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

Skip to comments.

Where's The Real Code Manual?
Youtube ^ | July 27, 2012 | Chatter4

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".


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: congress; corruption; elections; fraud; lawenforcement; naturalborncitizen; obama; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
The actual 1961 codes are presented, as well as proof that the chart presented by the Cold Case Posse, came from a 1968 manual.
1 posted on 07/27/2012 9:26:56 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


2 posted on 07/27/2012 9:36:34 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


3 posted on 07/27/2012 9:41:10 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

“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.


4 posted on 07/27/2012 9:44:16 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chatter4
"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'.

5 posted on 07/27/2012 9:51:29 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


6 posted on 07/27/2012 9:57:18 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


7 posted on 07/27/2012 9:57:52 AM PDT by Fred Garvin-MP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


8 posted on 07/27/2012 10:01:12 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

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.


9 posted on 07/27/2012 10:08:10 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chatter4
This is all a side show.. The birth certificate Obama presented to the American people is altered. Originally it was on blue paper then turned to green security paper? How did THAT happen? Constructed in Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop then printed out, IMPRINTED WITH A 'SEAL' THAT IS TOO SMALL AND NOT THE SIZE HAWAII USED, then photographed by Savannah Guthrie so we'd all think it was real? Uh, no thank you..

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!

10 posted on 07/27/2012 10:09:03 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
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.

Don't be ridiculous. Even if this assertion were true, it would be a trivial oversight, one tiny grain of sand on a mountain of evidence. Only left-wing nutbags desperate for a way to counter the evidence of fraud against their messiah would consider this more than a meaningless blip on the radar.
11 posted on 07/27/2012 10:21:41 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


12 posted on 07/27/2012 10:25:43 AM PDT by Fred Garvin-MP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

“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?


13 posted on 07/27/2012 10:41:41 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fred Garvin-MP

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.


14 posted on 07/27/2012 10:45:46 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chatter4
In 1961, code "9" meant "other nonwhite".

This may fit on line 9, but line 12b also has a nine.
15 posted on 07/27/2012 10:50:41 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Garvin-MP

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.


16 posted on 07/27/2012 10:51:28 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0

“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.


17 posted on 07/27/2012 10:59:05 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.


18 posted on 07/27/2012 11:11:07 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

“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.


19 posted on 07/27/2012 11:29:08 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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


20 posted on 07/27/2012 11:31:55 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Hawaii was not even willing to confirm the information was correct in what Obama represented.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96470103/Document-35-Et-Al

The dentist drilled, and she sure struck a nerve. In law school, they try to teach you not to do that.

21 posted on 07/27/2012 11:33:11 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

Yet a code was required and there is no code for a blank entry. 9 may have been the bastard code by default.


22 posted on 07/27/2012 11:35:15 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

What if Hawaii’s state code manual has a code 9 that means specifically ‘not stated’ that suppose to be entered in box 9?


23 posted on 07/27/2012 11:37:10 AM PDT by Fred Garvin-MP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

You have “9” in more than one location where “other nonwhite” wouldn’t make sense.


24 posted on 07/27/2012 11:40:50 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


25 posted on 07/27/2012 12:00:02 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

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.


26 posted on 07/27/2012 12:21:54 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chatter4
Curious, I read the report in detail and Zulo said he interviewed the person who coded it to see what it meant... So it wasn't a code manual it was the registers notations I've also seen where one of the the document experts had proven pretty conclusively that the document was heavily doctored.
It doesn't really matter. Right or wrong Congress will never take up the issue. Even if Obama was not “a natural born citizen from the common mans view point SC would just interpret the law to validate him. Natural born has never been vetted in the courts Their is no legal definition for it. and they are not about to define it with a presidents position in the balance - Its truly a non-issue
27 posted on 07/27/2012 12:55:43 PM PDT by Sanity is my name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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.

28 posted on 07/27/2012 1:02:07 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Dr. Onaka verifies that the document the White House published on its web site matches the State's records.

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.

29 posted on 07/27/2012 2:01:32 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
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.

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.

30 posted on 07/27/2012 2:54:44 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Even if this assertion were true, it would be a trivial oversight, one tiny grain of sand on a mountain of evidence. Only left-wing nutbags desperate for a way to counter the evidence of fraud against their messiah would consider this more than a meaningless blip on the radar.

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 President’s LFBC are not consistent with the coding responses required by the federal government to match the information presented. The incorrect codes indicate that the President’s 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.

31 posted on 07/27/2012 3:25:04 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chatter4; All
In 1961, when Barry was allegedly born:

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?

32 posted on 07/27/2012 3:50:48 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

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.


33 posted on 07/27/2012 6:11:46 PM PDT by Income tax and Freedom. Huh?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

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.


34 posted on 07/28/2012 1:09:51 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: edge919; cynwoody

“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?


35 posted on 07/28/2012 4:07:22 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

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.


36 posted on 07/28/2012 10:53:08 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

So send what you found to Corsi. Maybe he has another manual. Maybe he can explain this.


37 posted on 07/28/2012 12:43:01 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
No, you don't get it. It doesn't make the entire investigation look foolish unless you are somebody who is desperate for a reason to dismiss all the findings. They have multiple data points, and what you are arguing is that on one data point, the interpretation is flawed because they may have used the wrong version of an obscure manual to interpret it, and therefore all the data points can be tossed aside, the experiment invalidated, and the researchers discredited. That's like saying that the latest model Ferrari is a POS car because the passenger side view mirror is listed in the owner's manual as having a 1.24 magnification when it really has 1.25 magnification, since 1.24 was from the 2011 model.

This investigation involves uncovering document procedures, standards and practices from a process 50 years old that was used in a region where imprecision was the norm and everything was done on paper in pre-digital times where most of the original actors are either dead or old enough to have forgotten their own names. Expecting perfect, absolutely precise interpretations on every data point in order for any part of the investigation to be valid is beyond ridiculous and is, quite frankly, indicative of a desperate need to believe that this can't be true.
38 posted on 07/28/2012 1:32:23 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
Why would signatures be exempt from the definition of information?

Because a signature is NOT information. Do you even think about such a question before you ask it??

39 posted on 07/28/2012 1:59:26 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

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.


40 posted on 07/28/2012 2:47:19 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Yes. I’ve worked in Data Systems for over 25 years. In my industry, anyone who claimed a signature in a file isn’t information would be a figure of ridicule.


41 posted on 07/28/2012 6:08:40 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Income tax and Freedom. Huh?

“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.”

Yes, Birth Certificates were coded in each State, and then that information was passed on to the Federal Government, which entered the data on punch cards that were then fed into a computer and the data was saved on tapes. Punch cards were made of manila stock and small holes were punched in them to record data. Google Univac computers.


42 posted on 07/28/2012 9:16:40 PM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“1. What was the code for no answer provided?”
There was no code for that in 1961.

“2. What happened in the case where the parent(s) couldn’t provide an answer?”
What parent would not know his own race?

“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?”
Yes, the code would have been 9 other nonwhite.

“What, then would be the code to describe an “African” who was white?”
What white person would list his race as African?

“2. Would the document have been coded to indicate Black or Negro (or similar terminology from the period)?”
According to the instructions in the manual such a person would have been coded as 2 only if his birth place was within the United States. Persons claiming to be black that were born outside of the United States were coded as 9 other nonwhite.


43 posted on 07/28/2012 9:40:07 PM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

IOW, you have nothing to dispute my comment except for an irrelevant personal claim. Thanks for conceding the point.


44 posted on 07/28/2012 9:55:20 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

“The birth certificate Obama presented to the American people is altered. Originally it was on blue paper then turned to green security paper? How did THAT happen? Constructed in Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop then printed out, IMPRINTED WITH A ‘SEAL’ THAT IS TOO SMALL AND NOT THE SIZE HAWAII USED, then photographed by Savannah Guthrie so we’d all think it was real?”

The photo taken by Savannah Guthrie proves that Obama’s Birth Certificate was altered. In box 7c it lists Obama’s birthplace as “Honolulu, Huwaii”. Yes, it actually says, “Huwaii”. That fact was passed on to the MCSO, Jerome Corsi and many others, and it was ignored. Can you imagine what those doubting reporters would said if Mike Zullo had put that photo up on the screen? They would have been speechless. Instead of doing that, they allowed themselves to be duped by Corsi’s bogus claim about the vital statistic code 9.


45 posted on 07/28/2012 9:59:41 PM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chatter4
Unfortunately this doesn't hold up as true. Vital statistics were collected and classified in conjunction with census methodology. There was no distinction between Negroes born in the United States and those born outside of the United States. IOW, there would have been no reason to classify someone as "other nonwhite" simply because they were not born in the United States. We know this because it has been done this way for years. Barack Sr., if he identified himself as African, would have been classified as Negro. That code number should have been a 2, not a 9.

link to Foreign Born population chart by sex and race

46 posted on 07/28/2012 10:02:09 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Whereas yours was such a cogently argued and well supported statement:

“Because a signature is NOT information. Do you even think about such a question before you ask it??”

LOL.


47 posted on 07/28/2012 11:59:32 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up as true....”

My responses were based on what was stated the Instruction Manual. A Foreign Born population chart has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Are you now claiming that Barack Obama Sr. was not born in Kenya? His race was listed as African on the document and those instructions said,”If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A.,” “Afro-American,” and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parents race as Negro. If birthplace of parent is not in the United States, code as other nonwhite.” Now you can argue to your hearts content, but, I didn’t write the manual, nor did I code the document. I’d say that coding the entry African as 9 other nonwhite was close enough for government work. It really would not matter that much in the end, one way or the other.


48 posted on 07/29/2012 8:00:35 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: chatter4

You’re not understanding. I’m syaing I don’t believe that instruction manual is authentic because it’s asking for race to be classified according to the birthplace of the individual, which does NOT jibe with the way the census classified races. I’m saying that Barack Sr. should have been coded as Negro because the Federal classification of race recognized persons as Negroes even when they were NOT born in the United States.


49 posted on 07/29/2012 10:54:29 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: chatter4
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?


50 posted on 07/29/2012 2:36:27 PM PDT by Rona_Badger (Heeds the Calling Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next 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