Someone posts an undated, uncertified, plain paper copy of something they admit they already had, wraps it in a story about talking to Mr Onaka, and you believe her? I find that an awfully simplistic position. If Denae really wants to win the bet, she has to provide a certified, dated copy. If it all happened as she says, it should be easy for her to call up Mr Onaka, who has already talked to her and request another certified, dated copy.

I might as well throw in my two cents.

First off, previous experience with Danae has told me that she's not above making crap up. I direct your attention to this FR exchange we had last month, beginning with this post of mine:



That's multiple made-up assertions, presented as fact, in a single post. Subsequent posts mostly involved her evading most of these issues, citing population stats from the 1980s forward, and telling me to prove HER wrong. Like oh-so-many other Birthers, Danae is definitely ready and willing to be a BS artist to further the Birther cause.

But I believe there's a difference between making up and repeating bad information and manufacturing fake physical evidence. It's the difference between being a BS artist and an outright con-artist. Think back over the last two years, and while we've seen innumerable false claims from Birthers, we've seen very few efforts to actually fake evidence to support their claims. Lucas Smith is obviously the most notable, and he was most likely drawn by financial incentives. Polarik's kinda faked two documents, neither of which were of much significance, but the second one got him pilloried by Birthers themselves. And really...that's about it. Remember, when Ed Hale has promised the release of revelatory documentation, he never faked it. He just never delivered on the promises.

You do have inbetween bad information and fake evidence an intermediate kind of lie, in the bogus story or anecdote. Jim Bancroft's story of meeting teenage Obama is silly, but I do suspect that he's sincerely deluded himself into believing it. Some of the more dishonest Birthers also claim to possess specific incriminating evidence, which they just decline to produce. I had an argument with butterdezillion last week after she repeatedly claimed to have heard certain claims on a radio show, and I proved she was full of it (though here, I believe she allowed herself to believe that her own faulty memory was more reliable than it really is). That makes them worse than the BS artists, IMO, but even they aren't actually taking steps to manufacture fake materials. They've just kept ramping up their rhetoric to the point where they ever have to plead secrecy or admit they're wrong, and they're incapable of the latter.

This is an overlong build-up to saying that while Danae is certainly a BS artist, and is capable of considerable feats of intellectual dishonesty, I'm not prepared to leap to the conclusion that she's a con artist, and has thus faked the copy of the birth certificate to win a bet. There's little justification to impute that uncommonly high level of malicious intent to her. And given that even the creases match up on her two documents, that means that faking it would have taken at least a reasonably high level of forethought to deceive. Given that, like Dr.C, I think that piece of paper was probably sent to her by Hawaii.

Of course, as pointed out, what she's delivered here isn't even close to what the Birthers want to see from Obama. Even the grouped photo doesn't really prove anything; unless her 'new' document existed only as a Photoshop creation, there's no reason it can't be in the same shot as the 'old' document. The photo doesn't prove that Hawaii made the copy and not her.

There's also been a lot of skepticism over Danae's narrative, and arguments made about why that should cast doubt onto the veracity of the document. I don't think one necessarily follows from the other here. While I think it's unlike Danae to fake a document and claim it's real, I don't think she's above misrepresenting the narrative that led to her receipt of it. Her alleged conversation with Alvin Onaka? I'd say it's fair that she talked to him on the phone, but I don't think we can assume at all that the conversation went the way she's described it. Similarly, she keeps referencing an "organization" she supposedly requested this for, but is remarkably cagey about this "organization." They wanted a state-issued birth certificate, but she didn't inquire as to whether it needed to be certified when asked? And she went ahead and asked for non-certified, even though she'd been trying to get a copy since April or so? Even though state certification is practically THE central issue in Birtherdom? That's just stupid. Not incomprehensibly stupid, but pretty remarkably stupid and short-sighted. Frankly, I suspect she wasn't actually given the option. It doesn't mean the document's fake; it means part of her story is.

Of course, Danae can put this whole question of whether one can actually get a certified long-form from Hawaii to rest. And it'll only cost $10.

