Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

36% Believe Obama is Hiding Biographical Information
Sven Magnussen ^ | Jan 18, 2013 | Sven Magnussen

Posted on 01/19/2013 9:23:55 AM PST by ABrit

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-357 last
To: Ladysforest
For several reasons that I have outlined I don’t feel that the revisions are likely to be problematic. Mainly because the FED coders HARVESTED information, they did not apply the information. They viewed the birth certificates on micro-film, so the little code numbers were already on the certificates prior to the certificates being microfilmed - we can all agree on that.

No where in the VSIM were the FEDERAL CODERS instructed to use codes PRE-APPLIED at the local level. Nor were there instructions for the FEDERAL coders to harvest information about the occupation of the parents, yet there were local level pre-applied codes in those fields.

This is all irrelevant because we know the CDC collected and coded information for the purposes of issuing natality reports. Regardless of whether any states' certificates are pre-coded or whether those codes are used or not, the VSIM you posted contains problems in that they don't jibe with natality reports that have been posted online already.

You can contact the CDC to ask after the pre Aug. 14th 1961 VSIM. Why don’t you? I only went after a copy because Dr. Con. said that one did not exist. Turns out he hadn’t really tried all that hard to get one, he admitted that.

People know who he is and it's already been documented that they don't cooperate with him. It's not too hard to imagine that somebody could have lied to him about whether other manuals existed or not. It doesn't matter so much because the manual you produced still doesn't jibe with CDC reports.

YES, for all of the time you waste on here trying to stir people up you could have contacted the CDC a dozen times over to satisfy your own curiosity. That’s what I did.

I didn't try to stir anyone up. This is you being a drama queen because I pointed out obvious problems with your research. I don't care whether that "stirs" someone up. It's not a waste of time to point out there were problems with the alleged manual because other people here at freerepublic deserve to know about these problems. It's way too similar to the crap that Dr. Conspiracy tried to get away with, and it's no surprise that he and other Obots were trying to give you high-fives on your blog at the time. Evidently it helped give you a false sense of accomplishment.

People like you don’t ever bother to do any research for themselves.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. If I hadn't done any research I wouldn't be able to point the obvious problems with the manual you posted. I found CDC documents online that showed that persons were still classified as Black despite being born outside the United States, unlike what your manual and what Dr. Conspiracy's alleged manual claims. I found a Natality Report that Dr. Conspiracy claimed didn't exist. I found another report from the CDC that showed that one of these alleged organizations that allegedly put out Dr. Conspiracy's VSIM did not exist until years AFTER the date of that report. You're simply making a baseless assumption because you don't like having someone show you to be wrong. Deal with it.

Your type just like to try and undermine others who do. I find it telling that you claim the more proof and detail that I provide the “less credible” the proof is. Whaaaaa? That’s why I find you so funny.

Thanks, but you're trying way too hard to bluff your way out of admitting that your VSIM is useless. It's kind of hypocritical to go on with nonsense like this after accusing me of trying to stir people up.

351 posted on 02/02/2013 8:53:56 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“This is all irrelevant because we know the CDC collected and coded information for the purposes of issuing natality reports. Regardless of whether any states’ certificates are pre-coded or whether those codes are used or not, the VSIM you posted contains problems in that they don’t jibe with natality reports that have been posted online already.”

Sooooooooo, post your proof. I’m sure it will be interesting. And irrefutable. And all that. Did you post it previously?

And by Dr. Con. - I meant Dr. Conspiracy. Duh.

Again, the federal codes in 1961 are completely irrelevant to the state codes applied at the local level. Hence - the nativity reports compiled from the info coded at the federal level STILL would be irrelevant to the local coding - which is the point that I was making.

If YOU have proof that the data compiled after the revised 1961 VSIM invalidates the summaries, by all means do an article about that - it should be very fascinating. I am certain that we should all enjoy reading it.

Only “drama queen” would be you.

That’s why you make us laugh.


352 posted on 02/02/2013 11:14:10 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest
Sooooooooo, post your proof. I’m sure it will be interesting. And irrefutable. And all that. Did you post it previously?

I'm pretty sure I did, but we don't have to look for an old post. I said these reports are online, so here's one that specifically talks about how persons are classified as Negroes when they are foreign-born, which would not be allowed for under the coding procedures in your manual.

See the 25th and 29th pages of the PDF in this report from 1960.

This is a CDC report and it references racial classifications as cited from the 1960 VSIM with NO instruction on using the foreign birth place of a Negro father to classify race as "other nonwhite" and the second page gives a table listing classification of foreign-born and Negro together. Again, this would be not possible under the instructions in the alleged manual you posted.

Again, the federal codes in 1961 are completely irrelevant to the state codes applied at the local level. Hence - the nativity reports compiled from the info coded at the federal level STILL would be irrelevant to the local coding - which is the point that I was making.

We don't know that the Federal codes are irrelevant to state codes. In the link I just provided, the footnote about the 1960 VSIM references in parentheses "State and NOVS coding" ... NOVS stands for National Office of Vital Statistics.

If YOU have proof that the data compiled after the revised 1961 VSIM invalidates the summaries, by all means do an article about that - it should be very fascinating. I am certain that we should all enjoy reading it.

I don't need to "do an article." I just gave you a report that explains how these things worked prior to your "revised in August" VSIM.

Only “drama queen” would be you.

That’s why you make us laugh.

What "us"?? No one is else is defending you.p

353 posted on 02/03/2013 11:45:10 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: edge919

No one else is still reading the thread. Well except for you.

You can’t seem to get the notion through your head that I did not make ANY claims about the 1961 - not 1960 -the 1961 revised VSIM, having anything to do with ANYTHING other than regarding obamas birth certificate.

That relationship was born from Corsi via The Daily Pen code chart, and Corsi had Zullo publicly make statements as “facts” when there was nothing to support those “facts”.

Your 1960 report doesn’t even factor into anything I worked on. At all, or in any way. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Why do you keep inserting a 1960 manual into the conversation?

Read carefully: I searched for the VSIM because of the growing controversy about whether the code chart shown on the screen at Zullos presser was in fact from the 1961 fed. VSIM. All of the little side arguments were/are stupid distractions.

Zullo had stated as a fact that the code chart he was showing was the one used to determine which code numbers WENT ON OBAMAS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

We found out that was not true.

The FEDERAL code chart, the FEDERAL manuals, and the FEDERAL reports have zero, zip, nada, relationship to the code numbers that were ON OBAMAS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

That was the information that I was after. Even Zullo admitted that he had not wanted to use Corsi’s scripting about those codes because he felt the evidence to support that was too weak.

You keep trying to imply that I was misrepresenting something. It’s weird this thing you are doing.

I looked for that 61 VSIM because of the chart controversy and the obots claiming that Zullo knowingly lied - Dr. Conspiracy also claimed that he was told no 61 VSIM existed. One had to have existed so I asked around and was directed to the CDC. No big mystery. Dr. Consp. DID have a 68 VSIM which had a chart just like the one used on The Daily Pen - which was the one used in Corsi’s presentation given by Zullo.

What my research did: 1)simply proved that those penciled codes were not applied from a federal VSIM. 2)The federal manual was not used to determine the race of the PARENTS. 3)That some states used a state specific code manual at the local levels and applied the penciled codes at the local offices prior to the birth certificates being microfilmed. 4)There was A 61 VSIM still in existence,revised or otherwise. 5) The chart shown at the Corsi/Zullo presser was almost certainly from a 68 VSIM. 6) That the 1961 federal VSIM was completely irrelevant in regards to THE PENCILED CODES ON OBAMAS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

That was the information I was after. There, do you understand it now? Corsi pushed the meme that the parents race was determined by the fed code books, but it wasn’t, so the fed codes didn’t matter on that point. The fed books explained how to code the childs race by the information contained in the race fields on the birth certificates. Did the reports have ANY data on the parents business? No.


354 posted on 02/04/2013 9:08:51 AM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52923

FYI - excerpt:

RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.

There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.

Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.

It was surreal, to say the least.

Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.” Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.


355 posted on 02/06/2013 3:04:13 PM PST by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Dirty little scrunts, ain’t they?


356 posted on 02/06/2013 5:51:25 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Placemark and greetings.


357 posted on 02/07/2013 12:15:05 AM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-357 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson