geographic region from Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

    Look at Edith Coats 1962 birth certificate. Using the 1962 Vital Statistic of the United States, you can use the monthly number of births in Hawaii to determine the rangeof numbers for a given month. Coat’s number 08498 is, like Sunahara’s, too high to be based on alphabetizing (last name begins with C) or chronologically (born June 15, 1962). She was born at Wahiawa General Hospital.

    BTW, Bruce Henderson was born at Kaiser Foundation Hospital and his certificate number falls between Ah’Nee (Kapiolani) and Nordyke (Kapiolani). that suggests that the certificates were not alphabetized based on the hospital but on the geographic region.

    Also, Sunahara was born alive so she absolutely would have been issued a birth certificate and a separate death certificate.

  36. Mark Bellison says:

    “Oh,there are a number of reasons that the Sukahara bc is questionable, as to whether a birth certificate was ever filed from Waihiwa , as the baby was transferred the same day of birth , and died the next day at Kapiolania, if the information is true. They should have filed a death certificate the day of the death or as soon as possible, But instead it wasn’t filed anywhere near the day of death as it was filed on a Territory Death Certificate two years after the country became a State of USA.”

    There is nothing out of the ordinary about Sunahara’s certificates. She was born alive – there is a reason the certificate is called a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. Her death was announced in the August 8, 1961 Honolulu newspaper. Here death certificate number is 2151 and there were 3,399 deaths in Hawaii in 1961.

    The fact it is on a territorial certificate simply means they were running through their stock of old certificates.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      “The fact it is on a territorial certificate simply means they were running through their stock of old certificates.”

      Never concede a ‘fact’ to Traitor Jack without checking it first. Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate is on a State of Hawaii form, not a Territory of Hawaii form (look top left). As usual, Traitor Jack lies.

      • Mark Bellison says:

        Must be the little “T. H. File NO.” in the right hand corner that confused him. But you are right the certificate is clearly labeled State of Hawaii.

        Also initialed by Verna Lee on 8/29/61 to reflect the name change.

  37. It’s been rather amusing watching Trader Jack flounder about here for weeks. He never has come to a point or a cogent theory of how Hawaii handled and numbered birth certificates. What he has done is use multiple logical fallacies including the straw man and the argument from authority.

    Of course, he is playing from the standard Birther playbook we have seen for ten years. He starts from the assumption something is wrong with the way Hawaii handled vital records or Obama’s birth certificate in particular then tries to mold the facts to fit that theory.

    In the real world a researcher would use the scientific method. They examine the known facts and come up with a hypothesis to fit the known facts. Then if new facts require it the hypothesis is revised accordingly.

    Antibrthers have done this consistently whether it be with the certificate numbers or the race codes. I don’t know a single Birther who followed the scientific method.

    • trader jack says:

      OKAy, to solve the problems, I called the county clerks office and asked the specific question,

      Are the birth record numbered by alphabet or sequentially? She responded firmly that they were number sequentially

      Of course she only works for the county clerks office and she might not know what happens with the birth records, but they do handle the birth records, don’t they. An it is California so they might be be different from the world

      I believe that they should know, but, hell, they are not running blogs,

      • Why would you call the county clerks office and not the Hawaii DoH? What state? You asked the wrong question anyway.

        • trader jack says:

          Because they handle the submission of the vitall records ot the State of California, I just email CDPH to get another response to the question
          Do you think that the states number them in different manners?

          Would a statement for HDOH make any difference to your beliefs.

          • I just had a discussion with a person in Hawaii who has knowledge of the way the DoH handled the certificates. They said they were stored alphabetically in a batch then numbered and archived. This person wasn’t sure of the batch size but said monthly sounded reasonable. I will not name my source and you can choose to believe me or not.

            Also, the way any state including Hawaii handles certificates now with the computer databases could be completely different than the way they did 57 years ago.

            • trader jack says:

              I just emailed HDOH asking the same question I asked the county record here
              Your response from your source did not indicate whether they were sequential or by alphabet.
              Hey, I don’t think you are a liar, RC
              this is a discussion about something which we have different points of view.
              By the way , don’t bring us that subject of being different 57years ago,as you blog had the information on it from 1955 as to how it was done when it was a Territory.

              LOL

              • They were batched in alphabetical order and then numbered at the end of the period.

                • trader jack says:

                  Possibly, indeed , possibly,, but then the batch numbers would not show as be in order in the index by number, which might , or might not, show in the sequencing you have posted, As you have no way of knowing if the batches are integrated into a final batch, which would screw it all up as to numbering by area, or by registrars.
                  If they are by alphabet then the CDC would have no way of find out the statistics of the various area of Hawaii before the time of computers.,
                  Based up Susan and Gretchen they are not alphabetized.
                  Now to help you, you can now claim those two don’t matter because the were submitted for numbers in reversed order.’
                  But I will then say it then throws out the other certificates being in proper reverse order’

                  Oh, what fun we have.

                • You keep saying the Nordykes prove they are not in alphabetical order. They don’t.

                  You just invented a new term, batch number. Where did that come from? There is one and only one number. It is the certificate number affixed with a Bates stamp at the end of the process. Until then the monthly working file was maintained in alphabetical order (and possibly by district in multiple working files). As new certificates came in they were inserted by last name.

                  It would be trivial to find a certificate in an alphabetical working file of 1000 certificates even if there were 25 Smith’s not sorted by first name. I know that because I just worked at a conference where we had 1200 people registered. We put all the packets together and put them in boxes sorted by last name. We didn’t worry about first names. When someone checked in I could find any packet in less than 30 seconds. Smith was the most common name and there were only around a dozen of them.

