I have taken some zoom shots to share ... a few lay still questions of the document, others raise more questions than they settle.
I ran acrossed one story that is still trying to prove that the document is fake ... based on some markings on the document itself.
There are smears, marks, and (most curiosly) numbers written on the document ... light enough to where until someone points them out, you might tend to look over them ... most promonently is the number "1" in several spots ...
Now its not that I believe that, but it just raises the question ...
Doing a bit of research of my own online ... the name of the hospital kind of struct me as strange ... I did not realize that in 1961 there were specialized hospitals for OB/GYN ... of course this raised more questions than answers ...
hospital's own website, the hospital's name was "Kapi‘olani Maternity Home" until 1978 when it merged with the children's hospital there, and then it was called "Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children" ... notice that the form not only has the name of the hospital wrong, but it is missing the apostrophe which I can't see happening in Hawaii since that is the way many of the names/words are there ... it would be like dropping a hyphenation in an English or Spanish name, or a 'von' or 'de' in European names, or the "~" above the 'n' and the "`" above the 'e' in hispanic/latino names ... drop those things you change the stress and meaning of the name.
Of course it could be that there is another, or was another, hospital with a simular name that just didn't pop up on my search - perhaps it is no longer operating - and if it wasn't operating before the electronic age, I'm not sure it would even be searchable anyways.
What did catch my eye was the "occupation" parts of the form ... according to the BC, neither his father nor his mother WORKED during her pregnancy ... so how were things paid for?
|a zero was entered for last day worked, so "never"?|
Now there are a few things that would be very tough to 'fake' such as
"Birthers" might claim that the doctor passed 8 yrs ago and how convienient it is that he isn't around to raise concerns ... but according to his obituary the family asked that donations in their father's name be given to an Alzeheimer's charity ... this usually means that the person who passed suffered from the disease or worked in that field - Dr. Sinclair was a pediatrician by trade ... I believe that this means he suffered from the condition himself - so he may not have been able to speak of the birth one way or the other.
Birthers also are pointing out the difference of dates on the form ... that is that he was born on August 4th, but that his mother didn't sign until August 7th and the doctor not until August 8th ... I've had 4 children - this is not unusual. My mother had two children around this same time, and she often told me that it was not unsual for mother's to be kept in a hospital for an entire week after having a baby and that after the third day they would get permission to dangle their feet over the edge of the bed.
So it does not surprise me that they would have waited three days before they approached Mrs. Obama to sign the forms and that her doctor wouldn't have signed it until the next day ... my guess would be that during this time he would have been doing a lot of island calls (at the time I believe there was just the one maternity hospital for the entire state) and truthfully was probably only a handful of doctors who worked this particular field instead of just being a General Practicioner.
There are a few things that DO concern me about the form though:
- there really isn't a signature from the Registrar ... its the word 'ukelei' instead of a person's name.
- there appears to be another form in the margin of the book which is not shown. what were those entries about?
- the 'safety' background of the form is continuous on both sides of the form ... there is no distortion at the edges of the form or along the bend of the BC where it looks like it has been folded ... now this could be because the safety background could be part of the paper it was printed on and not the original BC ... but this would also mean that the image of the BC had a "transparent" background, something not available in 1961 ... so it shows that there has been some manipulation of the original document, even if people see it as a minor thing.
|safety pattern of bars/equal signs are continuous|
and not interrupted or distorted
now draw your own conclusions.