Where both sides indulged in swapping assertions that went up in temperature over time... So why focus particularly on me? And I do not believe that I have insulted people on the 'expert thread'. If you have any specific evidence, I would surely apologize.



Come on realist, your complaints sound hollow. Some believe that Danae is not telling the truth because we cannot imagine why the DOH of Hawaii would not sent non-certified print outs.

Calling her a liar is just... Well..

Danae has raised several good points, most interestingly the appearance of two extra boxes about the parents' race which I have so far not found on any of the forms I have seen.
So let's stop whining about being thin skinned, we are nothing better than birthers when we jump to conclusions of which we have no sufficient evidence. Calling someone a liar because of that is unworthy of people interested in the truth.

We should be better than that.

That's fine, all you need to do is ask. Perhaps even check Dr C's website?...


Dr C expresses his position



and



Source: Dr C

Calling Danae a liar based on inconclusive data is not that wise.

danae said:


OK, I will withhold any more judgment on danae until more facts are known except to say that she is either not telling the truth or she is dumb as a box of rocks, or both. If Dr. Onaka really called her and offered to send a certified document with a seal does it not stand to reason that if the reason you wanted the document was to win a bet that you might just want it to be sealed and dated? Nothing she has posted only proves that this was mailed to her recently. When would you ever not want a certified copy? The receipt proves that someone ordered a certificate of some kind. (No name and nothing other than the box checked for certificate). The certificate she posted could have been another copy of the one she had posted before as has been shown here. So at this point we are relying completely on danae's side of the story. Was there no cover letter? Nothing at all?

Yes, I may have jumped the gun to call her a liar. I misunderstood nbc to be saying that the second image had an earlier date stamp. That would have clearly indicated a fraud.

I want to stick to the facts and will do so from here out. My suspicions tell me there is something rotten in Denmark but that is speculation and I am sure that we will verify or debunk this claim eventually.

I'm not following this conversation. But I think Doc posted about it.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/ ... afraid-of/

The long forms from around the days of Danae's birth do not appear to include the parts indicating the race of the parents..


Neither did apparently her first long form.

But this one does show two additional boxes.

It's details like these, which would not make sense otherwise, that have made me less suspicious of her claims.

Source: Wisconsin DH



Source: North Carolina

So available to anyone, same in Minnesota, not even a tangible interest is needed...



Source: Minnesota

Hawaii



Section 2.2 states that the Director can determine what information will be provided. Given the precedent set with Danae, perhaps they have opened up our President's BC for public non-certified display...

Anyone care to apply for one?

Link to current law? I can only find that from 1976.

Section 2.2 sounds like it only refers to what can be made public, such as the newspaper announcements:

Earlier at FR Danae said if the form she got isn't adequate, she will order a certified one. Now she says:


Now, just WHY would Onaka be doing all of this phoning around instead of just covering the bases and sending a certified copy???

Here

I believe these are the infamous Administrative Rules Chapter 8 file that went off line. Butterdezilion discussed this.

Because non-certified copies are different than certified copies. Long forms likely cannot be obtained in a certified format. However it appears anyone could get anyone's non certified data, subject to the director of course.

That's exactly what I found. It's old. Where is current law?

Btw, Danae is getting a taste of what President Obama is familiar with. In response to a post suggesting she get a certified copy:

You know what, nbc, your recent habit of starting out your answers to people who don't agree with you with a cheap shot insult is quite birther itself. So you disagree with me. Prove I'm wrong, but not with "Dr C says" and "it appears". He doesn't know for sure either. Neither do you. I'll throw out the same challenge to you as I gave jy1977 - find someone born in Hawaii in 1960 or 1961 who has no connection to birtherism. Ask them to go to the Dept of Health and request a copy of their original birth record from when they were born. Ask for it to be certified. Have that person record the event and personally post the video and their report of their experience at thefogbow.com without it going through you.

Your comment makes zero sense. Her whole quest was to obtain a long form. She claims Onaka asked her certified or not.

And it does not appear that anyone can get any info on anyone else other than what appears in the vital stats of the paper.

Please stop speculating without checking the facts.

The Research and Statistics Office was part of the Dept. of Health when that long form was used. Other long forms from that period have the identical wording.

Also, here is the address to obtain genealogy data regarding births and deaths in Hawaii:

HAWAII
Research and Statistics Office
State Department of Health
Honolulu, HA 96801
(808) 548-5819

And here is a reference to an article published in 1982:

Burch TA. Health assessment of a community with pesticide contaminated drinking water: part II incidence of malignant neoplasms. Research and Statistics Office, Hawaii State Department of Health; 1982 Aug. 42:10-33.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1033&pg=3

Thanks

I agree with nbc and Dr C. I already asked my questions about this long-form copy in this thread.

nbc is trying to get to the truth here. Some of you FBer's are indeed acting like birfers. And I've been here long enough to know the difference.