              • I doubt things changed much from the transition from a territory to statehood. Why would they change? Just my supposition. The biggest change would have been when computers were introduced. I suspect the first thing to be computerized would be the birth index. Computers are good at doing indexes and sorting them by fields.

                Sometime in the early 2000s Hawaii digitized their vital records so that certificates could be printed and certified on demand. The 2007 Obama COLB was what they normally issued and still do.

            • trader jack says:

              from cDPH’

              “Good afternoon,

              The state file numbers and local registration numbers are sequential.”
              that was in response to

              :
              Are birth records numbered sequentially or by alphabet?

              thank you

              Does that clear up the problems

              Trader Jack

              • Actually no, it doesn’t clear up anything. Hawaii birth certificates were numbered and stored sequentially in the permanent records also. The key thing is that they were not numbered chronologically.

              • Mark Bellison says:

                Trader,

                How do you explain that Ah’Nee’s certificate number is lower than the Nordykes’?

                How do you explain that Henderson’s certificate number is lower than the Nordykes’?

                Ah’Nee – 09945
                Henderson – 10285
                Nordyke – 10637
                Nordyke – 10638

                They are clearly not chronological but they are both sequential and alphabetical by last name.

                • He can’t so he is ignoring the questions. He is off on some tangent about how California modern day birth certificates are numbered. Of course that has nothing at all to do with Hawaii in 1961.

                  I am not going to approve any more of his comments until he provides an answer to your questions about the numbering on those birth certificates.

                • I just deleted two of his comments in which he didn’t answer the question. Please do that again Trader. I love deleting them. LOL

                • trader jack says:

                  How the hell do I know why the HDOH did anything except not tell the truth. Of course, you also believe Dr. Ford.
                  Which state only uses last name when they have 20,000,000 people on file.
                  Get a bible and go to confession, kiddo

                • What an idiot and a liar you are. The only thing filed alphabetically by last name was the monthly working file of new certificates. We can estimate that number to be a thousand or fewer. The Hawaii DoH hasn’t lied about anything. That is a libelous accusation that Birther scum like you continue to make without proof.

                  Once these were numbered, indexed and placed in the permanent file they could be located just like any other birth certificate by the number.

                  So quit dodging the questions. Is there anything suspicious about the number on the Obama certificate when compared with others from August 1961.

                  Yes, I believe Doctor Ford and the other accusers. It has been shown conclusively that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate multiple times.

  38. Traitor Jack has given up on trying to prove Obama’s BC number is out of order and is lying about Dr. Ford. He is a worthless scum Trump supporter. I can see why his family is ashamed of him. His comments are going straight to the trash. He is done here.

  39. Mark Bellison says:

    Good riddance to him. He clearly wasn’t interested in the the truth.

    It is also clear he never worked in an office dealing with large numbers of documents as he claimed.

    Under Hawaii law the local registrars were required to send birth certificates to the DOH on a weekly basis. Under Trader’s dopey theory that would mean it was impossible for the Ah’Nee and Henderson certificates to have lower numbers than the Nordykes, Obama, and Waidelich certificates. So what does Trader do? He simply ignores that fact.

    Trader then proposes the silly “multiple Joe Smith” theory. Under Trader’s numbering theory if they had no other information but the name and month of birth, the DOH would have to look through 1472 certificates (the number born in August, 1961) to find all the Joe Smiths. Whereas under the “alphabetized certificates” theory, the clerk would search through the seven (not five as stated by Trader) geographic regional batches, flipping quickly to the “s” portion of each batch and quickly locating the Joe Smith certificates for each region. BTW, in August 1961 the largest batch was the Honolulu City region with about 1000 births.

    Trader’s inability to see the advantages of alphabetizing the certificates before numbering certainly suggests he wasn’t interested in the truth, isn’t very bright and never worked in an office processing hundreds much less thousands of documents.

    • I gave him every chance to carry on an honest discussion but when he had to stare at the cold facts that there was nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate and it fit the numbering scheme he resorted to lying every time. Trader refused to accept the possibility he was wrong and chose to lie instead.

      I still suspect that someone else was writing some of his comments for him. Some of his comments were full of typos and formatting errors that you expect of a 95 year old trying to use a computer and others were OK.

      BTW I have known Jack’s identity for a long time. He is a climate change denier too. He hits all the conservative moron traits.

      • Traitor Jack is too stupid to understand what being banned means.

      • Wouldn’t be surprised if he believed a lot of other stupid shit.

        • I think that Traitor Jack (or/and the person typing his comments for him) finally got the message and gave up.

          I got fed up when he started attacking Dr. Ford’s credibility. These hypocritical right wing assholes like Jack demand Dr. Ford to remember every detail of a traumatic event that happened when she was 15 and 30 years prior before they will believe her report is credible. She voluntarily took and passed a lie detector test. Judge Kavanaugh flatly refuses to submit to one. Kavanaugh demonstrated that he is a biased political hack and and conspiracy nut who lacks the temperament to even hold the job of a lower court judge much less the Supreme Court.

  40. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    Today, once again, I had a document come across my virtual desk that had letters of the same word in different resolution. I believe the scanner in this case was a Canon, but I didn’t have the diagnostic tools to verify (the first page of the report was stamped with an engineer’s seal, so they scanned it and then merged it with the rest of the file using Adobe Acrobat). Multiple layers, background at lower resolution, monochrome text layers, words with some letters left in the background, it was all there except for the halos. Something I come across routinely, and I would never even notice if it hadn’t been for birthers like Traitor Jack screaming bloody murder over a few pixels.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s