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.

189 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.

  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.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s