Nope, I am pointing out that your position is awfully simplistic...

As to my position, if you care to familiarize yourself with it is simple: I am interested in the truth. When people started calling Danae a liar I objected because there was insufficient evidence. Based on further analysis of the documents, and additional data, I have swung from skeptical of Danae's comments to accepting the plausibility of her story.

PS: the bet has been paid

She could of course ask, but perhaps she will find out the simple fact that a certified copy is no longer provided... That of course does not cover non-certified versions. While it would be nice to see a certified copy, I find the position that this would help determine the truthfulness of her position, rather illogical, at least the absence of such a certificate would not add much. I would agree that if she did get a certified copy , it would further undermine the position that she is lying...

Is it possible that a COLB similar to President Obma's was in the envelope and Danae is simply dribbling out misinformation? Maybe, maybe not. What that means is that we don't have enough information to prove or disprove anything. So I wouldnt'; be jumping to conclusions like nbc is. Indeed, the manner of dribbling out the information, the story about being called by the director of the department and being asked if she wanted a certified or non-certified copy, and the fact that there is no issuance date all have my b.s. meter lighting up.

In my mind all of this is inconclusive but suspicious.

Possible, yes, but there are aspects to the story which make her position stronger

1. The folds appear to line up and were not found on the original document
2. The added boxes would only serve to distract. I have yet to see any long forms that have this information added the way Danae's has.

At least it may prevent people from calling her a liar.

Interesting materials. There were indeed known problems with Hawaii especially with the Certificate of Hawaiian birth which was open for abuse. I remember reading concerns of such expressed during the debates to include Hawaii as one of the US states.

Will do some research... I find her comments so far quite reasonable overall. Will let you know what I find here.

The conclusion however appears to be wishful thinking



But this is hardly lying as much as ignorance combined with a few facts.

Yes, I found several sites which claim erroneously that under HRS 338 17.8 children could be registered even when born abroad and that their location of birth would be Hawaii. Under this HRS, the parents had to prove residence in Hawaii... So unlikely. The Certificate of Hawaiian birth had been ended in 1972 I believe, so again, no go here.
Yes, you can register in Hawaii up to one year after birth without it showing up as delayed but again, there are requirements that need to be met. Nothing different here than what is common in so many states.

Butterdezilion has some interesting information



Since the rules say "may" they do not have to do so... Interesting...

When she asked for a non certified copy



So that's that... The director gets to decide what is made available...

Thanks Loren, I haven't been following this story closely, but I always trust your logic and judgment.

By the way, I believe I've seen you post at FR that you have determined who started the "Obama was born in Kenya" rumor.

When are you going to write this up? I'd really like to know what you found.

As I remember RC's conversation, they told him they would not send out a document without a date issues. I may be misremembering, but just sayin'.

I still have no idea what she's posting, even if she's telling the truth, proves and more so what it proves that's of any benefit to her or birthers.

I also have no idea, after all the birther crap re BCs they would not want anything and everything certified.

It would be helpful to ask questions about non certified information

The certified long form looks like this below, with the seal, date, and certification signatures. (BB posted this earlier - I just reversed the negative.)

Note only the TOP form is included for certification in this instance, and there are NO parent race boxes. Kimba, there is nothing "torn off" on the original certificate, that is all the recipient is allowed to keep. The extended information is considered medically private. The race boxes were allowed to show on the alleged non-certified BC, which would only be available at the Hawaii DOH. How many times does this point have to be repeated? Where did the race boxes come from if they were not copied from the DOH original?

And what difference would it make if Obama could go and see his OWN long form certificate? Would you take his word for it that he'd seen it? They aren't going to give him a copy of it - and they *certainly* wouldn't give him any kind of certified copy of it - so he wouldn't have that to show to anyone. He could take a photo of it himself, but who would be willing to accept that? Birthers would just claim it was some kind of forgery - even more than they already do with the certified copy of his COLB that he's already posted online and made available for inspection at his campaign office. So, what would be the point?

