Does It Exist? The 1961 Vital Stat Instruction Manual
Official White House released (snipped) long form birth certificate for barack Hussein obama.
.
The blogs have been energetically discussing the recent revelation that Sheriff Joes “Cold Case Posse” has found a 1961 Vital Statistics Instructional Manual, and using information contained within, have officially verified that the code number “9” indicated a “not stated” status on a birth certificate form.
As we know, the reason this is significant is that in the official White House sanctioned long form birth certificate for barack Hussein obama, the boxes containing president obama’s father’s race and his “business or industry” both display the number code “9”(handwritten in pencil). The fact that a “9” is entered, signifying that the information was not provided by the parents, should have resulted in those two boxes remaining void of personal information.
Yet, they were filled in.
And so the obama loyal subjects have begun to work to discredit Mr. Zullo and Sheriff Joes’ claim to have seen the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual. Some are claiming that such a thing does not even exist! I have been informed by readers that one blogger, who by his own account, worked many years in Vital Stats., insists that there is no such official manual prior to the 1968 VSIM that he was able to acquire by “FOIA” – or something.
Since I would rather spend my time looking into claims – both those made by Mr. Zullo and by this obama blogger, than reading the obama blogger claims – I may have his account of the situation a tad inaccurate. No matter – I have been assured that he claims there is NO Vital Statistics Instruction Manual prior to the 1968 one that he claims to have.
I spent the day scanning through hundreds, no thousands, of pages from different 1960s Vital Stats manuals and summary manuals. In spite of my efforts, I can not seem to lay my search engines on the 1960 or 1961 VS Instruction Manual which Zullo and Dr. Corsi used to officially verify the meaning and significance of the code “9”. Quite likely there is no online PDF version for that manual.
HOWEVER!
I did find reference to it. In the footnotes of a 1962 Vital Stats manual. I also found reference to the classification of “NOT STATED”. So, this is a fairly positive indication that Zullo and Corsi are on the level. Since I have not found the 1961 INSTRUCTION Manual (yet), I will post screenshots of what I was able to find, along with the direct link to the document. I really wish all bloggers would do this same little thing to help document their sources (talking to YOU Pen Johannson).
Section 5 has the most likely pertinent info – pay attention to the footnotes.
http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf
OOPS! I originally put the link for the ’61 summary up (above) due to having a bunch of windows with different manuals up at the same time. The ’61 manual has some interesting things in section 4. The next link below is to the ’62 manual which is where the screenshots are from – section 5. Sorry for the confusion.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1962_1.pdf
click to enlarge
Page 230 Section 5, 5-6 Vital Statistics of the United States 1962 Vol. 1 Natality
click to enlarge
Vital Statistics of the United States 1962
.
My Very Own Point of View 
The shot in the video shows an identical page of the 1968 manual. That is what I don’t understand.
It could well be that there was no change from the 1961 to the 1968 manuals on that particular catagory, so those pages were left original and intact. I don’t think a lot of changes were made because it would have necessitated RE-recoding all of the previous years on record. They did do that with some geographical stats – I read some on that too, LOL. They changed some of the numerical code indicators for some states – for example, I THINK HI was “5” until ’63ish, then changed to “12”. But I refuse to go back and read that crap today! I think it was in the mortality summary, but I can’t recall now if it was ’62 or’63. They had to make new “tapes” with the changed codes on them to keep the records correct.
Hey, maybe Dr.C actually has a 1961 VSIM, and altered it to look like a 1968 issue – just to screw with the eligibility crowd.
” It could well be that there was no change from the 1961 to the 1968 manuals on that particular catagory, so those pages were left original and intact.”
That there was no change was something I considered, but I didn’t think about the disputed Code part of the manual being left intact.
We think too much in terms of 2012, LOL. Everything is so easy now – just use a computer.
We know there was a change in 1964, Aluet and Eskimo which had there own codes were combined into Amercian Indian code 3.
Your point?
So when codes for Aleut and Eskimo were not used anymore, did they renumber the remaining codes? In 1961 was “not stated” one code but renumbered to another code?
