[4Zoltan]

“That report uses classifications that are not reflected by the alleged coding manual.”

From the 1961 Natality Report,

“Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
(combined), and “other nonwhite.”

Page 5-7

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/vsus_1961_1.pdf

Table from the Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961

White (includes Mexican, Puerto Rican, and all other Caucasian) -———————1
Negro ——————————2
Indian (includes American and Alaskan Indians) -—3
Chinese —————————4
Japanese—————————5
Aleut-——————————6
Eskimo-—————————7
Filipino—————————8
Other nonwhite——————9
Hawaiian-————————0
Part-Hawaiian-——————V

http://myveryownpointofview.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/coding-and-punching-geographic-and-personal-particulars-for-births-occurring-in-1961.pdf

From the Division of Data Processing, Vital Statistics Programming Branch, Tape File Information, 1960-1961 Natality Tape Files for the United States

Race of Child
1…...White
2…...Negro
3…...Indian
4…...Chinese
5…...Japanese
6…...Aleut
7…...Eskimo
8…...Filipino
9…...Other nonwhite
0......Hawaiian
V… . Part Hawaiian

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FOIA-DHHS-11-00673.pdf

On all of the manuals and the annual report there is no entry for “not stated”.

In the annual report it says - “In 1961 there were 4,268,326 live births registered in the United States representing an increase of less than 1 percent over the number of births in 1960.” page 1-3

Obviously, this statement could only be made after December 31, 1961.

[Fred Nerks]

So regardless of the manual date, if the kenyan had a son in Hawaii and insisted on his race being entered as AFRICAN, he would end up being classified as 9.

OTHER NON WHITE.

Why? Might that be because his race was simply NOT STATED?

[Jeff Winston]

In other words, 4Zoltan bothered to go through the 1961 Natality Report mentioned by edge919 and found that, once more, as expected, edge919's stupid birther claim that it contradicted the information in the real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual WAS COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE BULLS***.

Thank you, 4Zoltan, for confirming what I was already confident was going to be the case.

Okay, edge919. You've made a BULLSH** birther claim, and falsely called names on the basis of your BULLSH** birther claim. Are you now going to apologize for that?

[edge919]

It helps if you actually read what you C&P if you're trying to make a contrary argument. You just proved my point and Jeff Winston is going to be Jeff Wincing as a result. The 1961 Natality Report contains nine individual race classifcations, with two sub classes COMBINED into ONE classification. That's what it says for people who can read. The alleged coding manual lists 11 classifcations which is what it says for people who can read AND count. Notice what is missing for example. The natality report doesn't list filipino as a separate classification. It doesn't say that Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian are separate classification elements. And then your citation from Dr. Kucklehead's conspiracy website was completely debunked because there was no "Division of Data Processing, Vital Statistics Programming Branch" in 1961. It was not even formed until 1963.

“Effective in September 1963, NCHS was reorganized, with the Division of Vital Statistics becoming one of five operating divisions. This reorganization separated support activities, such as data processing and publication activities, from the substantive vital statistics program operations.”

Thanks for falling for a debunked document, and obviously the instruction manual is no good either.