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.
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.
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!
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
You have “9” in more than one location where “other nonwhite” wouldn’t make sense.
We’re still looking for a “real” code manual. The one in the video is supposedly from 1960-1961 is attributed to a source that wasn’t created until 1963 or later.
1. What was the code for no answer provided?
2. What happened in the case where the parent(s) couldn't provide an answer? Was something made up? Or, were the parent(s) required to give an answer to each and every field? All were mandatory and no blanks were allowed?
If one were to assume that Sr. was "self" identified as "African":
1. Would the code have really been "other nonwhite?" to describe a Black who was from Africa? What, then would be the code to describe an "African" who was white?
or
2. Would the document have been coded to indicate Black or Negro (or similar terminology from the period)? If so, what was that code?
Take a closer look at the Code Manual. It states the codes are to be “punched”, it does not say they are to be penciled in on the form. In 1961 there was such a thing as a punch card. Go figure.