The way it appears to be done, is with as common sense an approach as possible. To create as little reworking of the existing records/stats as possible. If Aleut and Eskimo were rolled into American Indian (which I have not personally verified) – was that done on the parents race coding or the children’s race reported in the summary? Certain things seem to have remained the same – because there was no reason to change them. 1=white. 2=black. They didn’t change the number for black just because they changed from using the word negro. Why would the “not stated” have been anywhere other than at the very end of the numbering? It makes sense that the known races/colors would have been listed one after another, with the oddball being at the end. Additionally, if one particular number had the same meaning, “not stated”, it could be used in multiple boxes on the form – it wouldn’t be limited to JUST the race or just the business or industry. These were birth registration/information forms. There were unwed women back then who likely preferred the “not stated” option over the alternative, “I don’t know” option-but either way, they ended up with a blank box. I am still going to seek the ’61 Instruction Manual. I’m sure I can hunt one down somewhere.
In the 1961 tape files obtained by Dr. C through a FIOA request, there is a footnote:
“4 New York coded race in accordance with 1959 instructions. This means that races other than white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese were coded 6 (other nonwhite in 1959 code). In Univac Run 1, cards coded 6 were changed to 9 (other nonwhite) to make this code conform with all other States.”
Have you considered your own FOIA to obtain what Dr. C obtained?
I do not believe a FOIA will be necessary – MOST of these docs can simply be requested, but the procedure is dumb, and who knows who long until they respond. It’s a government agency. I intend to request a copy/link through regular channels, and while I wait for them to screw around for who knows how long, I will see about hunting one down in a dusty corner somewhere. The “non-published” one will present a problem, but I can try.
As to the “6” code – there were (according to your list) only 5 races included – so after they added more, the “unknown” code necessarily got pushed out to the final number. The thing is – Non-white MAY be a code for the CHILDs race/color, but it is the parents race/color (self described remember – or provided by the mother) that we are after. Codes changed in 59/60 due to Alaska and HI becoming states. Would there have been a “other non-white” code for PARENTS? Doubtful, they would have been considered some particular race their entire lives. Especially back then. However, if the Mom self-identifies as “white”, but decides against providing a fathers race for her child, would the blank automatically be coded “non-white”? No. To have a “not stated” code for a parent makes sense. What I want to know, is if the “9” does indeed mean “not stated” in whichever field it would have appeared in.
Additionally – there CLEARLY was a “not stated” code in use in 1961 – for the parents race classification. NJ decided to apply it to ALL of their birth doc forms in 1962 for some reason. So, if “not stated” was not a number “9” for the PARENTS race, and there were eight races/colors in the list, what would have the “not stated” code been. PUNCH CARDS. See, eight numbers for eight races, “9” for “other non-white”, and then WHAT number for “not-stated”?
“Beginning in 1964 Aleuts and Eskimos are included in American Indian”
Click to access nat64_1.pdf
I don’t think anyone is claiming that there ws no “not stated” but rather that it was not always “9”.
There were finite numbers to use – they were dealing with punch cards and magnetic tape. Every change that was made necessitated them “updating” the older records with the new code changes. BIG task. They did do that with geographical codes – but that was necessary after adding Alaska and HI, and for various other reasons.
What code number would have been assigned? In 1961 – which is all I am concerned with really. 1 – white. 2 – black (negro) would 3 have been “not stated”? Or would 3 have been a race like Chinese or American Indian? What number would have been assigned to “not stated”….?
In 1961, code “9” in federal vital statistics was “other nonwhite.” However, Hawaii wasn’t using federal codes in the first place, so none of this has any validity.
Then why would HI have bothered coding at all? They were, by all indication that I have found, using the same codes as the rest of the states by 1960.
I read, quite some time back – and I forget where – that HI was actually state of the art in their health reporting for the time. That by the time they became a state in 1960, they had all the newest and best. Including training. Sort of a bonus consequence of retooling to meet the federal standards.
BTW, incredible effort. That is why I look to your blog. I know you actually investigate for yourself.
Thank you kindly.
Come to think on it, it’s an INSTRUCTION manual. Unless something was “amended”, it would have just been reissued every year – copied and reissued with the year indicator changed, but not completely retyped. Why retype (1960’s style) hundreds of pages every year if there were only slight or no changes?
Good point.
I was just comparing, side by side, the ’61 and ’62 summary manual section for race – the small section I read had identical wording and punctuation – nothing except the year is changed. But being a SUMMARY of collected information some of the content
will necessarily have to change.
Have you ever been in contact with Mr. Zullo?
