Skip to comments.Did Investigator Mike Zullo Rely On 1969 Code #9 for Obama's COLB Or Code #9 from 1961?
Posted on 07/23/2012 9:21:28 PM PDT by 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
I thought the de-coding of the #9 was achieved through discussion with VK Lee who actually signed the document?
what of the “Little Buttercup” connection, that 95 year old lady who explained how she had coded them in the day? she didn’t cite a manual did she?
As I recall from watching the same conference, Zullo did mention two different codes and they had to find the one for the time the BC was generated.
The other thing is why would you believe anything coming from a pro-Obama site in the first place?
Smoke and Mirrors! Fog the issue! change the subject. That is what the left does!
I got into a discussion about this on this thread and I saw no coding explained whatsoever in that file.
If I missed it I sure would appreciate you telling me which page it's on.
Yes we need answers. And if possible debunk the debunkers.
Just so you know....there is a technique used by the left. It is called BenSmithing. Basically what they do is when we on the right come up with a story that makes the left look bad, they then do a “so called” investigation on it and in their investigation they either lie or distort the facts but then everyone refers back the the investigation/story as being factual.
Look it up....kinda interesting.
Yes, Ben Smith is the one that started it.
Don’t be too happy. fFed Garvin- Male Prostitute was a Dan Ackroyd charecter from the old Saturday Night Live program.
Also, 07/08/12 as your date joining FreeRepublic? Sniff, sniff . . . . . . get my drift?
One of those pro-Obama sites uses a document that allegedly describes the race codes for 1960-1961, except that the Natality Report for 1960 reports that race was more simply classified than it was in 1961 ... and the pro-Obama document source is from an agency that wasn’t created until 1963. We know that Obama has had documents forged on his behalf (see the Bomford birth certificate), so the legitimacy of this code document is suspect at best.
It would be nice to see it also for comparison instead of something completely different, which is what your first link is IMO, and has nothing whatsoever about the coding therein like your second link does that I can see.
When they show me a document explaining that a #9 code for race means “African”, than I will be impressed.
From what I gathered watching the news conference Mike Zullo used the meaning of code #9 from a 1961 but whoever forged the birth certificate was going by a more recent code system not yet developed at the time of Obama’s Birth.
Surely that’s not how Negro was denoted at the time?
The Number 9 in the year 1962 means “Male Prostitute”
I think "Negro" may have been used in the 1960s.
Amazing that Obama wishes to talk about the details in his Birth Certificate but fails to release the authentic and legitimate one. It’s on microfiche. All he has to do is allow the investigators to look at it and it’s over. Finished. Case closed (for one side or the other).
In the south the word was “niggra” or “colored”. In the sixties the blacks started asking “Who are colored people?” I thought that was pretty slick of them.
Correct, Zullo made mention that the “African” race designation was not used until 1968.
Do we have a troll amongst us? I mean if Fred really wanted to know, wouldn’t he/she/it have just read both documents and reported just where he/she/it found the discrepancies? Never mind all of the other problems with that one section alone. Obviously this particular point has someone very exercised at the moment.
Or did he use Code 9 from Outer Space?
Sorry, I could not resist.
(I’m a birther)