Main Menu

When is a long form not a long form?

This is a real conversation that just took place — not something you would hear in just any household…

Dad: Well if you want to go to Canada, the first thing you will need is a Passport.
Son: I don’t have one of those.
Dad: And to get a passport you’ll need a birth certificate.
Son: I vaguely remember one, but I haven’t seen it in years.
Dad: I think I have a copy, but it won’t do you any good. Starting April 1, 2011 your South Carolina birth card won’t be valid for a passport application because it doesn’t have the parents’ names on it. Look at this South Carolina specimen card circa 1977. You see that it has much of the needed information, but not parent’s names.
Son: I guess I will have to order a birth certificate and I expect that I can do that on the Internet.
Dad: Sure, you can go to VitalChek.com, but they charge a fee that about doubles the price of the certificate. It’s better to order one directly from the State. Then you can use an online form to fill out your passport application. The good news is that starting April 1, 2011, our local post office will be a Passport Acceptance Facility.

What was interesting, though, was what I found on the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control web site. South Carolina produces three types of birth certificate. The first is the birth card that can be gotten at any county health office on a walk-in basis (not good for travel). The second is “computer-generated long form” that’s pretty similar to President Obama’s COLB (no doctor or hospital name). The third:

Certified copies of the actual birth certificate that was filed by the attendant at birth will only be issued when a computer-generated form is not available.

Sorry Senator Graham, no presidential run for you.

Print Friendly

31 Responses to When is a long form not a long form?

  1. avatar
    James M March 30, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    Please tell me that conversation is edited. I would have probably killed myself or at the very least run away from home if family conversations took the tone of a radio Public Service Announcement.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2011 at 12:31 am #

    James M: Please tell me that conversation is edited. I would have probably killed myself or at the very least run away from home if family conversations took the tone of a radio Public Service Announcement.

    [Chuckle] Well, the exchange is not verbatim, but the information content is accurate. We have a fairly elevated dialog around here.

  3. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP March 31, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    An important announcement tomorrow, APRIL 1ST. Hmmmm. This should be interesting

  4. avatar
    Sef March 31, 2011 at 8:03 am #

    An Enhanced Driver’s License is adequate for Canada. Passport is not an absolute requirement. Of course, to get one of those you need the same proof of citizenship as for a passport. You also need to know how to drive.

  5. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    Sef: An Enhanced Driver’s License is adequate for Canada.

    Only for entry by land or sea. I would assume Doc Jr is flying, since it’s a pretty long drive from South Carolina.

  6. avatar
    Sef March 31, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    Scientist: Only for entry by land or sea.I would assume Doc Jr is flying, since it’s a pretty long drive from South Carolina.

    True.

  7. avatar
    y_p_w March 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm #

    Sef:
    An Enhanced Driver’s License is adequate for Canada.Passport is not an absolute requirement.Of course, to get one of those you need the same proof of citizenship as for a passport. You also need to know how to drive.

    It’s possible to get an enhanced ID-only card for those who don’t drive – at least in Washington. I didn’t look up if other states issuing enhanced DLs are also issuing enhanced IDs.

    http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/IDdesigns.html

    There’s also the option of getting a US Passport Card.

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3926.html

    The trusted traveler IDs (NEXUS and SENTRI) are also good, but I think most people wouldn’t getting them.

  8. avatar
    MichaelN April 1, 2011 at 5:59 am #

    When is a forgery a COLB?

    http://s1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/bluecat6/BC%20Pics/?albumview=slideshow

  9. avatar
    Dave April 1, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    MichaelN — you already posted this non-issue on another thread.

  10. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 8:22 am #

    Dave:
    MichaelN — you already posted this non-issue on another thread.

    A birther’s CAT scan might be more interesting. Let’s see those anomalies.

  11. avatar
    MichaelN April 2, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    So FactCheck took photos of the ‘original’ COLB with all its raised embossed seals, but these photo images of this ‘original’ COLB’ shows specks, consistent with specks on Daily KOS scanned copies of the ‘original’ COLB.

    Take another look …

    http://s1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/bluecat6/BC%20Pics/?albumview=slideshow

  12. avatar
    Wile E. April 2, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    MichaelN:
    So FactCheck took photos of the original’ COLB with all its raised embossed seals, but these photoimages of this original’ COLB’ shows specks, consistent with specks on Daily KOS scanned copies of the original’ COLB.

    Take another look …

    Do you have some reason to believe that these “specks” weren’t simply a part of the ‘original’ COLB?

  13. avatar
    Suranis April 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    Yes Micheal I looked at it. Yes Micheal, once again. all that proves is that both the scan _and_ the factcheck photos were of the same document. Which means all polarics whining about, for example, there not being a raised seal on the Image that the Obama campaign (NOT Daily KOS) released was total bollox.

    Hate to stun you but ink specks are very common on something that’s been printed on any kind of printer.

    And yes I didn’t ignore you saying and thereby “admit” that the daily KOS released the image again. Mainly as it wasn’t the Daily KOS that released it.

    Sheesh

  14. avatar
    gorefan April 2, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    MichaelN: Take another look …

    This is the work of Polarik. He has already been caught faking images. He was banned from Freerepublic for it. Remember MichealN, people are judged by their associates.

    Go to this website, these guys are actual image experts.

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html&serendipitycsuccess=true

    They destroy polarik when he shows up to comment.

  15. avatar
    MichaelN April 3, 2011 at 3:30 am #

    There is no long-form birth certificate for Obama, that was generated from Obama’s alleged birth at Kapialoni.

    ““The birth announcements were printed from unconfirmed information provided to the Newspapers by the Department of Health without the DOH or newspaper editors confirming the actual location of the birth with any hospital in Hawaii,” says Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.”

    Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. This law then mandates that the vital records registrar must register the birth with the vital records office in coordination with an official, original Hawaiian birth record.

    “They (newspaper editors) don’t confirm “native” birth status,” continued Crosby, “The newspaper doesn’t care if the birth occurred in the local hospital. They don’t even print that. They merely published information provided to them directly and exclusively from the Department of Health in 1961, which means that any birth meeting the criteria of this law can be registered, and therefore published in a newspaper announcement.”
    “The birth location is mistakenly implied by people because it appears in this newspaper. I also found several birth records in Japan for birth’s registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals.

    First of all, as shown by Crosby, all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address.
    “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said.
    He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1000 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because that is the information registered, not medically verified.”
    If the DOH doesn’t include accurate information about the parents for birth announcements, in all cases, what makes people conclude a native birth even though the DOH also omits accurate information about the location of the birth, as well? Crosby also discovered that the announcements are in a tale-tell order which exposes a shocking fact about Obama’s birth announcements.

    “Did anyone notice the announcements are not in any alphabetic order, or in order of birthdate? This is because, in 1961, birth registration numbers were issued based on the location of the local Vital Records office in which the registration was recorded. The hospital does not assign these numbers, the DOH does. It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center, or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby.
    He continued, “It appears Obama’s birth was registered with the satellite office near his grandparent’s home some distance from the offices nearest to and most used by the hospitals. This particular office was commonly used by indigenous people of Hawaii wanting to record births of children outside of the city. This is why the U.S. Department of Health created the Certificate of Live Birth template in 1959 with a check box indicating whether or not the child was born in the city limits and if the residence of the mother was a farm or not. It appears Obama’s birth at least did not occur in the city of Honolulu and, at most, did not even occur in the state of Hawaii.”

    http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/04/final-report-obamas-birth-announcements.html

  16. avatar
    nc1 April 3, 2011 at 5:33 am #

    gorefan: This is the work of Polarik.He has already been caught faking images.He was banned from Freerepublic for it.Remember MichealN, people are judged by their associates.

    Go to this website, these guys are actual image experts.

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html&serendipitycsuccess=true

    They destroy polarik when he shows up to comment.