Yes
Well now Daily Kos is citing Obama Conspiracy Theories for the proof that the 1961 Code meant other non-white (and that the 1968 Code was used in a kind of bait and switch). If you actually read over everything, he has no direct proof that the #9 Code for the father’s race meant other non-white. He is now saddled with the claim that he proved beyond a doubt that #9 meant other nonwhite.
Mr. Zullo needs to get on top of this. Why doesn’t he?
I think Corsi should address it. It was he that supposedly spent days in the archives and law library. I suppose we could email him at WND.
He is meant to be Dr.C.
Well, Dr.C can reap what he sows.
Oh I’m sure he’s pleased with all of the attention to his blog. He thinks his conclusion is correct so it doesn’t seem to matter to him that people are taking his word as gospel, that he is the final arbiter of the issue.
He may know full well he is reaching, and using conclusion as facts – just to get some attention. I think it is pitiable. And wrong. I have avoided all temptations towards that with the “research” I’ve done. I don’t want anything but the truth for truths sake. Period.
The #9 areas may not have been submitted by the “whoever” in the ’60s, but may have been addressed by the later amendment to the BC.
Wasn’t there something about the long form BC as a summary? If information from an amendment was added to an original BC then perhaps it could be considered a summary. But it has been altered and would not be a real legal document.
Should have had “amended” or something stamped on it too. I think it’s entirely likely that IF he had a BC of some sort on file – and those fields were blank – he would have had it amended as an adult.
What doesn’t make sense is, presuming code No. 9 actually did mean “other non white” in 1961, why the race of African wouldn’t have been coded as Negro. The other manuals say how most of the ambiguous races ended up being classified as either white or Negro. If one was to presume that African meant “non white” they would most likely presume that African simply meant Negro. The most likely explanation here is that 9 did indeed mean “not stated” … and the stuff that Dr. C has posted is very suspicious. I’ve nailed him already on several factual inaccuracies.
What I think is troubling about Dr.C is his “background” in vital stats – and yet he promotes that NO instruction manual existed prior to 1968. Were they all just putting any old thing in those codes that they wanted?
This is what he said on the posts covering the topic: (I forgot to get the links for all but one but I just cut and pasted.)
According to the response to my FOIA request to the Department of Health and Human Services, the unpublished manual “Coding and Punching Geographical and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961” that is referenced on PDF page 228 of VSUS could not be found and they suggest that such a document never actually existed. However, they did point me to Geographic coding manual for 1961 and provided tape layouts for that year (but no coding manual). In particular, they told me that the “Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1961” (cited by Johansson and Crosby) with the exception of the Geographic coding manual could not be located. I filed an appeal and they replied that they checked again with all the subject matter experts, and no such document exists today.
From another post:
In August of 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services released to me information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the coding of natality (Birth) data in 1961. The first part of the response response consisted of a hyperlink to the 1961 document titled Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part II Coding and Punching, Section C, Geographic Code Final, Births, Deaths and Fetal Deaths Occurring in 1960-1961 (VSIM). The second part of the FOIA response was a 12-page document titled: Division of Data Processing, Vital Statistics Programming Branch, Tape File Information, 1960-1961 Natality Tape Files for the United States (NTFUS). I am publishing this information, I believe for the first time, with this article.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-2/#more-16899
Being a careful investigator, and not one to jump to conclusions too often, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on May 2, 2011, with the Department of Health and Human services for the 1961 specifications document. I received my response to request 11-00673 in August of 2011 and subsequently scanned it and made Tape File Information 1960-1961 natality Tape Files for the United States available on this web site, and today I uploaded it to Scribd.
The docs he mentions are referenced in the summary manuals in the footnotes. The 61 Instruction Manual may exist in storage at local locations. I have to run for a bit. But I’ll get back on this shortly. Until WE have the 61 manual – any thing said about the coding is hearsay IMO.
I’ve already debunked Dr. C’s credibility on this report in ladysforest’s previous blog post. Several details don’t add up and are NOT consistent with the actual natality reports, plus the alleged source of his documents appears to be fraudulent.
Additionally, if one particular number had the same meaning, “not stated”, it could be used in multiple boxes on the form – it wouldn’t be limited to JUST the race or just the business or industry. These were birth registration/information forms. There were unwed women back then who likely preferred the “not stated” option over the alternative, “I don’t know” option-but either way, they ended up with a blank box. I am still going to seek the ’61 Instruction Manual. I’m sure I can hunt one down somewhere.
