Replies

I covered all of this back in ‘12.

Snips will follow, I did four posts on the codes and I’ll link them in case anyone wants to study that stuff. I was the first “Birther” or non-Birther to publish the 1961 Federal code manual. Dr. Con later posted it, but I do not know if he mentioned that I found it first.

I talked to both Corsi and Zullo about it before I published, Corsi didn’t care that it made them look like they didn’t do the right thing, and Zullo had enough assurance from the CDC to reluctantly go forward with that portion of the material being presented. He had wanted to pull it because he couldn’t confirm it to his satisfaction, but after many hours on the phone with the CDC he felt that he had that confirmation.

Here is, to the uninitiated, the most important thing to understand: “the numerical coding applied (hand written) prior to the birth certificate forms being microfilmed (for Fed use) is used for LOCAL/STATE level statistical purposes. It is possible that the “9” used by the local office did not have the same meaning it would have to the FEDERAL code punchers. I am just as certain that the coding manual at state level may have shared some similarities with the federal coding, but it (HI local codes) was NOT used by the employees who worked from the 1961 Federal VS Instruction Manual.” The Federal coders based the childs race from the race(s) written in the race fields for the parents on the birth certificate. The manual told them how to do this.

The relevant posts:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/unstated-codes-in-conflict-on-birth-document/

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/does-it-exist-the-1961-vital-stat-instruction-manual/

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/corsis-code-conundrum

“What the hell am I talking about? You are welcome to wonder. The most recent post that I did, http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/did-corsi-lie-to-zullo-a-real-1961-vital-statistics-instruction-manual/, featured a 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual link and several screenshots from said manual.

It has been somewhat misrepresented by both sides of the “birther” issue. Big surprise.. The most recent example of this surfaced today : What-Does-the-Number-9-Mean?.”(That was an article written by Diane West)

“After having read, re-read, debated and argued the 1961 VSIM contents V. Corsi and Zullo’s press released “shocker”, I have made some educated assumptions about the FEDERAL punch codes referred to in the 1961 VSIM, versus the penciled codes that appear to have been written directly onto the original paper certificate forms while at the Dept. of Health in Honolulu HI. I will also address the concerns that some people seem to have about the “revision date” of Aug. 14th, 1961 of the (federal) Instruction Manual.

Here is my opinion, based on all of the facts that I do have available.
After reading the entire manual, fortunately only 18 pages, I realized several things. I believe these things are very important and in the interest of honesty, you will surely agree with me.

The first that I would like to get out of the way is this “Revised” date. This particular item may seem to be important, however I find no evidence that the race codes changed FROM using the number “9” indicating “unstated” TO indicating “other non-white” for this manual. It would make little sense to change the coding on this one item in mid-August, 1961 only to change it back later in the decade. In addition, by the time these certificate forms were processed at the local level, then microfilmed, then received at the location for federal coding, at least four weeks would have passed.

On reading the manual it becomes obvious that the code punchers utilizing the instructions were NOT reading the codes that were penciled on at the local level. They were following instructions on how to determine which code to use, and not once in the manual are pre-applied codes even mentioned.

We know that there were indeed codes written on the certificate forms at the local offices. We can know this not only because Corsi confirmed it with Mrs. Lee, but also because these codes were on the certificate forms at the time that the forms were microfilmed. We know that because certified copies of birth certificates from HI (1960’s) show these penciled code numbers. That can only happen if the codes were written prior to microfilming. The point I am making is that the “federal” coders worked from these microfilms. Do I honestly think that by the time the microfilm of births that occurred on Aug. 4 arrived to be processed, the punchers had to handle/code the births occurring prior to the Aug. 14th revision date differently? No, I do not. That is my opinion only.

The next point that I will make concerns the code in box 12b on obamas official long form birth certificate, father’s “Kind of Business or Industry”. As has been pointed out by Zullo (and everyone else) , this too, is a “9”.

What very few realize is that nowhere in the Federal 1961 VS Instruction Manual is a code puncher given instruction on how to code this box 12b.

In fact, there is no mention in the VSIM or in the 1960-1961 summary manuals, of the parents employment status at all. Nothing which indicates that the information in box 12b was collected or compiled by the federal government code punchers.

This indicates the numerical coding applied prior to the certificate forms being microfilmed is used for local/state level statistical purposes. It is very plausible that the “9” used by the local office did not have the same meaning it would have to the federal code punchers. I am just as certain that the coding at state level may have shared some similarities with the federal coding, but it (HI local codes) was not used by the employees who worked from the 1961 Federal VS Instruction Manual.

This also indicates that the number “9” could indeed mean the same “not stated” in both the box 9, and box 12b. But of course that can only be proven if Corsi found a local, Hawaiian DOH 1961 coding instruction manual which spelled that out. That is my hope. More for Zullo’s sake than Corsi’s.

What I am fairly certain of, after having read the manual, and the part 2 geographical coding revision instructions as well as the summaries compiled from the reports, is that “other non-white” (Obama Sr.’s race) is certainly appropriate coding re the federal instruction. Also, that the “9” was not entered on the birth certificate form by the same agency that would have used the ’61 Federal VSIM. That federal agency would not have physically written on the microfilm with a pencil.

That it is very probable there is a state/local coding manual in addition to the federally issued 1961 VSIM.
.