...and btw, I addressed my comment to Ladysforest after reading BOTH the links provided, and the comments to the blog. Did you? Doesn’t seem that way, for if you had, what I wrote about Mr Corsi wouldn’t have surprised you. Is it getting so that an opinion isn’t acceptable any more?
About Corsi. I emailed him prior to running that 61 VSIM, I let him know that the images he had up on the screen during Mike Zullos presentation were not correct for the information that was given out at that presser. I asked if he wanted to look into that and clarify anything before I ran my post - mainly because a LOT of people in the blogs were pointing out that the image of the code chart had come from a ‘68 fed. VSIM. I sent him a copy of the actual 61 VSIM.
I got an email back from him where he basically said that he didn’t care a whole lot what people were saying about the image, and that he was just going to let it stand as it was. In other words he couldn’t have cared less about the validity of the chart he had used for the presentation being the wrong one.
He had Zullo claiming the image was from a federal 1961 VSIM, and that those code numbers in the image up on the screen (the same chart that The Daily Pen had up) were precisely the same as those used in HI to determine the coding on obamas BC. That was wrong. He knew it was wrong. I recently found out that Zullo hadn’t wanted to discuss the code issue because he felt there was not enough hard evidence, but Corsi insisted. And it was Corsi who designed the slide slow - every screen of it. Anyway, Zullo was reassured - barely - by a long discussion with a management person at the CDC, after going round and round, the CDC finally said that their (Corsi and Zullo) “understanding” of the coding appeared to be correct. With that slight assurance, but feeling he had gotten some supporting official confirmation, Zullo reluctantly agreed to do that part of the presentation. This will come as a surprise to most of you - but I got that direct, so it is true.
As to any revisions made to the 1961 VSIM, it is not likely that JUST the coding for race was revised. Now, I’ve seen a massive number of funky coincidences attached to every damn thing I have researched regarding obama and his magical public records, but I do feel this would be one too many.
More likely it would have been geographical. A lot of changes were going on for the few years surrounding Alaska and HI becoming states. Since I also read the SUMMARIES of the federal data collected, I can say that most references to revisions I found were changing codes around based on population density (apparently).
Not to say that the revision couldn’t have been made to two race codes and nothing else, but what would the point of doing that in mid-year be?
If you read comments at the blog, then you read something I wrote at the time as to why this alleged manual does NOT pass the sniff test. I just told you the manual was dated AFTER Obama was born.
Doesn’t seem that way, for if you had, what I wrote about Mr Corsi wouldn’t have surprised you.
Considering how picky you get over the names Anna and Soebarkah, it's extremely surprising and out of character to be less picky over an alleged manual that is dated AFTER Obama was born and has not been proven to applicable to the procedures that would have or should have been used on Obama's alleged long-form birth certificate. The discovery of the manual is a little "too" convenient.
Is it getting so that an opinion isn’t acceptable any more?
No. No one said any opinion isn't "acceptable." I asked WHAT prompted the action suggested within the comment you made earlier.