Posted on 07/27/2012 9:26:47 AM PDT by chatter4
On July 17, 2012, Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for the MCSO Cold Case Posse, presented false information to the American people, claiming that the "9" code next to Obama's father's race meant that the field was blank when it was coded. That information appears to have come from Jerome Corsi, and was presented in a video produced by Mark Gillar. It was claimed a chart presented in that video was copied from a 1961 Vital Statistics Manual, but, it came from a 1968 manual. In 1961, code "9" meant "other nonwhite".
Even if true, it still doesn’t change the fact, that what was presented to the U.S. by Obama was not the original birth certificate but a modified version. Hawaii was not even willing to confirm the information was correct in what Obama represented.
What a mess. If true, it makes the Cold Case Posse and those who regarded the press conference as a bombshell or absolute evidence look even more like tin foil hatters.
“Even if true, it still doesn’t change the fact, that what was presented to the U.S. by Obama was not the original birth certificate but a modified version. Hawaii was not even willing to confirm the information was correct in what Obama represented.”
Yes, it is stated in the video that Obama’s Birth Certificate is a fraud, but, does that mean it’s OK for us to tell lies to convince others of that? If we do that, we are no better than he is.
It sounds to me like it is questionable whether Zullow was even wrong. But if he was, it's simply an error of no consequence. I didn't watch the video, but I question why a code would change from "Non-white Other" to "Not Provided".
We should indeed be truthful, but what evidence was presented that Zullo knew the 1968 codes were different than the 1961 codes? I thought the 91 year old lady who signed the president's birth certificates were in agreement that the code meant "Not Provided'.
Who cares??? You are an example of conservatives shooting their own. Let’s nit pick to death everyone and everything so that there will only be your understanding left. your ‘proof’ lacks.
To Chatter4.
Mike Zullo as a guest on the Peter Boyles show on July 18th, the day after the press conference stated:
“The number 9 for the federal code, and the number 9 per the State of Hawaii’s own statistical code, means ‘information not provided’ or ‘information not stated”
With that said, we can assume that Hawaii has their own coding manual other than the manuals you presented in your video. What we need is a authentic 1961 Hawaii State Coding Manual to verify code 9.
There are other ‘codes’ on the document, such as for the field representing whether the person was born in a hospital, or a home birth, that are also contested.
The code discussed in this article has only referred to question on the ‘race’ of his father. Although important, it hardly seems a game turner. On the other hand, if he wasn’t born in the hospital as they are claiming, that would be much more significant.
Well, I’d say watch the video and you can answer your own question. Please remember that sometime after 1961 the meaning of number 9 was changed to mean, “Unknown or not stated” and it still means that today-But it did not mean that in 1961. Verna Lee is 95 years old. She may have forgotten that 9 meant something else in 1961. We never heard the tape, so we have no idea what she actually said to Corsi. He may have asked her a leading question to get a desired response-We just don’t know. At any rate, two different 1961 documents are presented in the video, and they both show that there was no code meaning, “Unknown or not stated” in 1961.
LET'S SEE HAWAII'S MICROFILM OR MICROFICHE OF OBAMA'S BIRTH RECORD. We never will because Obama's bc# was stolen from Virginia Sunahara's. Obama's birth certificate exists in PDF format only. It seems Hawaii was way ahead of its time back in 1961!
Chatter,did you do know that 1961 manual presented in your video at 4:00 was ‘Revised’ on August 14th, 1961, some 10 days after Barack was allegedly born and 6 days after his birth certificate was filed? That means changes were made. Go look at the bottom right of that book cover.
“There are other ‘codes’ on the document, such as for the field representing whether the person was born in a hospital, or a home birth, that are also contested.”
Yes, there is an entire sheet of information to the left of the BC that we can’t see. Without seeing it, we can’t assume that the few numbers we can see, have anything to do with the fields to the right now can we?
Fred, I presented a document before that, that lists the exact same codes, and that document says it covers the statistic tapes for 1960 thru 1961.
Mike Zullo as a guest on the Peter Boyles show on July 18th, the day after the press conference stated:
“The number 9 for the federal code, and the number 9 per the State of Hawaii’s own statistical code, means ‘information not provided’ or ‘information not stated”
With that said, we can assume that Hawaii has their own coding manual other than the manuals you presented in your video. What we need is a authentic 1961 Hawaii State Coding Manual to verify code 9.”
Regardless of what Zullo said on a radio program, he presented a video on July 17th, that presented false information. I expect more from Law Enforcement officials and you should too.
“This may fit on line 9, but line 12b also has a nine.”
Yes, but, the federal stats don’t apply to box 12b, so there is no way for us to know what that 9 meant in that box. It’s foolish to claim that a 9 meant, “Unknown or not stated”, when that meaning was not used until seven years later, in a different field.
This video, he fails to show what the code was for a blank entry. Maybe 9 was the default they were using, and that’s why the 68 manual was set that way.
We need other BC examples from 61.
We don’t know what other documents say.
I still think Zullo is correct.
“This video, he fails to show what the code was for a blank entry.”
Two different 1961 manuals were shown, there was no code for a blank entry.
“I still think Zullo is correct.”
It was clearly shown that the chart he claimed was from a 1961 manual, was taken from a manual that didn’t exist until 1968.
1. If the manual shown in the video above WAS the right manual, and
2. we look at how the coding was done on the face of Obama’s purported birth certificate, then
3. Obama has an even BIGGER problem - it appears that Obama’s birth certificate originally claimed a “home birth” and then was forged to insert the name of a hospital.
See the discussion of that possibility in the thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2911212/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.