a. Do they shred it?
b. Do they keep it?
c. Do they send it to Washington DC?

Definitely not b or c.

I do not know Hawaii's method of choice for document destruction.

7/22/2012 3:42:24 PM

Quote :

"If the Department of Health is really into bleeding edge archival technology, they may have even digitized the microfilm! "

Digitized?!? You mean like with a computer??

7/22/2012 3:46:37 PM

ya'll niggas is crazy

7/22/2012 3:47:57 PM

Quote :

"That's a revelation to me. Please continue. "

translation: "i form brash, strong opinions based out of pulling bullshit out of my ass, and not actual knowledge or information."

7/22/2012 3:49:26 PM

Let's get back on the subject of original birth certificates.


Who has them?
Who destroys them?
Why would they destroy them?

It takes the same amount of space to house a microfilm than to house an original, unless they put dozens of birth certificates on one microfilm, in which case, I have never heard of or witnessed such a thing.

7/22/2012 3:52:49 PM

lol

7/22/2012 3:55:02 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfiche

7/22/2012 3:55:24 PM

Please post an example of a microfilm that has many birth certificates on it.

7/22/2012 4:04:28 PM

Hawaii ONLY uses electronic storage for birth certificates now.

If you gave a shit, I'd imagine you'd have learned that by now.

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 4:07 PM. Reason : YES, THAT MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE THE OLD ONES SAVED]

7/22/2012 4:07:08 PM

There's no way this is NOT trolling.


PROVE 2+2=4!!!!

7/22/2012 4:12:23 PM

I don't understand why you guys are clowning me, what the hell is your problems? There is nothing unreasonable about understanding something I don't have access to from people who say nobody has access to, but yet knows everything about the process.

I'm trying to be enlightened, so please stop acting like douchebags.

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2012 4:14:31 PM

lol

7/22/2012 4:15:22 PM

These are engineering drawings, but you can pretend they're birth certificates.

7/22/2012 4:16:08 PM

You clearly don't know anything about microfilm, yet you are asserting that microfilm doesn't or can't work a certain way.

Do you realize why this makes me think you're trolling...? Your local public library probably has some stuff on microfilm (or can direct you to where you can see one), just walk in and play with a machine. It's free.

If you don't know about something, don't form opinions on it. You are forming your opinions based on poor knowledge, then asserting that others are wrong. This makes no sense...

7/22/2012 4:18:39 PM

Quote :

" These are engineering drawings, but you can pretend they're birth certificates."

I've seen newspaper microfilm.
I've seen engineering drawings on microfilm.
I've seen magazine microfilm.

I want to see birth certificates on microfilm...

7/22/2012 4:22:51 PM

well I'm sure when you get permission from the hundreds of thousands of people that are on one, ...no, you still won't be allowed to see one.

You're an idiot.

7/22/2012 4:25:04 PM

^^ Why do you specifically want to see birth certificates on microfilm?

7/22/2012 4:25:07 PM

Quote :

"Hawaii ONLY uses electronic storage for birth certificates now. If you gave a shit, I'd imagine you'd have learned that by now."

7/22/2012 4:25:57 PM

Before I start telling everyone about something I don't know for a fact exists, I'd like the be able to prove it to myself first.

7/22/2012 4:27:24 PM

Well, you're on your own if you want to put your dick skinners on birth certificate microfilm.

Most Department of Records require that you be a researcher of some sort to receive direct access to archival microfilm and digital records.

7/22/2012 4:32:43 PM

troll

7/22/2012 4:33:29 PM

^^So why don't they let Sheriff Arpaio see them? I believe he is the biggest critic and leads the largest investigation? Do you think he'll shift "goalposts" after seeing them?

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2012 4:37:07 PM

...hell, why don't they just have all birth certificates out for public display

7/22/2012 4:39:50 PM

^^

In accordance with Hawaii state law, they have.

Let me clarify: they have to those who meet the requirements outlined in state law (including Arizona's Secretary of State). To my knowledge, Sheriff Arpaio himself has never satisfied Hawaii's requirements.

