Originally Posted by 742
The birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961.
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony
Ah, yes. Thanks. Anything else?
This is why nobody takes you seriously and you get called a nutter.
You get handed a solid piece of primary evidence generated at the time of his birth that is legally admissible in any court in the US, and you dismiss it off-hand.
This birth announcement was part of the official function of the State of Hawaii, and holds the same legal weight that a public lien announcement, or a public bid announcement carries when published in a newspaper of record as part of the official function of the State. When the Honolulu Advertiser published this birth announcement at the request of the State of Hawaii, they were acting under the auspices of official state authority.
It has flawless authenticity as anyone can pull this record up on microfiche in any public library. It cannot be faked, and anyone can pull up this record.
It has the benefit of being timely to the event, which makes it more authoritative than anything "discovered" after Obama became the Democratic Nominee that was not part of the public record.
But you want to just skip over this, and get right into some plaque that is rumored to have been placed in some Kenyan hospital. As if a plaque in some other country that was placed after Obama was elected had more authority than an announcement placed by the State of Hawaii as part of their official record.
Since you have treated this authoritative piece of evidence so poorly, what point is there providing you with anything else? You clearly aren't capable of understanding the significance of what you have already been provided.