Did Investigator Mike Zullo Rely On 1969 Code #9 for Obama's COLB Or Code #9 from 1961?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf ^

[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

[Windflier]

...there doesn’t seem to be a convential naming system back then for people other than ‘white’.

Oh yes there was. Ask anyone who was born prior to 1960. The conventions for designating race on birth certificates goes back a very long way in America.

I was born in 1953, at a time when American blacks called themselves 'colored'. The term 'negro' was only just coming into fashion, and didn't really take hold until later that decade.

That didn't stop the Army doctors from putting 'negro' on my birth certificate. It was already an established racial designation.

[philman_36]

Anyway, there doesn’t seem to be a convential naming system back then for people other than ‘white’.
Convential? What?!

Anyway, you might want to read page 5-7 under "Race and color" of the link provided in the post.

Here it is again in case you can't find it...@ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf (just pick it, it'll open in a new tab)
And here is the info...

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." Looks like a conventional naming system to me.
And look, there's Japanese!

[Fred Garvin-MP]

I am sorry but I put up the wrong link. Here is what I was refering to. Scroll down to 6/12 to see what I am talking about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100438616/Vital-Statistics-Tape-File-Information-1960-1961-Natality-Tape-Files-for-the-United-States

[Fred Garvin-MP]

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.

[Shelayne]

According to The Daily Pen, the coding information for 1961 from the Vital Statistics Information Manual cannot be found online, but through your state’s Dept of Health archive. That is how The Daily Pen obtained their copy.

Also, according to info that was provided by the National Center for Health Statistics ( NCHS), the coding that was used in 1961 was used until the 1970 Census, as that was the purpose for the coding.

Where did this online manual come from?

[philman_36]

Now I find this highly unusual.
From the link... This is the specification manual for the United States birth data files for 1961 obtained via FOIA from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2011. If the information is so readily available online for 1969-1978 why did a FOIA have to be filed for 1961?
Shouldn't we all be asking ourselves why 1961 isn't an open public record available on the Internet as well?

[Shelayne]

Nevermind about the question of the manual; I was looking at two sites at once and got mixed up.

My mistake.

[Shelayne]

Look again. That is the race of the CHILD, not the father.

[philman_36]

And I see that it says "Race of Child" there whereas the other distinctly says "Race of Father".

Is it possible that the "Doc" only got part of the information for 1961?
FOIA requests can be tricky beasts.

H/T to rolling_stone.

[philman_36]

In fact, the 69-71 pdf has both "Race of Child" and "Race of Father".

The "Doc" might want to get his filing fee back, if there was one, as he might have gotten short changed.

[edge919]

This is the form that I was referring to that is suspect. Philman just quoted the passage on race classifications and it doesn't jibe with this report. Here's are the race classifications from the 1961 Natality Report:

white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite."

Here are the race codes from Dr. Conspiracy's "tape file":
White, Negro, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Filipino, Other Non white, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (NOT combined) ...

Where's "filipino" in the Natality Report paragraph?? Why isn't Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian combined for the tape files??

Further, I mentioned that the Dr. Conspiracy file came from a source that didn't even exist yet. The header on the tape file pages says "Division of Data Processing" ... here's a paragraph from the "U.S. Vital Statistics System: Major Activities and Developments, 1950-95 (Includes reprint of "History and Organization of the Vital Statistics System" to 1950)":

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.

link to source

Dr. Nonsense's tape file, which is supposed to be for 1960 as well as 1961, but it jibes even less with the 1960 Natality Report's race classifications which classifies almost everything after Japanese as other non white.

[Fred Garvin-MP]

Some of the detractors are using the excuse for using the word ‘African’ is that it was ‘Self Reported’ by the parent since he was from Africa and he didn’t want to put down negro or black. I was thinking the other night about this. The actress Charlize Theron is of course ‘white’ born from white parents but she is from South Africa by birth. My question is if she was born in Hawaii would she be listed as a Code 9 since she is also African?

[Shelayne]

Is it possible that the "Doc" only got part of the information for 1961? FOIA requests can be tricky beasts.

I don't see the race of the mother in this selection, either, so I think this is an incomplete record. Again with regard to the info obtained by The Daily Pen, they reference Part 1, Sections A & B for the coding information.

I think philman_36 is right.

[philman_36]

Here's something to consider from 1968...@ NATALITY TAPE FILE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1968Race of Child (Determined from Parents race)
Each race item is coded as follows:
1 White
2 Negro
3 Indian (includes Aleuts and Eskimos)
4 Chinese
5 Japanese :“
6 Hawaiian (includes part-Hawaiian)
7 Other Nonwhite
9 Unknown or not stated (Race of parents only)

Yep, I'd like to some public record, not what the "Doc" has.

[null and void]

It says my posts have to be checked by a moderator before being posted.

That often happens with new posters.

We do get a lot of trolls.

[philman_36]

BTW, that came from here...@ NCHS's Vital Statistics Natality Birth Data -- 1968-2009

Why is it necessary to file a FOIA for the years prior to 1968?

[philman_36]

My question is if she was born in Hawaii would she be listed as a Code 9 since she is also African?
Since African is a nationality and not a race like white, Negro, Japanese, etc., I would say, no, she would be listed as white.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of demography by race which is what is being done through these reports.

[Shelayne]

Some of the detractors are using the excuse for using the word ‘African’ is that it was ‘Self Reported’ by the parent since he was from Africa and he didn’t want to put down negro or black. I was thinking the other night about this. The actress Charlize Theron is of course ‘white’ born from white parents but she is from South Africa by birth. My question is if she was born in Hawaii would she be listed as a Code 9 since she is also African?

That doesn't wash because this coding was for the Census, not for the parents. Each code corresponded to a specific designation. Tell the detractors to "try again". Besides, the code for "other non-white" was 7.

Code 9 means not stated or unknown. Charlize would be white, and if she was born in Hawaii, how would she be African? ;^)

[philman_36]

Here is a learning tool for you to better understand.
@AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION

Here's another...
@NON-HISPANIC WHITE POPULATION

And one more...
@HISPANIC POPULATION

You get the picture now? It's all by race!

[philman_36]

Charlize would be white, and if she was born in Hawaii,
how would she be African? ;^)

Sometimes, they just jump right in...