7/22/2012 4:48:01 PM

A ha! so this is what it looks like.





Getting closer to truth

The box isn't as old as the others, probably had to replace it when they opened it...

7/22/2012 5:29:42 PM

When GeniusBoy inevitably steers other threads off-topic and into conspiracy-theory-territory, the discussion should move into this thread. To keep it all in one place. Sound good?

7/22/2012 5:43:40 PM

Now that all of my questions are resolved I can cross this off my list.


[x] Obama was not born in Hawaii Obama's birth certificate they released to the public is a fraud

Thank you A Tanzarian for being patient with me.

I would still like to know Hawaii's method of choice for document destruction, so if you find that information, let me know.

Also, would like to know how long they keep it on file after they scan it to microfilm before they destroy it.

Also, would like to know how many people verify it before it's destroyed to check for typos, but lets face it, it's impossible to have a 100% accurate database.

7/22/2012 5:43:53 PM

Quote :

"It takes the same amount of space to house a microfilm than to house an original, unless they put dozens of birth certificates on one microfilm, in which case, I have never heard of or witnessed such a thing."

Quote :

"I've seen newspaper microfilm. I've seen engineering drawings on microfilm. I've seen magazine microfilm. I want to see birth certificates on microfilm..."

So you can't comprehend how microfilm could take less space to store a set number of documents compared to the originals, but you've seen newspapers, magazines, etc on microfilm. Shining example of how you're either retarded or trolling, and it just seems like too much effort for trolling...

7/22/2012 5:51:33 PM

Quote :

"So you can't comprehend how microfilm could take less space to store a set number of documents compared to the originals, but you've seen newspapers, magazines, etc on microfilm. Shining example of how you're either retarded or trolling, and it just seems like too much effort for trolling..."

I don't recall ever saying that I can't comprehend how microfilm could take less space to store. I remember saying that I was under the assumption that the original document was never destroyed. I have to take your word for it that the ORIGINAL original document was destroyed.

After typing in to google to research how they are destroyed, I read this:

"Directly contradicting CNN chief Jon Klein – who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing President Obama’s birth certificate – the Hawaii Department of Health affirmed that no paper birth certificates were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping."

"“Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department,” she insisted. “We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.”

http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/105233/


You can see how one can be confused about what's fact and fiction. Pay close attention.

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 6:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2012 6:21:29 PM

Quote :

"It takes the same amount of space to house a microfilm than to house an original"

7/22/2012 6:28:40 PM

I had a different idea about how they were stored, individually. But now that I saw a picture of how they are stored, I retract that particular statement. It's part of learning.

7/22/2012 6:38:15 PM

Oh sure, that makes perfect sense. I know that even after I saw model trains I still wondered how anyone could afford to store them since I thought they took up the same space as a real train.

I'm truly curious to hear the ridiculous bullshit you'll make up to explain how you thought microfilm was stored such that it took up the same space as the original documents. Please, laughing this hard is truly worth reading the dumb shit.

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2012 7:09:56 PM

Listen, if it's your mission to belittle me then fine, do it, but do it somewhere more appropriate like chit chat.

I'm not here to entertain you nor am I here for your amusement. I'm not here for you to dissect me and I'm not here for you to study whether I'm a troll or not.

I'm here to ask questions and learn by trading knowledge and discussing things. If you can't accept that, then that's your problem.

7/22/2012 7:51:57 PM

Quote :

"lol"

7/22/2012 8:03:18 PM

I simply want to know how you thought a 0.25% replica of a document could take up the same storage space as the original. You've already said you had an idea of how you thought that could happen. Just enlighten us, it's part of learning.

7/22/2012 8:07:44 PM

When I post the answer you are going to call me stupid even though I already know it's incorrect. It's a moot point. It's stupid to explain something that I know is wrong because you're going to explain to me why it's wrong in the next post. Then you're going to use it as ammunition to belittle me in another thread. It's the same algorithm every time.


