Skip to comments.Where's The Real Code Manual?
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".
The dentist drilled, and she sure struck a nerve. In law school, they try to teach you not to do that.
Yet a code was required and there is no code for a blank entry. 9 may have been the bastard code by default.
What if Hawaii’s state code manual has a code 9 that means specifically ‘not stated’ that suppose to be entered in box 9?
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.
I like the way Onaka puts certificate of live birth in quotation marks in item No. 2. I think this is a clue that the PDF Obama presented is NOT a legitimate certificate of live birth. Second, it’s worth noting that the raised seal on the letter of verification is the same seal that is supposed to be on a real certificate of live birth. At no point does Onaka say that the certificate of live birth is a true and accurate representation of the facts of birth, it’s only a verification that a birth occurred.
Dr. Onaka verifies that the document the White House published on its web site matches the State's records. IOW, it's not a forgery, PDF artifacts notwithstanding. That sinks the Cold Case Posse's case, at least as it pertains to the BC.
Of course, the document on file at the Hawaii Department of Health may not be an accurate representation of Obama's birth. But that is a whole other case. You have to start with his long form as presented and show why it isn't true without recourse to layers and pixels and color depths. For instance, the long form conclusively establishes that he was born in Hawaii and that Stanley Ann was his mother. We have the doctor's signature, after all. No nonsense about home birth or delayed reporting covering up a Kenyan birth.
However, no genetic data was collected, so BHO, Sr., might not be the sperm donor. Which would be a source of great entertainment: that would mean, not only was he not born in Kenya, which he falsely maintained for years on his book blurb, but BHO, Sr. wasn't even his father! It would be interesting to compare the DNA profiles of BHO, Sr., Frank Marshall Davis, and the Won. But good luck obtaining the necessary samples.
There are other attacks, also. But they are not promising. You could maintain that Dr. Onaka is simply lying. You could try to make the case that the long form was forged by HDoH employees. Fat chance. You'd need pretty shocking evidence to persuade a court to look into anything like that.
No, he said the "certificate of live birth" (in QUOTATION MARKS) matches information in a birth certificate that is ON file.
IOW, it's not a forgery, PDF artifacts notwithstanding.
Sorry, but there's nothing in this statement that proves the PDF is not a forgery. The information for example might match, but the signatures perhaps not so much.
Of course, the document on file at the Hawaii Department of Health may not be an accurate representation of Obama's birth. But that is a whole other case.
Not at all, but I'm sure that's what you want to believe.
You have to start with his long form as presented and show why it isn't true without recourse to layers and pixels and color depths.
We would only have to do this if an actual certified copy of the long form was ever shown in court. If a PDF is what is presented, then it can still be shown to be a forgery. So far, the Kenyan Coward refuses to show a certified hard copy. A PDF, even one with partially matching information is not a substitute for a legal, certified birth certificate. If the state of Hawaii can provide a letter of verification, then they can also provide a certified copy of the document to address the inconsistencies in the PDF.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that state government bureaucrats might be corrupt?
If Zero's document IS forged (and I haven't seen anything that persuasively contradicts the pdf analysis of tampering) then we KNOW the Hawaii bureaucrats are corrupt.
That is because no honest bureaucrat who sees a forged version of a document issued by his office being presented at a national press conference would stay silent.
So by definition, if there is a forgery, the Hawaii bureaucrats are corrupt, even if they themselves are not the actual forgers.
And that would be consistent with all of the stone-walling over the past few years from the Hawaii bureaucrats.
If all you are saying is that as a practical matter this is difficult to uncover and prosecute, no one can argue with you on that.
Federal authorities are under the control of the president and the attorney general and one shouldn't expect Hawaiian state authorities to cooperate in an investigation against the president in such a heavily-Democrat state (even in the case of a Republican governor, who needs many Democrat votes to get elected).
Unless Congress takes this up, it is extremely difficult for a third-party jurisdiction like Arizona to investigate and prosecute such a matter.
Sorry, but this is more than a grain of sand. A press release of the MCSO said
Investigators learned that Hawaii Department of Health utilizes a coding system defined by the federal government to categorize and code the required information on all Birth Certificates registered by the state including those registered in 1961. This process involves writing specific number codes by hand and in pencil, placed next to relevant information contained on the birth certificate. The coding numbers seen on the Presidents LFBC are not consistent with the coding responses required by the federal government to match the information presented. The incorrect codes indicate that the Presidents LFBC has been altered or amended.The error makes them look like fools when the posse bases claims of fraud on a federal manual they claim is from 1961, and the manual turns to be from years after the date of the presented certificate.
It makes them look like they are either not doing the meticulous investigation that was claimed, or they are outright lying (but probably the first). It casts doubt on any correct information they may have (false but accurate, any one?) And yes, that makes them look like the tin foil hat brigade, and makes those that buy into their errors look bad as well. Sorry if you can't see that.
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?
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.
These guys have multiple separate indications of forgery just on the document alone. If one turns out to be explainable, it does not in any way mean that the report of forgery is false, or that the whole investigation is invalid. Sorry you can’t see that.
“Sorry, but there’s nothing in this statement that proves the PDF is not a forgery. The information for example might match, but the signatures perhaps not so much.”
Why would signatures be exempt from the definition of information?
If he says the information in the Whitehouse COLB matches the information in their original, which bits would you say don’t match and on what basis?
You don’t get it. It’s not that it’s “explainable,” it’s that it indicates the claimed meticulous investigation was careless or deliberately misrepresenting the evidence.
When that happens, it taints the whole investigation by the Cold Case Posse. It taints all their findings. And it make them look foolish, and everyone who bought into it breathlessly without checking look foolish also.
So send what you found to Corsi. Maybe he has another manual. Maybe he can explain this.
Because a signature is NOT information. Do you even think about such a question before you ask it??
The investigators said that based on the written numbers, the certificate was fake. They used what they said was the 1961 manual to prove the written numbers didn’t match what was typed in. Now if it turned out it was a 1960 manual instead of 1961 but was still valid, that would be a minor point, slightly embarrassing but not affecting the conclusion. (Although you can bet the libs and lawyers would be all over any minor error.)
However, when the manual they are claiming proves the mismatch is actually from years later, and a totally different numbering system was in effect at the time, it shows they were not using due care with their proof. Your Ferrari analogy is not applicable - it’s more like an official investigation claiming you broke a 1975 law when your alleged lawbreaking occurred in before the law was in effect in 1970.
To repeat, it makes them look foolish and careless. It’s not a matter of “interpretation” it ‘s a matter of whether the material they claim they have is actually what they do have.
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.