Well, in her frenzy to prove her FHBC, Danae has just proven that even in a photograph, it is possible for the seal and stamp to not be visible on the front!

[imgwidth=100%]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g172/Danae_photos/Hawaii%20Docs/IMG_0595.jpg[/imgwidth]

Also, that SFBC is from the latest revision...

No it's not. It's the same as President Obama's. So Danae knows it is just as valid as a long form.

That's quite compelling evidence.

nbc insulted me for not agreeing with him. I find that to be birther beyond anything anyone else has said on this thread. Everyone here is entitled to his opinion. You feel you had your questions answered. Mine have not been. I find it very hard to believe the Hawaii Dept of Health would send someone a copier machine copy of an original birth record without certification and without a date it was issued. The reason I find this hard to believe is because of the birther foolishness the people in the Dept of Health have faced since Pres Obama scanned his COLB. To call someone and ask if they want that original record certified or not would open the door to everyone and anyone to ask for the same thing even though the Dept of Health has said repeatedly, the "database report" electronic COLB is all they issue now. I just don't believe after what Mr Onaka and Dr Fukino have been through they would do this. It would be too confusing. An uncertified, undated copy machine copy of a birth record is nothing but a souvenir and there's no reason for the State of Hawaii to give them out. Sooner or later someone would try to use it as proof of birth. Sorry, I think there's no way Dr Fukino would allow it.

Those photos by danae are here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ ... =1545#1545

close ups.

Time to pay up the $200 I am convinced

I was objecting to the use of the term liar (not by you though)



And yet, all evidence so far points to the opposite right now. Seems a bit early to call Danae a liar would you not agree?

I have no problem accepting that you do not believe things, it's all a matter to what extent such skepticism is extended.

Yes it is - but she needs a better camera so we can see the grain detail of the paper, and perhaps a spectrograph analysis of the red ink on the postmark, to be sure it wasn't a faked postmark.

Another comment about the "Race" boxes.
As I posted before, the mother and father's race is part of the extended long form that is not necessarily included. The Hawaii DOH modeled their long form after the US Standard Birth Certificate, customizing it to Hawaii's needs. Here is the extended part of the US standard BC form, where you can see that the parent's race are in boxes below the top form, and listed as "Information for Medical and Health Use Only". But because the HI computer generated COLB does include parent race information, this box was unmasked when making a copy of the long form for the requester. Here is a lower scan of that US Standard Form. Complete form is here: http://www.nber.org/natality/docs/standard-certificate-of-live-birth-rev-89.pdf
Note I picked a form from 1989 to be more age appropriate to the HI forms from 1969-71.



It would be interesting to see the complete HI Long Form certificate from that era, to see if the race boxes are located where they are in the Danae copy. A simple paper mask would remove the other "Information for Medical and Health Use Only" data in a simple copy machine copy. The appearance of the Race boxes does lend more credibility to the copy. How would someone know what the Race box numbers were, and their location on the long form certificate, if this information is normally suppressed? A Hawaiian MD might have this information, but it is not public information even to a family member.

What evidence? It's all based on assuming she's telling the truth. She posts a picture of an envelope with a date. A picture of a receipt with a date. And a white plain paper copy of the same birth record she shows as a color copy, with no date, no certification, and no proof it was in the envelope shown other than she claims it was. She says the new white copy has more information, when the photo of the green color copy clearly shows the page has been torn off at the bottom.

Ask yourself why, after 2 years of stating the only document Hawaii issues is the electronic form on security paper, Hawaii would issue something like this to someone. What this involved, if you believe Denae, is someone went to the file cabinet,or the "vault", pulled an original birth record, slapped it on the office copier and sent it to Denae. I don't believe it could have happened that way after what Dr Fukino and her dept have faced over the last 2 years. Why, when asked, would Denae ever say, nah it's ok, no need to date it and certify it for me? I would believe her if the plain paper copy was dated and certified by Mr Onaka, and the date matched or was within a day or two of the date on the envelope and receipt. I would believe it if Mr Onaka confirmed her story.

It's the current administrative rules, although it mention that it is under revision and to contact Onaka



She has a good point though

I don't think we have sufficient information to prove anything. I want to see more. Danae controls the information, like he, Lucas Smith, and dribbling it out in itself is not confidence-inducing. I think nbc is jumping to conclusions, after jumping down peoples' throats.

Let's let this play out and see what information we ultimately get. My suspicion is that we are being played.