Yet here I am, explaining the misconception through a picture. I thought these were the birth microfiche birth certificates that they stored and made copies of:

7/22/2012 8:13:44 PM

No, you see, it's not believable that you thought microfilm was a 1:1 in size because you've already said that you've seen other print (newspaper/magazine/etc) in microfilm format. Nobody could look at a newspaper on microfilm and come to the conclusion you are claiming.

7/22/2012 8:17:35 PM

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you getting at that I was wrong?

7/22/2012 8:24:47 PM

Quote :

""“Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department,” she insisted. “We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.”"

I would not read too much into this quote. Obviously, I can't speak to exactly what the Hawaii Department of Health does or doesn't do with its records. Based on my experience, however:

Best practices and standards for long-term digital archiving is still somewhat unsettled. It would not suprise me that non-digital records (e.g., paper and microfilm) existing at the time of Hawaii's 2001 digital transistion are still being maintained and controlled as archive records even after being scanned.

On the other hand, I would be suprised if paper records that had been previously microfilmed were still maintained as archive records. Paper records (including Obama's birth certificate) may still physically exist as stacks of boxes in the back of a warehouse somewhere, but I would question the retrievability and quality of those records.

It's worth noting that Hawaii now only accepts birth certificates submitted electronically by hospitals.

7/22/2012 8:25:33 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you getting at that I was wrong?"

I'm simply trying to understand how when you saw a newspaper on microfilm you saw something like this:


But when you thought about birth certificates on microfilm you assumed they would be 1:1, even to the point of saying:

Quote :

"unless they put dozens of birth certificates on one microfilm, in which case, I have never heard of or witnessed such a thing."

You're either lying or trolling, either way it's hilarious so please keep it up!

7/22/2012 8:33:09 PM

Actually whole newspaper was on 1 or 2 8.5"x11" sized sheets of transparency paper, it was at the public library and it was in the 1990s.

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 8:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2012 8:37:02 PM

So a whole newspaper was condensed to two 8.5"x11" sheets but you thought everything else would be 1:1? Unless it was a two page newspaper you're still just full of shit.

7/22/2012 8:40:29 PM

Yes, I incorrectly assumed that 1 of those 8.5x11 held only 1 birth certificate each

7/22/2012 8:45:20 PM

No you didn't. You're trolling, and you're doing a dumbfuck job of it. At least get your bullshit straight before you spew it. Enjoy the learning process!

7/22/2012 8:47:26 PM

When I post the answer you are going to call me stupid even though I already know it's incorrect. It's a moot point. It's stupid to explain something that I know is wrong because you're going to explain to me why it's wrong in the next post. Then you're going to use it as ammunition to belittle me in another thread. It's the same algorithm every time.

7/22/2012 8:49:01 PM

And he wonders why people think he's legitimately mentally disabled. It'd be one thing if he didn't know what microfilm is, yet he claims he does and was still clueless.

7/22/2012 8:50:35 PM

I was mature enough to explain my shortcomings to you, but the same maturity was not returned. I will remember that.

7/22/2012 8:59:59 PM

It's like you completely lack the ability for logical thought.

It's ok, though. When Ron Paul is president, the ability to think won't be necessary. Survival will be based on what sort of ridiculous toppings you can think to put on your pizza.

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 9:07 PM. Reason : You just inspired me to make a thread, though - thanks]

7/22/2012 9:04:42 PM

You can never learn if you're always right. I'm happy that I'm wrong because I'm better off where I am now than where I was when I begun this thread (Thanks to A Tanzarian, No thanks to you, moron, or parknrec).

I've come out a better person because of this thread, but you guys are still the same.

Once again, if you're listening, thank you A Tanzarian for walking me through and answering my questions regardless of how illogical they may have seemed.

7/22/2012 9:22:56 PM

^ the problem is that you made statements with the pretense that you knew what you are talking about.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions; it's saying obviously dumb/wrong things, then arguing with people who call you out that makes you look dumb/trollish.

How not to look like a retard/troll: Don't argue about something when you know you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm still not convinced you weren't trolling...

7/22/2012 9:31:09 PM