***
That is a very good point and one that I used in part to counter a commenter at OCT. As a matter of fact, I raised that point also about a mother not wanting to name the father , and his response was that the newspaper backs up that Obama was born in the hospital. I didn’t use Obama as an example, but realize now that he didn’t answer the question: what about those women who didn’t name the father because they didn’t know or simply didn’t want the name on the certificate? I phrased it as something to the effect of what did they do, look at the baby and guess the race of the father?
I’m going to have to raise that again.
I’ve been kind of halfway keeping up. Been ill and then Internet is the pits lately. When you talk about Dr. C, do you mean Corsi?
Also, can’t read anything at the P&E. What’s the deal with this Pen Johannson person?
Dr. Conspiracy @ Obama Conspiracy Theories
Thanks, Charo. Now I understand.
Pen Johannson is from the Daily Pen. They did a lengthy write up about the procedures involved with the 1961 handling and filing/stamping the birth docs. Also he ran a post on the codes. I have a prob with the blog because they don’t post whole page images, post links or give really specific verifiable sources. Every thing they write seems perfectly plausible – but we can’t check the veracity without doing tons of work trying to find their sources. That annoys the crap out of me.
That is a little problematic, but the natality reports are online and it’s pretty easy to cross-reference the claims codes with the how the natality reports say that race was classified. This is one thing that immediately debunks Dr. Conspiracy’s alleged FOIA document, because it codes 1960 and 1961 exactly the same. The race classifications according to the natality reports were not the same. Whether they jibe with the Daily Pen, I don’t know, but one can easily check it against those reports.
I hope you stumble upon that manual!
I’ll try to find one. It just may take some time.
I think I have had it over at OCT. I’ll just check here for information. I hope you don’t stress yourself out too much over this.
Nah-no worries. I like looking for obsolete stuff.
In the 1961 tape files obtained by Dr. C through a FIOA request, there is a footnote:
“4 New York coded race in accordance with 1959 instructions. This means that races other than white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese were coded 6 (other nonwhite in 1959 code). In Univac Run 1, cards coded 6 were changed to 9 (other nonwhite) to make this code conform with all other States.”
Gorefan keeps referring to evidence of race of the child. (btw, Gorefan has always been very reasonable in his approach to me, unlike many others at OCT.)
They ALL keep referring to the summary information on the race of the child. It’s because the VSIM for 1961 is not available online, and no one has it to put up on their f*cking blog or in their comment.
I don’t blame the “followers”, I blame the blogger. I simply despise the rabbit hole mentality these people have in order to keep their f*cking blogs “popular.”
I would rather post honest, sourced, REALLY unpopular info that *shudder & cringe* supported obama’s composite fake ass life story and background, than post lame ass “conclusions” STATED as FACTS.
SOURCE YOUR SHIT DAMMIT!
venting complete
I wasn’t yelling at you Charo. 🙂
Oh I recognize venting when I see it! I did back and write a comment in response to a question for me and mentioned your footnote again, this time without the name of your blog. I thought you may not like them coming over as a gang, even though I know you can handle it. Anyways, here is something I wanted you to see, a comment from Dr.C:
Each data field has its own coding system. Race can use code “1″ for one thing and Occupation can use code “1″ for something else; however, in the 1961 data, code “x” is often used to indicate “not stated.” Here are the not stated values used in the data:
Farm Residence – X
Age of Father – X
Age of Mother – X
Nativity of Mother – 3
Children born dead – X
Children born alive – X
Attendant at birth – 4 (other or not specified)
Gestation Period – X
Weight at birth – X
Legitimacy – X
Congenital Malformations – X
****
I see that more as not applicable. I’ll check back again when I can.
One more thing: I am having a heard time believing Dr. Corsi is not aware of what Dr..C. is posting. Would you mind e-mailing him? You have had contact with him in the past and he may be more likely to respond to you. Are you on facebook? I am not. I have seen some sites that only operate through facebook.
I mean e-mail Corsi (too many he’s there!)
Interesting comment from OCT:
I am a casual reader who can contribute nothing to the technical discussion about coding, but I do have some expertise relating to the use of “African” as the identifier for Obama (Sr.)’s race. I was a graduate student and researcher at the universities in Uganda (Makerere) and Nairobi in the during the period 1965-68. My research focused onI interviewing the Kenyan students who had participated in the 1959 Mboya Airlift. These would have been contemporaries of Obama Sr.