    How do you explain the discrepancy in pictures (#1 and #3) published by the FactCheck – one shows daylight and the other night time – yet the timestamps are 80 seconds apart?

    Image #3 does not show the seal.

    Does anybody have a rational explanation for these inconsistencies?

  17. avatar
    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    nc1: How do you explain the discrepancy in pictures (#1 and #3)published by the FactCheck – one shows daylight and the other night time – yet the timestamps are 80 seconds apart?

    Image #3 does not show the seal.

    Does anybody have a rational explanation for these inconsistencies?

    Gee you mean it was taken indoors in an office and they turned off the light? And the shadow covered the seal to if could not be seen clearly? That took me all of 2 seconds to figure out, you got any other stupid lie a 3 year old could have an answer for?

  18. avatar
    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    MichaelN: Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth.

    Micheal, that act was passed in 1982., when President Obama was 20. The act only applies to minor child, which Obama was not at the time. You know this

    Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    Considering that this is the whole crux of the guys article it falls to bits right there.

    Go chase kangaroos or something.

  19. avatar
    gorefan April 3, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    nc1: How do you explain the discrepancy in pictures (#1 and #3) published by the FactCheck –

    By looking at pictures 2, 5 and 6.

    See how faint the seal’s image is in picture 2, almost invisible.

    Picture 3 does not show the seal because that portion is completely in shadow. What direction is the light coming from? Almost 90 degrees to the certifcate.

    Look at pictures 5 & 6, see when the seal is in shadow and the light is at an angle, the seal ridges are highlighted.

    As to the so called day-night effect. Maybe they closed the blinds.

  20. avatar
    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    gorefan:

    As to the so called day-night effect.Maybe they closed the blinds.

    They did. If you look at the think in its blown up resolution you can clearly see people working at computers in the background.

  21. avatar
    obsolete April 4, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    Why does MichaelN keep repeating the lie of “Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth” when he knows:
    1. it didn’t go into effect until 1982.
    2. It would still list the actual place of birth- (The State wouldn’t list “Honolulu” if the child was born in Perth, Australia.

    MichaelN- I am calling you out for lying!

  22. avatar
    MichaelN April 4, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    Suranis April 3, 2011 at 8:07 am Suranis(Quote) #

    MichaelN: Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth.

    Micheal, that act was passed in 1982., when President Obama was 20. The act only applies to minor child, which Obama was not at the time. You know this

    Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    Considering that this is the whole crux of the guys article it falls to bits right there.

    Go chase kangaroos or something.
    ——————————————————————–

    The Act applies to an application made on behalf of a minor or an application made by an adult.

    “the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor,”

    Obama’s alleged ‘officially’ issued COLB states “date filed” which may well be the case & it was filed before 1982, but Obama was issued this ‘official’ COLB in 2007 and thus his application for issuance appears to be after 1982 and thus subject to the provisions of HRS 338-17.8

  23. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 12:32 am #

    MichaelN: Obama’s alleged officially’ issued COLB states “date filed” which may well be the case & it was filed before 1982, but Obama was issued this official’ COLB in 2007 and thus his application for issuance appears to be after 1982 and thus subject to the provisions of HRS 338-17.8

    Wow. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you REALLY trying to make that stupid of an argument?

    HINT: The Act applies to when a birth certificate is created. That is the “issuance” meant in the act.

    Requesting a NEW copy of your birth certificate in a subsequent year is NOT a new “issuance” in those terms. You are merely being provided with a NEW COPY. The only difference that occurs over time is what FORMAT that info will be provided to you in. Currently, as has been the case for a decade now, that format for HI Birth Certificate requests is the COLB.

    *DUH*

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    MichaelN: Obama’s alleged officially’ issued COLB states “date filed” which may well be the case & it was filed before 1982, but Obama was issued this official’ COLB in 2007 and thus his application for issuance appears to be after 1982 and thus subject to the provisions of HRS 338-17.8

    If Obama were trying to register a foreign birth after 1982, he might be able to do it. However, Obama’s birth was registered in 1961, as evidenced by his birth certificate file date, his 1981 certificate number, and the Health Department birth list published in the 1961 local newspapers. That 1961 registration could not have been an out of state birth because there was no out of state registration statute to authorize it.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 2:13 am #

    obsolete: MichaelN- I am calling you out for lying!

    Hey, don’t make my web site violate the Americans with Disabilities Act! He could be lying, but then he could just be “special” in the way he reads and understands English.

  26. avatar
    nc1 April 4, 2011 at 3:51 am #

    Suranis: Gee you mean it was taken indoors in an office and they turned off the light? And the shadow covered the seal to if could not be seen clearly? That took me all of 2 seconds to figure out, you got any other stupid lie a 3 year old could have an answer for?

    You need to visit a doctor and get your eyesight checked.

    Image #3: The lights in the office were turned ON. Vertical blinds were not closed and it was dark outside.

  27. avatar
    MichaelN April 4, 2011 at 5:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 2:10 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #

    MichaelN: Obama’s alleged officially’ issued COLB states “date filed” which may well be the case & it was filed before 1982, but Obama was issued this official’ COLB in 2007 and thus his application for issuance appears to be after 1982 and thus subject to the provisions of HRS 338-17.8

    If Obama were trying to register a foreign birth after 1982, he might be able to do it. However, Obama’s birth was registered in 1961, as evidenced by his birth certificate file date, his 1981 certificate number, and the Health Department birth list published in the 1961 local newspapers. That 1961 registration could not have been an out of state birth because there was no out of state registration statute to authorize it.
    —————————————————————————————-

    Who said it was registered for an out of state birth in 1961?

    All granny needed to do was merely register the birth, stating home birth, information to follow, then any number of methods left available by the slack Hawaiian statutes, could be employed to ‘fix’ the rest, for example …………..

    §338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:

    (1) Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant’s parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;

    (2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;

    (3) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;

    (4) Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:

    (A) The birth registrant’s sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant’s birth certificate; or

    (B) The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant’s birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or

    (5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]

    ——————————————————————————————-

    or how about this method, granny ‘finds’ a kid, then later Stanley Ann admits that she left it on granny’s door-step.

    §338-7 Registration of foundlings; foundling report. (a) Whoever assumes the custody of a living child of unknown parentage shall immediately report, on a form to be approved by the department of health, to the local agent of the department the following:

    (1) Date and place of finding or assumption of custody;

    (2) Sex;

    (3) Color or race;

    (4) Approximate age of child;

    (5) Name and address of the person or institution with whom the child has been placed for care;

    (6) Name given to the child by the finder or custodian.

    (b) The place where the child was found or custody assumed shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.

    (c) The foundling report shall constitute the certificate of birth.

    (d) If a foundling child is identified and a regular certificate of birth is found or obtained, the report shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction. [L 1949, c 327, §11; RL 1955, §57-10; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-7]
    ———————————————————————————————-

    How about granny’s friend, the ‘local agent’, does granny a favour…..

    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

    ——————————————————————————–

    Then we have …….

    §338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.

    (b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.

    (c) Any certified copy of final decree of adoption, or abstract thereof, of persons born in the State, rendered by courts of other states and territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or courts of a foreign country, shall be considered properly certified when attested by the clerk of the court in which it was rendered with the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding judge, chancellor, or magistrate that the attestation is in due form.

    (d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence as it deems necessary to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.

    (e) The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order setting aside a decree of adoption, the department shall restore the original certificate to its original place in the files. [L 1949, c 327, §24; RL 1955, §57-23; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-20; am L 1978, c 50, §1; am L 1979, c 203, §2; am L 1980, c 153, §6 and c 232, §18; am L 1988, c 274, §2; am L 1990, c 338, §2]
    ———————————————————–

    Then we have …………..

