Posted on 07/23/2012 9:21:28 PM PDT by Fred Garvin-MP
Don’t forget you’re talking about a leather glove that had blood on it, and was sitting in a plastic bag in some storage locker. If you wet leather and just leave it, it will not stretch as much anymore, become stiff, and won’t fit if it was tight to begin with. It’s the reason I used to have to continuously oil my softball mitt.
I always wondered why the prosecutors didn’t mention the fact that the glove was damaged by the blood.
Here’s why the difference between what Zullo referenced and what Dr Con referenced. They came from different documents, since Dr Con could not locate the document that Zullo referenced. Here’s Dr Con at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-1/ :
“According to the response to my FOIA request to the Department of Health and Human Services, the unpublished manual “Coding and Punching Geographical and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961” that is referenced on PDF page 228 of VSUS could not be found and they suggest that such a document never actually existed. However, they did point me to Geographic coding manual for 1961 and provided tape layouts for that year (but no coding manual). In particular, they told me that the “Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1961” (cited by Johansson and Crosby) with the exception of the Geographic coding manual could not be located. I filed an appeal and they replied that they checked again with all the subject matter experts, and no such document exists today.”
Dr. Con knows the document he has is not the document Zullo referred to; in fact, long after he made the request for this document he’s now citing he stated on his own site that the document Zullo referenced does not exist.”
Zullo says it exists. Now who would you believe - Zullo, or Dr. Con? Johannsen says he got it from a state government, not the feds. So Dr. Con knows he is comparing apples and oranges.
Sorry for the late response.
“How is it that you expect anybody to answer that question in their place?”
In the absence of any real evidenc, I expect people to make educated guesses and to speculate, like always. Plus, you never know, Zullo or Corsi might actually respond to a posting here on FR.
“Wouldn’t you be better served asking them?”
Good idea, I’ll e-mail them and let you know if I get a response.
“It’s not shown so how can anybody answer that question?”
See answer to your first question.
“Since you seem to know who “the girl” is why don’t you ask her?”
I’ve no reason to believe that she would know why the CCP didn’t include her BC in their analysis. Since she obviously had WND redact her personal info, I’m willing to respect her privacy. Note, even though I believe I know her name I haven’t used it.
I’m only interested in the certification number on her BC and for that I don’t need her name.
BTW, I believe her BC is legit.
It says Revised August 14, 1961.
So we need to go back just a tad bit further...by 10 days.
It was that close.
Looking at the manual you provided, it seems to support my own theory of why a digitally-altered birth certificate was presented to the public.
My theory has been that Grandma Toot submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff) document, and that this was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
On her document, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Hwy where Stanley and Toot were then living as the address both of the mother and where the baby was born.
Where Stanley Ann really was at the time of birth is a matter of speculation, since she was first seen with the baby in Seattle and the daughter of the family with whom grandparents Stanley and Toot were living does not remember any new-born infant being brought to the house.
This document submitted by Grandma Toot was automatically included in the information delivered by the vital statistics department to the newspapers for recent births, and explains the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might have a look at, it was considered necessary to change this into a normal-looking birth certificate that someone born in a hospital would have. The “home birth” story was too thin, especially since if anyone interviewed the family with whom the grandparents were living and they said no baby was born in their home, the whole story would collapse. On the other hand, in the case of a maternity hospital, lots of babies were being born there and it would be no problem if no one specifically remembered this particular baby and privacy laws would prevent an examination of the records of the hospital.
So it would not surprise me to see Barack Obama listed as the father and coded as “9” - “other non-white” on the birth certificate.
Rather, under my theory the information of most interest would be place of birth on the original unaltered document - was it a home or at Kapiolani Hospital?
Looking at the manual you provided, it indicates on page 14 that a hosptital birth or with a physician in attendance should be coded “1.”
In the case of a home birth, if a midwife attended it should be coded “3.”
If it was a birth at home, and neither a midwife nor a physician was present, then it should be coded “4.”
Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.
This handwritten number is cut off and only the right side of the number appears.
However it is clearly NOT a “1” and clearly NOT a “3”.
It looks like it is the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean that the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present, perfectly consistent with my theory as to why Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
“So we need to go back just a tad bit further...by 10 days.”
That would certainly be helpful.
But using this manual there is an interesting part that basically says if the race of the parent can be classified as “Negro” but the parent was born outside the United States than code “other nonwhite”.
“Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.”
The problem with that is if you look to the left of box that has the address of the mother (box 7d)there appears to be a printed “?”. To me, it looks as if the document has additional fields to the left of the printed portion of the birth certificate. This might be the medical information required by the state and the NCHS.
Except that according to the Instruction Manual provided above, there WAS a federal code for whether a baby was born in a hospital, attended by a midwife, etc.
So we should EXPECT to see a handwritten notation next to the box for the name of hospital or institution where born, and that IS exactly what we see.
“we should EXPECT to see a handwritten notation next to the box”
All the other codes are in the required boxes not next to the boxes.
Not true; we can see a code for the geographic "place of birth" of the baby to the left of the box, and also a code for geographic "residence of mother" to the left of the box.
Good analysis
book mark
“a code for geographic “residence of mother” to the left of the box.”
And the printed “?” left resdience of the mother?
To my eyes it looks like a handwritten “2” next to geographic residence of mother. Below that, I don’t know what that mark is — it is not clearly a type-set question mark to my eyes. The Nordyke certificate does not appear to have anything where that is. Perhaps it is the edge of a punch-hole, I can’t tell for sure.
“The Nordyke certificate does not appear to have anything where that is. Perhaps it is the edge of a punch-hole, I can’t tell for sure.”
Gretchen Nordyke has what looks like two “6”s to the left of Hospital and a “7” to the left of mother’s residence.
What do they mean and shouldn’t Susan’s be exactly the same?
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2009/Jul/28/M1139416728.GIF
I don’t myself know that the lower one on Gretchen’s is also a 6, it looks to me like it has an odd squiggle at the top of the stroke to be a 6. But anyone can look at these marks and rely on their own eyes for what they think they are.
“But anyone can look at these marks and rely on their own eyes for what they think they are.”
That’s especially true when part of the squiggles is cutoff.
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.