I can say with complete confidence that Obama Sr. would have identified his race as “African” As Doc C and others have noted, “African” was the commonly used race identifier that British colonial officials would have assigned and that would have been applied to Obama (Sr.) throughout his education in primary and secondary school. Moreover, Obama (Sr.) and his contemporaries embraced that definition of race as a positive cultural and political identification, in contrast to some tribal identifican such as Luo or Kikuyu. So if Obama (Sr.) or any of the Kenyan students who came to the United States to study was asked for the identify of their race, the answer would have been a proud “African.” They would never have answered “Negro” because that was not an identifier they had grown up with, nor was it an identifier that would resonate with their political and cultural aspirations.
When I first saw the long form birth certifate identified Obama (Sr.)’s race as “African”, it added verification that it was genuine. I read much of the birthers that the use of “African” proved that the document was a forgery because the correct identifier would have been “Negro”. They were completely wrong about how Obama (Sr.) would have responded to the question. Kenyans studying in the South would have also answered with “African” but it is likely that officials would have entered “Negro” rather than using the self-identifier of “African”, but it seems that was not the case in Hawaii.
I had many joking discussions with my African friends about my racial identify in Uganda and Kenya. I insisted that I was not “European”, because I was “American”. They said I was a “European” of the “American” tribe. I would never self-describe as “European”, but I had no control over the assignment of “European” as my race by officials. Kenyan students would also have had to live with the coding that Amercian officials applied.
None of the “racial” categories that appeared on the 1962 Kenyan census form are to be found on the 1961 or 1968 American racial codes that Doc C has shown. (Well, the term “Indian” appears on the Kenyan and American lists, but that term applies to totally different groups, perpetuating the confusion that goes back to Columbus.) Racial categories are specific to political context, and there are always problems in translating racial identify from one context to another. In the Hawaiian context, they allowed “African” to be used on the birth certificate, but that pushed the identification problem to the coding-for-statistical-collection exercise. Which was done appropriately, as the discussion on this thread has established—the protests of birthers not withstanding.
Birthers also argued that Obama (Sr.)’s place of birth shown on the LFBC as “Kenya, East Africa” was evidence of a forgery. To me, the identifier “Kenya, East Africa” confirmed the authenticity of the document. In the late 50′s and early 60′s, there were many government services that were East Africa wide, such as a common morket, currency, railroad, and nascent university system. It was not at all certain that the political entity that would become independent from Britain was Kenya. In 1961 Obama (Sr,) was hedging his bets as to what entity would eventually become the state in which he would become a leader. From what I have read, his inclination was for a larger political unit, but his inclination was not shared by all of the Kenyan students who came to the U.S., and they may have only said they came from Kenya.
Those were very different times.
****
This isn’t a very compelling personal account. Barack Sr’s immigration file was posted. He never identifies his race as African nor his home country as “Kenya, East Africa” on those forms.
I read a few of the gentleman’s comments, and I don’t have reason to doubt his account. The issue is not what Sr. identified himself as but how the race was coded back in 1961 in Hawaii.
yep
You didn’t it very closely then. He says straight up: “I can say with complete confidence that Obama Sr. would have identified his race as “African”” I’m pretty sure the point of this nonsense is to make it more plausible that African would be classified differently from Negro, but as far as coding is concerned, the birth certificate would have been coded with a 2 not a 9 regardless if 9 meant “other nonwhite.”
Yes, I think so. The coding was for FEDERAL stats. It was used to determine the race of the child for federal stats. Back then they were not all PC like now.
Now a days you can get coded “bi-racial” and list multiple races. Especially in HI where it is often done to help keep track of those with native blood, which is a huge issue to many HI persons.
I know that a nurse or aide was almost always present when the parent(s) filled out the form. ESPECIALLY with young teen first time mothers. If any line were left blank, or had something questionable/incomplete, the nurse would perhaps have asked questions. “Is your husband a dark-skinned or a light-skinned European “African” dear?” If that info were JUST for state level stats, it might have been plausible. But…..Sr. self identified as “Kenyan” for race, and for country – just “Kenyan”. If he were in the room with a nurse while the forms were filled out – I’m betting the nurse would have made a notation as to the color of his skin next to “African”.
The nurse has to check your ID against the name on the form as well. The use the arm bands, and I was also required to show my SS card.