I thought danae's picture was deleted from the photobucket? It's here:

http://s56.photobucket.com/albums/g172/ ... heBet1.jpg

Me to. When I was young, I took that to get a passport. Was refused a passport because I needed my "real" BC. Called the hospital where I was born, received the info I needed and ordered my legal birth certificate. Which was accepted by the passport office!

An outsiders comment on the images posted by Danae:

It's my opinion that the B/W form is the nearest thing to the original birth certificate as issued by the hospital. While I don't remember what other statistical data had to be provided for the DOH that information may have been on a separate form to comprise the total "long form".

The reason for two forms back then would have been simply the reproduction technologies available in those years: a simple b/w photocopy of the form itself or from a microfilm/fiche would show the untampered data. So the publically available info would be the "b.c. proper", while the statistics would remain hidden (probably even to the born person today).

The second form Danae shows and identifies as given to her by her mother around year 2000 is a color reproduction with content obviously copyed from the original form. This seems to have been made with already more advanced repro technology, eg using screening to drop some portion of the original. This may still be optical and not digital processing depending of the time this was done. I do remember (possibly from back in the '80s) technology to limit content from microfiches.

The most current form is of course the computer generated COLB similar to Obamas.

IMHO all these forms represent a "COLB" (by whatever was the running naming convention of the day) and none of these represents anything like a real "long form". One would have to read up the legal history in HI as to locate what would be provided at the points times, and how content is related to federal prescriptions or agreements on common content accross the US. I seem to remember someone posted the federal minimum requirements on content once.

What "Danae" did is more on the order of an FOIA request rather than simply ordering a LFBC. So yes, you can get that info on yourself but no, you can't just order a LFBC. I wonder if Onaka would even certify it. To win the bet, she needs to get it signed, embossed and dated.

In an email exchange* with her, she indicated she spoke several times to Onaka and his secretary,Audry plus a Brian was emailed regarding her request. She says that according to Hawaiian laws, you are entitled to copies of any documents they have on you.

http://hawaii.gov/oip/uipa.html#92F21

She also quoted from the UIPA manual.

Her saying she needed it for some institution is a lie. She already had two perfectly legal BCs, long and short. No, according to her, she doesn't have her long form any more than President Obama has his. What she has is a photocopy made by her mother.

Onaka asking her if she wanted it certified or not was probably part of him trying to figure out exactly what the heck she wanted.

*

P.S. She also insists President Obama's BC has been proven a fake. Several times over.

but... but... but how can that be when they claim to have not seen it?

And, of course, their "proof" is utter nonsense, but what else is new.

Even more embarrassing, I tried to get my driver's license at age 16 with the "footie" hospital-issued "birth certificate." That didn't work either, because it wasn't the real deal.

The thing that bugs me now is the number of birthers who insist that's the valid one, when it's anything but. It's a souvenir. I find myself wondering if birfer memory is really so short that they believe they took a hospital memento along when they went to get a DL (we already know most of 'em don't have passports so we know they didn't take it along to apply for one of those). Enough of them have said it so that would appear to be the case.

On one level, this is maybe the most fascinating argument we've ever had. I can't even figure out who's winning. I suspect Kimba isn't done yet.

On another level, I haz a sad that there isn't anything more important going on ... or is there?

In any event, the only way to settle this one way or t'other is to find somebody born in Hawaii about that time frame, and get them to formally request this and that ... certified and uncertified, date-stamped and not date-stamped ... and then give us redacted photos showing the results. Make phone calls on speakerphone and make YouTubes of the conversations (hiding faces or showing stills, of course).

Let's find someone who's in President Obama's situation (except for the being President of the United States part) and get them to document exactly what they can and cannot get from the government of Hawaii's Department of Health.

None of us trust Danae to do it. She'll mess it up even if she's dealing in good faith, and she'll never give us the results that will show the truth. So if you want something done right ... we've got to do it. The birthers won't believe the results, but at least we'll know, and we can challenge them to come up with any provable differing results.

Our guinea pig volunteer must at least threaten a lawsuit under UIPA if denied a certified copy of the original, long-form, vault birth certificate. We won't make him or her follow through with the lawsuit, but just so s/he can say she tried everything.

I do believe that No Pilikia and June Bug are Hawai'istanis, and that we have one other whose name escapes me. Somehow we must find us a near-50 year old Hawaiian native Earthling person and do this thing.

It seems that at least one person has accepted that she has won the bet. But that's not really relevant. Whatever Danae may have argued to get the non-certified copy, it appears that by all reasonable standards, the document was provided to her as she explained. There is certainly little evidence to argue that she 'lied' in this particular instance.

My initial response to Danae's document was... There we go again... Especially the absence of security paper bothered me. But on closer examination there were aspects which could not be easily resolved such as the horizontal fold on her latest document, or the addition of the two boxes. Which is why I, and others, asked her to take pictures. Then Dr C pointed out that non certified documents are indeed handed out in several jurisdictions and I started my search, leading to Chapter 8 (now chapter 117) of the Hawaiian Administrative Rules, which in section 2.5 point out that certain non certified data was available to requesters, limited by section 2.2. I noticed how the location of birth was added to the new COLB, likely to meet the needs for Hawaiian Homelands, and thus the addition of the two boxes marked 'race' made sense.

After Danae provided actual photographs and the pictures again not only do not support a position that she is a liar, but they show more compelling evidence for her position, it was time to change my position from 'show me the beef' to 'well done'. Then there is the statement that someone met with her and observed how the receipt has leaked through to the back of the non-certified form. It all leads to more and more indirect evidence that support her position.

Nothing here allows us to be certain that the document is indeed the document she received but the preponderance of evidence surely makes a very strong case.

We have to take wherever the evidence leads us, even if it leads to uncomfortable conclusions or questions.

That Danae believes that Obama's COLB was proven to be false is unfortunate but somewhat irrelevant here.

It is now time for someone to get Onaka's side of the story and determine what this all means. As Dr C has pointed out, if the document had been certified, it would have gone against Hawaiian statements, but non-certified...

And would birthers accept a non certified document for Obama? Only if it did not show entries in the fields for hospital and MD... And the absence of such entries would mean exactly what? What if the boxes do show entries...

From an eligibility argument Danae has added little but she has shown how with some determination there is more than one way to get access to data. I for one had not considered that the HRS 338 applied in most cases to certified forms...

Sadly, I don't qualify, Foggy. Though I live in Hawaii now, I was born in Michigan.

BTW, I got my first driver's license and my first passport (1964 and 1969 respectively) with a baptismal certificate! Times have changed...

As one who has put questioned document experts on the stand, and successfully adduced credible evidence on direct and destroyed such experts on cross, let me simply observe that discerning whether a document is real or not from a photograph is a fool's errand. I believe one of Orly Taitz's experts agrees with me on this. Although Taitz has completely misrepresented that expert's opinions on the matter.

So, while I'm glad nbc finds proof in the folds in the images, that's really not proof of anything.

I haz questions.

• What was "the bet"

• How are we to know what documents (from Danae's FR post) came in what envelope?

• Does Danae have any credibility at all?

• If she asked for a "Certified Long Form BC" would what she gets in return look a lot like Obama's COLB?

Muck Who can verify that 97132 is Newberg's real and true zip code.

Over at FR, "Danae" has more of an explantation of how she got the LFBC. At the end she says:



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ ... =1609#1609

The lady I spoke with was Audry who works for Dr. Onaka. She never mentioned providing another person with a non-certified copy of a birth certificate nor volunteered that one was available. I spoke with her twice. I assume that for privacy reasons she would not discuss the transactions with another person and I fully understand that. However, she said to me both times that since 2001 the computer generated certificate was all that is provided. She may be parsing words here about what is actually a "certificate". Since others are trying to make contact with Dr. Onaka directly I am not planning to call again. I get the impression that as soon as you even hint the subject is birthers or matters related that they want to hang up.