    §338-21 Children born to parents not married to each other. (a) All children born to parents not married to each other, irrespective of the marriage of either natural parent to another, (1) on the marriage of the natural parents with each other, (2) on the voluntary, written acknowledgments of paternity under oath signed by the natural father and the natural mother, or (3) on establishment of the parent and child relationship under chapter 584, are entitled to the same rights as those born to parents married to each other and shall take the name so stipulated by their parents or, if the parents do not agree on the name, shall take the name specified by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the name that is in the best interests of the child. The original certificate of birth shall contain the name so stipulated. The child or children or the parents thereof may petition the department of health to issue a new original certificate of birth, and not a duplicate of the original certificate that has been amended, altered, or modified, in the new name of the child, and the department shall issue the new original certificate of birth. As used in this section “name” includes the first name, middle name, or last name.

    (b) The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.

    (c) If the child’s natural parents marry each other and desire to change the child’s name, the child’s name may be changed and a new original certificate of birth prepared.

    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of the courts to order the department to prepare new certificates of birth under section 584-23. [L 1949, c 327, §25; RL 1955, §57-24; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am
    —————————————————————————

    All tooo easy to get a COLB from Hawaii, i.e. if the internet image is really that of a genuine document issued by HDoH.

    So far, all the internet image proves is that it is an internet image.

    All it might prove (if a genuine official issue) is that the birth of Barry was registered by someone.

  28. avatar
    Suranis April 4, 2011 at 7:03 am #

    nc1: You need to visit a doctor and get your eyesight checked.

    Image #3:The lights in the office were turned ON. Vertical blinds were not closed and it was dark outside.

    Brilliant Holmes, aside from the fact that you cant see a window from anywhere in the image. And lights are typically on in an office day or night as windows don’t provide uniform illumination for reading documents. And the same guy is still sitting at a desk in the background.

    In any case, modern cameras typically adjust their shutter speed to compensate for what is in front of them. For a highly illuminated scene, it will lower the shutter speed to avoid overexposing the image. So is someone was shining a light on a piece of paper, it will adjust for a bright light, making everything that is not part of the bright light appear dark as not enough light will have been allowed in to see it clearly.

    Yes, amateur photography is one of my hobbys.

    And anyway, if you look at the image blown up you can still dimly see the seal right where its supposed to be.

    I’m sorry, image 3 is not a smoking gun.

  29. avatar
    Suranis April 4, 2011 at 7:10 am #

    MIchealN, there were a total of 14 home or unattended births in the whole of Honolulu in 1961. Barack Obama’s was not among them. So none of the example you state apply.

    And you do realize that the first statute you quote did not exist in 1961, right? You know all those numbers at the bottom?

    Sheesh.

  30. avatar
    The Magic M April 4, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    > All tooo easy to get a COLB from Hawaii

    Then why can’t any of you birthers seem to be able to produce one if it is “so easy”? One that states “birthplace: Hawaii” although that wasn’t the case?
    You can’t even get one post-1981, let alone pre-1981.

    Yet you keep saying how “easy” it allegedly is.

    You know, it’s actually very easy to run the 100m in under 8 seconds. I’ve just forgotten where my running shoes are or I could prove it to you…

    > So far, all the internet image proves is that it is an internet image.

    So far, all the crap you’re talking proves is that it is crap.

    > All it might prove (if a genuine official issue) is that the birth of Barry was registered by someone.

    A “genuine official issue” would of course be resolved by the original COLB, not its scan or a photo of it or the digital representation of either.

    How many times do we have to “educate” you birfers on this simple fact? You’re a broken record, incessantly repeating the same old crap straw man argument.

  31. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    What all the birthers fail to realize is that President Obama has in his possession (and scanned/photographed it for internet presentation) a legal document from the Hawaii DoH stating the facts of his birth. It matters not a whit how the original information was generated for that document. The State of HI has said what the facts are and those become the facts. Unless those facts can be impeached nothing else matters. And there is zero chance of a governmental investigation, which is the only one which can impeach the facts. So, birthers lose before they ever get started, except they continually want to change the rules of the game. They never realize that they have absolutely no credibility with anyone who really matters.