“This video, he fails to show what the code was for a blank entry.”
Two different 1961 manuals were shown, there was no code for a blank entry.
“I still think Zullo is correct.”
It was clearly shown that the chart he claimed was from a 1961 manual, was taken from a manual that didn’t exist until 1968.
What if Hawaii’s state code manual has a code 9 that means specifically ‘not stated’ that suppose to be entered in box 9?
So send what you found to Corsi. Maybe he has another manual. Maybe he can explain this.
Guys and Gals, You have a document that was forged. Obama’s long form BC posted on the White House website is forged. The number 9 does not get you out of that fact. It is a digital file not a scanned photocopy. That fact alone proves forgery. Obama waivered and lost. He asked the Hawaii DOH for a WAIVER in order to get a PHOTOCOPY of his original 1961 BC. A PHOTOCOPY is NOT a DIGITAL file. Say that. A photocopy is not a digital file. All other details about the forgery are interesting but go beyond the proof needed to prove it is fraudulent. Like the alleged “signature” of Obama’s mother on the forged document going from ink pixels to a non-ink computer created “signature”. A signature on a 1961 document can not be a compilation of ink and computer created non-ink. Pixels don’t lie. People do.