What a tool.
See my other post.
The requirements were mostly identical year to year. Not until the 70s or 80s did things change much.
This is a crap argument.
I know that. That's why I think this new claim is BS as well.
It's been well documented that they claimed the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual said the code "9" meant "not reported" or "not stated."
When Ladysforest produced the real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, it said no such thing.
In other words, it very much appears that the Cold Case Posse flat-out lied.
Heck. Never mind that. As far as I can tell, they DID flat-out lie, because they claimed to have the 1961 manual, and showed the public images from 1968 and 1969, and said that was their evidence.
So if they had the 1961 manual, why the hell would they show images from 1968 and 1969, and try to pass them off as being from 1961?
Actually, one of those phony images came from someone else's web site.
And why didn't they produce the real manual when challenged by skeptics?
So you say the requirements (or specs) were mostly the same from year to year.
Well, that means that until proven otherwise, we can pretty well assume the 1960 manual (of course, they never said they had the 1960 manual, they always said they had the 1961 one) says the exact same thing the 1961 one does.
Oh. And they've got a new, um, expert.
And the guy's expertise is in... handwriting analysis?
Excuse me, but... WTF?
Unless his opinion is based on the handwritten signatures of Stanley Ann Obama, or the doctor who signed the certificate, what the hell does a handwriting guy, with no apparent expertise in computer technology at all (specifically, how PDFs are created and compressed) know about a PDF file?