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
Obama Sr. has a “2”
Stanley Ann has an “a”
Mr and Mrs Nordyke have “a”s
8/23/61 girl’s parents have “1”s.
Here’s my guess:
1 - Hawaii island
a - One of the United States but not Hawaii
2 - Foreign Country
You have a good day.
Wow! Nothing in the 61 or 68 coding about a "requirement" to code time info either and yet we have a coding mark. Imagine that!
What was it that you asked? Oh, yeah...
Why code something that was not required by the Feds?
If the supposition is that something that is not in the "NATALITY TAPE FILES" is something that isn't "required" then why is the time coded?
The coding is all single digits. There's something about this whole coding thing we're not getting.
Certain "boxes" have specific coding marks. The code keys correlating to those specific boxes within the birth certificates are what are needed IMO.
We need to specifiy whether we are talking about what the coder entered (a single digit code) versus what was the actually written entry.
The Nordyke’s were/are educated people. Father, apparently a doctor and IIRC mom was also college educated. Would they put “Caucasian” down as their race? And would a coder reading that code it as “white”?
Obama Sr. was from Kenya would he put down the American term “Negro” or the Kenyan term “African”? Would a coder then put down the code for “Negro” or for “Other Nonwhite”?
The question is would Hawaii change the BC from what the parents put down to one of the 11 predefined categories?
If you say ‘yes, they would.’ then you have to explain why the NIHS said that sometimes “yellow” or other ill-defined terms were reported.
If you say ‘no, they would not.’ which is what the Hawaiian spokesman said, then the question is what does the code “9” mean?
At this point code “9” is still a mystery.
I am not disagreeing with you. The coding doesn’t make sense.
Look at box 12b Kind of Business or Industry. For Obama’s, it matches father’s race (9), for the Nordyke’s it matches father’s race (1), for the 8/23/61 girl it matches father’s race (3). That makes no sense, it is either a weird coincidence or we don’t understand the coding.
Obviously, there is still alot that is not understood about what is required (listed on the tape instructions) by the Feds or what Hawaii (and other states)may have been coding on their own.
Yes, an “a” doesn’t make sense, but there it is on the Nordyke’s and Obama BC.
“Much more than a simple number is still a mystery.”
And it’s the same mystery for the Nordyke’s and the 8/23/61 girl.
I'm with Windflier on this one, and think it's more likely the electronic "document" was assembled by a politically correct amateur. This of course does nothing to detract from the likelihood of a Kenyan birth.
“Here’s a mystery...how do you it’s a girl’s birth certificate? “
Why from the codes of course. LOL
There is a “2” in box 2. There are “2”s in box 2 for both Nordyke girls. Obama has a “1” in box 2.
BTW, Butterdezillion says she thinks this BC is a forgery
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/wnd-bc-forgery.pdf
But Dr. Corsi who wrote the WND article called it a “known-to-be-authentic birth certificate”.
So take your pick.
Also if you read Butterdezillion’s article on it, you will understand how people on the internet believe they know the name of the “person” listed on the BC.
Don’t fret about it, I understood what you were saying?
Hmmm...According to the 1961 tape instructions, it lists Mother’s Nativity as one of the categories (Tape location 31):
1. Native
2. Foreign
3. Not Stated
So could these be the codes being referred to? The “3” in that case would mean “Not Stated”. Just throwing that out there.
Why are the O-bots harping on the CENSUS and “NATIONAL” coding vs. the Hawaiian Dept. of Health vital statistics coding for birth certificates?
Zullo stated specifically that he used the HAWAIIAN manuals, and yet every post from Mr. MP, Zoltran, etc... focuses again on the FEDERAL census codes, and NOT the BC codes. Why would someone look for this information at the CDC website ANYWAY? Why would it be hosted on that website vs. the Census Bureau website?
All I can say is; “Don’t feed the trolls”. They are attempting to obfuscate the facts, and pretend THEY are confused when they know EXACTLY what they are doing.
You keep saying “coded by the Feds”. What “Feds” are you talking about? The NIHS, the CDC, etc... etc... what in the world do they have to do with the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Vital Statistics? There were no “Feds” coding these BCs.
It appears as though your succinct statement has gone, either, unchallenged or unnoticed.
That is, of course, assuming Sr. was there (highly unlikely) to "self report."
Why in the world are you people referring to FEDERAL CENSUS CODING and NOT the Hawaiian Vital Statistics Recording Manuals used by Zullo???
Surely you all can’t be that dense! It’s amazing how all 3 of you on this thread (4Zoltran, Mr. MP, and yourself) insist that these specific manuals are supposedly the ones Zullo referred to when you’ve all been told over and over again that these are NOT the right manuals to begin with.
You all speak of the Feds coding these things, and yet completely ignore the fact that the Feds had NOTHING to do with coding this particular document, and that the Hawaiian Dept. of Health and Vital Statistics had their OWN manuals which pertained SPECIFICALLY to Hawaiian births.
Awfully interesting that Obama’s team would be putting out this misinformation as “truth”, when they are the ones who were too stupid to find the correct manual when creating the forged document.
I do have a question though - why are people so damn interested in trying to prove Zullo is wrong instead of focusing on the overwhelming evidence that PROVES there is something incredibly amiss with not only his BC, but also his Selective Service card?
What personal investment do people have in this that they will defy all common sense in defending these insane ramblings of the President and all who defend him? How many times to these things have to be shown before people will take off their political blinders, and see the threat before ALL of us as American Citizens?
I believe you are correct, and that this thread was started with the specific goal of calling the CCP's findings into question and muddying the waters.
I'm done with this one, and there are a couple of n00bs (I know, I know, I'm one too) that I'll be paying very close attention to in the future. LorenC managed to haunt the eligibility threads for quite some time as the retread known as "Obama Exposer" before finally being zotted.
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.
