Replies

Nonsense. The effective date is the revised date. Such a document could not be used to classify anything that occurred prior to that revised date. Nobody was going to back through eight months worth of data and reclassify it based on a new revision. The government is inefficient, yes, but not that stupid.

Okay. Well, it's obvious that the classification of data for births occuring in 1961 had not yet taken place, then.

In any event, the government stored data regarding births BY YEAR. And ALL OF THE BIRTHS IN A PARTICULAR YEAR USED THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS, AND WAS STORED TOGETHER.

So let THAT sink in.

What it means is that THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT OBAMA'S BIRTH WAS CLASSIFIED BY THE FEDS USING ANY OTHER SPECIFICATIONS THAN THE ONES PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL THAT SAYS IT APPLIES TO BIRTHS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR 1961.

And what THAT means, once again, is that ARPAIO'S POSSE FLAT-OUT LIED.

And what THAT means, once again, is that ARPAIO’S POSSE FLAT-OUT LIED.

you sound like a broken record stuck on one error which you insist on calling a lie. Do you have anything else to offer?

Okay. Well, it's obvious that the classification of data for births occuring in 1961 had not yet taken place, then.

Except that we have a Natality Report from 1961 that shows how such births were actually classified. That report uses classifications that are not reflected by the alleged coding manual. That's a problem that YOU cannot get around. You can bleep and blurt all you want about an alleged coding manual, but the report shows that the manual was irrelevant.