There's a "tell". If she's already had a conversation with Mr Onaka, it would be easy to call back, explain she needed a certified copy after all and order one. If she's telling the truth, she has an easy way to prove she's telling the truth. Request a new, certified copy. It's just $10. Instead, she's ready to "quit all this". Sorry everyone, my BS meter is pegged on super-high. If she were to show a certified, dated copy I would believe her.

That's evidence, isn't it?




I doubt that there was any more information, the same form can be found online and fails to show the two blocks. That race is mentioned in Hawaii has specific relevance for Hawaiian Homelands. And the close up of the older document showed the presence of text similar to a 'this is a prima facie document' etc.




I understand your disbelief and yet several states appear to be doing just this. So why would Fukino object? In fact even Hawaiian rules mentions only certified documents.

There is at least no reason to call Danae a liar, would you not agree? You are right of course that there may be other explanations but given the evidence so far, Danae's explanation is quite logical.

I willing to believe that it is possible to obtain an uncertified copy of your own vault birth certificate in Hawaiil. Since we are talking about uncertified copies, such a thing would probably not be on the security paper used for certified copies. Such a thing wouldn't have a seal or issuance date because those are the very features that distinguish a certified copy, acceptable as authenticated evidence in a court of law, from an uncertified copy that has no legal value whatsoever.

So big deal. She got an uncertified copy. If President Obama were to suddenly lose his mind and request the State of Hawaii to produce an uncertified copy of his "long form" certificate, no court of law, and certainly no birther, would accept it as evidence of the President's birth in that state.

I really don't see what is the point in arguing whether it is real or not since it doesn't prove a damn thing either way.

I found at least one other copy from 1971 I believe which matches Danae's document. Earlier Nordyke documents show race as part of the top document

This is somewhat ironic. The Birfers show 3D photos of the prior 2D documents, ala FactCheck, and the obots bring up every reason why they must be fake, because they just can't imagine this happening. Sort of like the Birfers cannot imagine why Obama doesn't just pull a string or two and show his original long form - same argument - different side.


Kimba, read my prior post. There is a reason why only the top part of the long form BC is given to the parents.

I think it's time for someone to mail/fax Danae's photos to Dr Onaka and ask him if this copy is possible, and to explain what was sent. And ask about the race boxes that are unmasked at the bottom of the long form. Are they included? Surely if this was sent by someone from the DOH as claimed, they would remember this unusual request. I can't imagine a Hawaiian government employee lying to shield the POTUS.

Jumping to what conclusions, what 'jumping down people's throats'.

That we should not be calling Danae a liar? That Danae's story appears to become more and more credible over time? Such is the problem with data, even when it trickles in slowly.

I am jumping to no other conclusion than that Danae should not be called a liar and that Danae has made a convincing case so far, despite my initial doubts.

Yes, let's all continue to call, mail, fax and email the officials of the State of Hawaii until everyone one of us is declared a "vexatious requester".

We all know what the issue here is, the doctor and the hospital of birth. If she had said certified Onaka may have said no, but non certified, different issue. I see no reason to conclude either way.

Let's see what we know so far

1. In several states, anyone can get access to non-certified data related to vital events
2. The extent of said data is to be determined
3. The administrative rules of Hawaii (chapter 117 HAR 11) indicate that non-certified data can be released restricted by section 2.2
4. What data is involved
5. HRS 338-18 shows that verfication of data can be granted to a larger audience but the fact to be verified needs to be known to the applicant.

Just a few of the details.,

x2

Exactly, pointed out how other long forms from that period also showed the Research and Statistics Office... A little research could have gone a long way

That's one way of resolving this but that does not mean that we should therefor reject other evidence, even if we 'believe' it to be unreliable. The ability to draw conclusion in presence of noise and uncertainty may not be trivial but with the right tools, it is not that hard to come up with a reliable conclusion given the data.

I do not have to prove you wrong, I do not care about proof, I care about one deals with facts, assertions and how one responds to such.

Noone will know for sure, but then we will never know for sure anything really. And that's for sure...

Or it's folded... The fact that the information did not show up on the earlier document, and was added on this one is to be analyzed.

1. It makes sense that Hawaii would add this kind of information. for instance place of birth of parents was added to the COLB now provided by Hawaii as it is relevant for Hawaiian Homelands issues.
2. adding it to the second copy would only have caused questions as all known long forms did not show this information

As such I conclude, based on the present evidence, that the presence of the two boxes speaks in favor of Danae's position.

Does anyone else wonder why Dr. Onaka would personally speak with her? Don't you think the head of the department of vital statistics for the entire state of Hawai'i would be a bit busy to talk to a random person requesting a copy of their birth certificate?

valid question but I fail to see how this can be used either way. Why would Danae mention speaking to Onaka, if she had made up the story. An unnamed clerk would have made no real difference, would it?

Sure it would.

makes one sound so much more important than

It would only distract from the document. We can all speculate. Why not call Onaka ?

Why???? An uncertified copy means nothing. It doesn't matter if it is real or not. It proves nothing.

So why harass the State of Hawaii further?

No. She's shown nothing that proves the dated receipt and the undated plain paper copy both came in the dated envelope. "Evidence" would be a dated, certified copy of an original birth record, preferably on security paper. She should write back for a dated certified copy. Instead she's ready to throw up her hands and quit after a little bit of push back. That tells me a lot about how not very committed she is to proving her point. Denae would mention talking to Onaka because she never expected anyone would challenge her story. "I talked to Onaka" sounds good, like Lucas Smith going to Kenya. I would believe her if Onaka confirmed he spoke to her.

I agree, and I think it was a simple paper mask placed over the bottom portion of the long form, to just allow the two race boxes to be copied. I suspect the HI DOH has done this before, as this would be part of the Hawaiian Homelands procedure as well. I think we've both hit upon this point several times nbc, although you would never know it from some of the emotional arguments in this thread.


Someone has to add this don't they? We have billions of copies of the Obama COLB photos on this site, including the home page.

Yet Danae says exactly what I asked about.


Agreed!

Look closer. It's torn off where a fold may have been.

Can you provide a link?

All the long forms from this period have the raised seal and other information at the bottom. The close up from 02/23/2010 shows the 'warning text' at the bottom fold.

Unlikely that it contained the two boxes.

That[highlight]someone[/highlight] should be Denae. She needs to re- request a certified copy of what she says they sent. Let's assume she's telling the truth. Since she has already spoken to Mr Onaka, she should have no hesitation to call him up and say," My bad, the organization I was applying to needs a certified, dated copy after all. I would like to order another copy of what you sent with a date and your certification, here's another $10. And can you please email me confirming we have spoken about this." If she balks at doing this, she's not being truthful.

That's an awfully simplistic position.