HDOH Has Two Different Versions of 1960-64 Birth Index

The HDOH sent me the exact same page from the 1960-64 Birth Index Book, 2 months apart. One had the 1960-64 date range in the heading; the other didn’t. Either the HDOH has 2 different versions of their 1960-64 Birth Index or they are altering the pages at will.

This supports Tsunamigeno’s contention that what he saw in the 1960-64 Birth Index in early March 2010 is different than what is in the 1960-64 Birth Index that is shown to the public in the HDOH office today.

This immediately raises 2 questions:

1. Why is the HDOH messing with the 1960-64 birth index book?

2. If they are changing it to add or delete the heading, what else are they adding, deleting, or changing? Stay tuned for something very critical that we know they changed…

HDOH Has Two Different Versions of Their 1960


  1. HistorianDude
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 9:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It’s a computer printout. Why shouldn’t they have multiple copies of the thing?

    • Posted May 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Why should those copies be different than each other?

      • gorefan
        Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

        Why does your first image look like a copy of a page, bu the second omage (the one you photographed) looks like a computer printout?

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 3:27 am | Permalink

        The first one was sent to me electronically. The second one was sent to me via snail mail because the HDOH said they couldn’t send it electronically. I wonder what changed, that they weren’t able to scan it and send it as they had the other. lol

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        The copies are not different. Just the headers are.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

        The headers are a vital part of the document. I mentioned something about a birth index list over at FR and an Obama apologist immediately responded that a list without the date heading means nothing – that my point was only valid if I could prove what years the information was from. The comment came supposedly before this person knew that the list we were given had the date heading specifically removed.

        So I don’t buy the idea that the date heading is insignificant. I had asked specifically for a copy from the 1960-64 birth index book in their office, both times. The page numbers are the same; everything is the same except the date range heading having been specifically added or deleted. Even if this was just a printout of a single page and not actually the physical copy from the book as I requested, to format the page differently than the standard format was an extra, deliberate step. Why did they do that?

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 23, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

        No they’re not. They’re just headers.

  2. Carol Fryer
    Posted May 21, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent work. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: