Did Investigator Mike Zullo Rely On 1969 Code #9 for Obama's COLB Or Code #9 from 1961?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf ^

[Fred Garvin-MP]

Hello. My name is Fred Garvin-MP. I recently watched the Maricopa County Sheriff Department's press conference. It was intriguing to say the least. What caught my attention were the coding numbers on the document put on the White House server for all Americans to see. The code #9 was the essential 'nail in the coffin' that confirmed the PDF version of the birth certificate was a 'definite' forgery.

Now two pro Obama websites claim that lead Investigator Mike Zullo used the meaning of code #9 from a 1969 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual instead of a manual from 1961. Is this true? One meaning for code #9 is different that the other code #9 and that is giving Obama supporting websites ammunition to claim Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse got it wrong. To clear this up we need answers. I am sure most of you agree.

Here is the 1961 layout: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf

Here is the 1969 layout : http://www.nber.org/natality/1969/Nat1969-71doc.pdf

Fred Garvin-MP

[hoosiermama]

Have no doubt that it was blank when she coded it. But if documentation was presented for amendment at a later time, they would not have been able to use a synonymous word but would have copied it (sic). Just giving a source where that “African” term was used to denote black/Negroid race...In African states on the Dutch trade route which includes Kenya.....not Mexico or France or mainland US...someone didn't just by chance use the same terminology that was used in Kenya. Doubt if even the forger would know that unless OTOH THEY were merging his Kenyan BC with the HI information.

[Fred Garvin-MP]

Holy cow. Mark and Barack have the exact same looking mouth with that line protruding on the middle of their top lip, just like Frank Marshall.

[4Zoltan]

“what is that...@an “a”...next to the Mother’s place of birth instead of a 1?”

Both Nordyke parents have “a” in the box for their place of birth.

---

I think what Fred is talking about is the discussion at Mark Gillar’s youtube site (He made the videos for the Cold Case Posse).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yft0kz_fbnA

The table shown in the video at 0.33 and 2:13 is from the 1968 instructional manual. Look at the smudges and lines on the CDC website for Race of Child and on the video, they are exactly the same.

For some reason the CCP used the 1968 image in their video. Also at the 2:00 mark they used a 1969 table but have since posted a correction.

As to the designations changing over time. In the 1964 Vital Statistic in the United States, Natality, it says that they made a change lumping Aleut and Eskimo into the code for American Indian. And that is how they are designated in the 1968 table.

[philman_36]

Both Nordyke parents have “a” in the box for their place of birth.
So tell me then, second string, what does the "a" mean?

For some reason the CCP used the 1968 image in their video.
If the coding was the same from 1961 to 1968 then what is the problem?

[chatter4]

“Here is what I found from 1960/61. Scroll down to 6/12. Code 9 states ‘Other Non White’ while the liberal detractors say Zullo used a 1969 code 9 for ‘Not Stated’ in the press conference. Zullo did mention those words.”

Well, I’ve found the same thing. The Federal Government did not bother to record the race of the parents, but, only the race of the child. In 1961 a 9 certainly did mean “Other Non white”, and by using that code, the system would not have listed Obama’s race as a negro.

Zullo and Corsi set this false info up and they can claim that they got this info from Verna K L Lee. Remember, she’s 95 years old, and probably just forgot that the meaning of a 9 changed in the later 1960’s.

I’ve noticed two other things though. The Feds did track Month of birth. August is the 8th month, yet on Obama’s Birth Certificate, you’ll see it was coded as a 1, meaning January in the time of birth slot. Also, on the Nordyke twins Birth Certificates, their births are coded as 1-2 and 2-2 just like one would number boxes being shipped. Obama’s should have been coded as 1-1, but instead it says X - X. An X means “not stated”.

[4Zoltan]

“Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.””

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

This Hawaiian BC lists Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/English/German/Portuguese as the race of the mother.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292053/

The assumption that the coder would have put down ‘Negro” is pure speculation as it is that they would have put down “Other Nonwhite”. Cases can be made for both arguments. And depending on when the codes were added to the BC, there is no way to know if the coder even saw Obama Sr.

[philman_36]

In the 1964 Vital Statistic in the United States, Natality, it says that they made a change lumping Aleut and Eskimo into the code for American Indian.

@ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/nat64_1.pdf

Births in the United States “in 1964 are classified for statistical purposes according to the race of the parents. The racial categories are “white,” Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian combined, and flother nonwhite. ” In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.
The category “white” comprises births reported as white, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban and prior to 1964 all births for which race was not stated. Beginning in 1964 a portion of the ‘race not stated frequencies are assigned to Negro.
The category “nonwhite” comprises Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian, and “other nonwhite.” Beginning in 1964 Aleuts and’ Eskimos are included in American Indian, significantly increasing the births in this racial category when comparisons are made with previous years. The State of Alaska is particularly affected in this regard. Prior to 1964 Aleuts and Eskimos were assigned to the “other races” category. Also beginning with 1964 ill-defined or not clearly identifiable races are assigned to “race not stated. ” This includes such reports as “oriental” and “yellow, ” which in previous years were assigned to a specific category such as other nonwhite, Chinese, or Japanese. The number of births classified as Chinese, Japanese, and other nonwhite in 1964 is thereby considerably less than the number assigned to these categories in previous years.
The newborn child is ordinarily assigned to the race of his parents, If the parents are of different races, the following, rules apply: (1) When the parental combination, is white-nonwhite, the child is assigned to the nonwhite race. (2) When the parental combination is of two nonwhite races, the child is assigned to the father’s race with two exceptions. If the mother is Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian, the child is assigned to Hawaiian, if the mother is Negro and the father is not Hawaiian, the child is assigned to Negro. Snip... Race not stated. — The birth records with race not stated are those on which the race of both parents was missing or ill-defined. When the race of only one parent was missing or ill-defined, the race of the other determined that of the child. Beginning in 1964 when race was not stated, the race of the child was allocated, as the birth record was electronically processed, to white or Negro according to the race of the child on the preceding record. If the race on the preceding record was white, the assignment was to white; if it was nonwhite, the assignment was to Negro.

So before 1964...well isn't that interesting!

And that is how they are designated in the 1968 table.
And? Without the "Race of Father" code for 1961 we're not making any headway.

[philman_36]

Sorry about that. Didn’t mean to double post.

[philman_36]

How did "African" got on there? African isn't a "race" or a "racial category", even in 1964.
Just explain that.

[philman_36]

TYVM

[Admin Moderator]

YWVM

[4Zoltan]

“So tell me then, second string, what does the “a” mean?”

Well since Obama’s mother was born in Kansas and the Nordyke’s were born in California and since the Hawaiian BC lists island, state or foreign country in parentheses, I would assume “a” means one of the United States that is not Hawaii. But that is just a guess.

“If the coding was the same from 1961 to 1968 then what is the problem?”

A change was made in 1964,

Compare the opening paragraph in the section on race and color of the 1961 Vital Statistics with the same paragraph from 1964,

1961,
“Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.””

1964,
“Births in the United States in 1964 are classified for
statistical purposes according to the race of the parents.
The racial categories are “white,” Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian combined, and “other nonwhite.””

In the 1964 report they go on to explain,

“Beginning in 1964 Aleuts and Eskimos are included in American Indian, significantly increasing the births in this racial category when comparisons are made with previous years.” 1964 Vital Statistics in the United States, Natality, page 4-7 in the Technical Appendix

So in “previous years” Aleuts and Eskimos had their on “racial category” but in 1964 they were thrown in with the American Indian category which “significantly increased” the reported births in the Indian category for 1964.

[4Zoltan]

“Without the “Race of Father” code for 1961 we’re not making any headway.”

I agree. And here is something else. The Nordyke’s and the Obama’s BC are coded for parents’ place of birth. But the Feds didn’t require that field be coded. So why code it at all unless Hawaii was keeping their own statistics. So looking at the Feds codes may be totally meaningless if Hawaii had their own codes.

Now look at the WND BC that otherss posted earlier. It shows a “3” as the race of parents. By the Feds that means they were American Indians. And in parents place of birth they are both listed as “1”. Is that the code for Hawaii? Are they ethnic Hawaiians?

[Fred Garvin-MP]

So what is your conclusion? Was Zullo right in the press conference, that the ‘Race of Father’ box was supposed to be blank (with code #9 only) instead of having ‘African’ entered in it? Same goes for the Industry box 12b where University was entered in it. Should it have been blank also?

[philman_36]

@ http://www.nber.org/natality/1995/docs/Nat1995doc.pdf (page 27) 05 ... Japanese
06 ... Hawaiian

This Hawaiian BC lists Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/English/German/Portuguese as the race of the mother.
http://wtpotus.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/miki-booths-long-form-bc-from-hawaii.jpg

What is that code there? Is that a "5" or a "6"?

What matters is what the code designates.

And I still don't see "African" listed, even as late as 1995.

When did "African" come into use?

[4Zoltan]

“How did “African” got on there?”

The parents.

“African isn’t a “race” “

It is in Kenya. From the 1962 Kenya Census Form,

“Column 5. Race.-Write European, Arab, Somali or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.”

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

So would Obama Sr. consider himself “African”.

[Gaffer]

Likely a pre-release disinformation agent. Another thing I am highly suspect of is the CDC link......

[philman_36]

But the Feds didn’t require that field be coded.
And how have you come to that conclusion?

So why code it at all unless Hawaii was keeping their own statistics.
Well I'd like to see that the Feds didn't require it before I would venture to answer that question that doesn't have a question mark. (not the grammar police, just sayin'...)

It shows a “3” as the race of parents. By the Feds that means they were American Indians.
And what code key are you using to make that determination?

[4Zoltan]

“Was Zullo right”

If they have the 1961 coding instructions, why post the 1968 table?

If the codes have changed between 1961 and 1968 that seems to me to be a problem for them.

I don’t understand their connecting race of father with occupation. Why assume that “9” means the same thing for both fields. What if “9” meant “other” in occupation?

We do not have the codes (Hawaiian or Federal) they used so everything is just a guess.

The Hawaiin State archives is where I would look find the instructions for filling out the forms back in 1961.