Posted on 07/23/2012 9:21:28 PM PDT by Fred Garvin-MP
Hello. My name is Fred Garvin-MP. I recently watched the Maricopa County Sheriff Department's press conference. It was intriguing to say the least. What caught my attention were the coding numbers on the document put on the White House server for all Americans to see. The code #9 was the essential 'nail in the coffin' that confirmed the PDF version of the birth certificate was a 'definite' forgery.
Now two pro Obama websites claim that lead Investigator Mike Zullo used the meaning of code #9 from a 1969 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual instead of a manual from 1961. Is this true? One meaning for code #9 is different that the other code #9 and that is giving Obama supporting websites ammunition to claim Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse got it wrong. To clear this up we need answers. I am sure most of you agree.
Here is the 1961 layout: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf
Here is the 1969 layout : http://www.nber.org/natality/1969/Nat1969-71doc.pdf
Fred Garvin-MP
Holy cow. Mark and Barack have the exact same looking mouth with that line protruding on the middle of their top lip, just like Frank Marshall.
“what is that...@an “a”...next to the Mother’s place of birth instead of a 1?”
Both Nordyke parents have “a” in the box for their place of birth.
I think what Fred is talking about is the discussion at Mark Gillar’s youtube site (He made the videos for the Cold Case Posse).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yft0kz_fbnA
The table shown in the video at 0.33 and 2:13 is from the 1968 instructional manual. Look at the smudges and lines on the CDC website for Race of Child and on the video, they are exactly the same.
For some reason the CCP used the 1968 image in their video. Also at the 2:00 mark they used a 1969 table but have since posted a correction.
As to the designations changing over time. In the 1964 Vital Statistic in the United States, Natality, it says that they made a change lumping Aleut and Eskimo into the code for American Indian. And that is how they are designated in the 1968 table.
For some reason the CCP used the 1968 image in their video.
If the coding was the same from 1961 to 1968 then what is the problem?
“Here is what I found from 1960/61. Scroll down to 6/12. Code 9 states Other Non White while the liberal detractors say Zullo used a 1969 code 9 for Not Stated in the press conference. Zullo did mention those words.”
Well, I’ve found the same thing. The Federal Government did not bother to record the race of the parents, but, only the race of the child. In 1961 a 9 certainly did mean “Other Non white”, and by using that code, the system would not have listed Obama’s race as a negro.
Zullo and Corsi set this false info up and they can claim that they got this info from Verna K L Lee. Remember, she’s 95 years old, and probably just forgot that the meaning of a 9 changed in the later 1960’s.
I’ve noticed two other things though. The Feds did track Month of birth. August is the 8th month, yet on Obama’s Birth Certificate, you’ll see it was coded as a 1, meaning January in the time of birth slot. Also, on the Nordyke twins Birth Certificates, their births are coded as 1-2 and 2-2 just like one would number boxes being shipped. Obama’s should have been coded as 1-1, but instead it says X - X. An X means “not stated”.
“Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldnt tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obamas fathers race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that fathers race and mothers race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.””
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
This Hawaiian BC lists Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/English/German/Portuguese as the race of the mother.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292053/
The assumption that the coder would have put down ‘Negro” is pure speculation as it is that they would have put down “Other Nonwhite”. Cases can be made for both arguments. And depending on when the codes were added to the BC, there is no way to know if the coder even saw Obama Sr.
@ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/nat64_1.pdf
So before 1964...well isn't that interesting!
And that is how they are designated in the 1968 table.
And? Without the "Race of Father" code for 1961 we're not making any headway.
Sorry about that. Didn’t mean to double post.
TYVM
YWVM
“So tell me then, second string, what does the “a” mean?”
Well since Obama’s mother was born in Kansas and the Nordyke’s were born in California and since the Hawaiian BC lists island, state or foreign country in parentheses, I would assume “a” means one of the United States that is not Hawaii. But that is just a guess.
“If the coding was the same from 1961 to 1968 then what is the problem?”
A change was made in 1964,
Compare the opening paragraph in the section on race and color of the 1961 Vital Statistics with the same paragraph from 1964,
1961,
“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.””
1964,
“Births in the United States in 1964 are classified for
statistical purposes according to the race of the parents.
The racial categories are white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian combined, and “other nonwhite.”
In the 1964 report they go on to explain,
“Beginning in 1964 Aleuts and Eskimos are included in American Indian, significantly increasing the births in this racial category when comparisons are made with previous years.” 1964 Vital Statistics in the United States, Natality, page 4-7 in the Technical Appendix
So in “previous years” Aleuts and Eskimos had their on “racial category” but in 1964 they were thrown in with the American Indian category which “significantly increased” the reported births in the Indian category for 1964.
“Without the “Race of Father” code for 1961 we’re not making any headway.”
I agree. And here is something else. The Nordyke’s and the Obama’s BC are coded for parents’ place of birth. But the Feds didn’t require that field be coded. So why code it at all unless Hawaii was keeping their own statistics. So looking at the Feds codes may be totally meaningless if Hawaii had their own codes.
Now look at the WND BC that otherss posted earlier. It shows a “3” as the race of parents. By the Feds that means they were American Indians. And in parents place of birth they are both listed as “1”. Is that the code for Hawaii? Are they ethnic Hawaiians?
So what is your conclusion? Was Zullo right in the press conference, that the ‘Race of Father’ box was supposed to be blank (with code #9 only) instead of having ‘African’ entered in it? Same goes for the Industry box 12b where University was entered in it. Should it have been blank also?
This Hawaiian BC lists Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/English/German/Portuguese as the race of the mother.
http://wtpotus.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/miki-booths-long-form-bc-from-hawaii.jpg
What is that code there? Is that a "5" or a "6"?
What matters is what the code designates.
And I still don't see "African" listed, even as late as 1995.
When did "African" come into use?
“How did “African” got on there?”
The parents.
“African isn’t a “race” “
It is in Kenya. From the 1962 Kenya Census Form,
“Column 5. Race.-Write European, Arab, Somali or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.”
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf
So would Obama Sr. consider himself “African”.
Likely a pre-release disinformation agent. Another thing I am highly suspect of is the CDC link......
So why code it at all unless Hawaii was keeping their own statistics.
Well I'd like to see that the Feds didn't require it before I would venture to answer that question that doesn't have a question mark. (not the grammar police, just sayin'...)
It shows a 3 as the race of parents. By the Feds that means they were American Indians.
And what code key are you using to make that determination?
“Was Zullo right”
If they have the 1961 coding instructions, why post the 1968 table?
If the codes have changed between 1961 and 1968 that seems to me to be a problem for them.
I don’t understand their connecting race of father with occupation. Why assume that “9” means the same thing for both fields. What if “9” meant “other” in occupation?
We do not have the codes (Hawaiian or Federal) they used so everything is just a guess.
The Hawaiin State archives is where I would look find the instructions for filling out the forms back in 1961.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.