Anyway, even if the 1961 code “negro” had been on this fake ass documents, it would still be a fake ass document. The doc ITSELF is fake. I could make an exact copy of my drivers lic., but if it didn’t come from the official state DMV, created completely by them, it’s a fake ass document.
You know though, there is always “someone” who writes up something like this in a very authoritative way, attempting to explain away an obvious anomaly in a seemingly reasonable way. I don’t believe it is plausible mainly because ole Sr. wasn’t anywhere near that hospital – whichever one it really was.
I thought about those INS records when I read this too. I think he used Kenya and British both. Well, I know he absolutely used British on some. Just “Kenya” on some, and “Nariobi, Kenya” on some. Not African. Doubtful the ONLY time “he” identifies himself as Kenyan, East African is through the birth docs for obama.
Oops! I did find one INS doc where country of origin was typed in Africa – by an official. And one other also typed by official where he is listed as country of citizenship – Great Britain, place of birth Kenya (Africa). Nearly all just have “Kenya” – at least the ones Sr. filled out himself.
Sorry to bombard you with comments (gee, I hope I am not acting like an “Obot.” If Dr. Corsi does not address this, I believe he can’t. You shouldn’t have the burden of finding what Corsi says he has.
Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2012 at 10:24 am (Quote) #
Corsi is lying.
john: Dr. Corsi was able to actually get the 1961 code book and according to that code book, code 9 meant “Not Stated”.
Corsi should take the step of addressing this. If he will not, I will continue my search – as I said. It may prove Dr.Con correct, or it will prove Corsi correct. F*ing Pen! Why not simply source his material?
If Corsi were flat out lying, which I very much doubt, then it would be a big deal because it would put in question all of his unverified assertions. However, I could believe that he may have been duped by an unreliable or malevolent source. Such things can happen even to careful people from time to time, especially when they are in a hurry or under pressure to produce.
For argument, let’s assume that were the case, then so what? The sea of serious red flags about obama-fraud’s nativity story and identity documentation would still be overwhelming. Missing adding one new red flag would not turn the tide of fraud one iota. The guy is completely awash in guilt anyway.
The sad thing would be if this were to somehow delay the day obama-fraud is held to account. Best case, this would be before the next election, but I guess I really wouldn’t mind seeing him serve another term – as long as it is a prison term, that is. A sentence of about five to ten years of hard time in the electric chair would be about right.
Hehehe. I also doubt that Corsi is flat out lying. This stuff is his bread and butter – literally. He is a writer by trade, so how long would he be a writer if his work is easily proven to be lies? Maybe obama can get away with that shit, but guys like Corsi can’t.
I would think it’s not worth losing a reputation just to make a little accusation such as this code thing. I mean, the code issue had been advanced by The Daily Pen some time back.
The code chart on the Daily Pen is different than the one on the presser video, which happens to be the same one that Dr. Con has up. Was that intentional? Is this an O’Keefe? Both of the different charts show “9” as “unstated”.
Were the codes used to REPORT INFANT race/color the same as the PARENT race/color code numbers used by the vital stats/dept. of health workers when they coded the parents –self-supplied– information on the worksheet/BC form? Dr.Con also insists that the “9” was NOT used until 1968 by pointing to a chart for CHILDs race code in a ’61 summary. The thing is that a CHILDS race was NEVER stated by the parents. It was determined by the self-identified race of the PARENTS. So, that field on the parents race, on the hospital worksheet, if left blank – would have HAD to be coded at the 1961 vital stats office WITH SOMETHING. The child’s race chart that Dr.Con points to from the 1961 Natality Tape Files, has NO number assigned for “not stated”. Yet we know – by virtue of the images on this post I put up, that such a classification did indeed exist in 1961- for the parents race.
He cannot have it both ways.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/video-arpaios-lead-investigator-talks-obama-birth-certificate-to-abc15
Wow, other than asking if he was a republican or dem, made any money off of this – or expected to in the future, this was a very open minded interview. Thanks Greg
Yes, most of the questions were on topic and asked to clarify questions viewers of the Arpaio presser might have had. It was as professional journalistically as it was surprising to see coming from the alphabet media.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that comments are dominated by obots, with many latching onto the meme that Zullo used the wrong codes. Quite a few of the obots who swooped in seem to be obama-fraud’s paid flying monkeys (but I suppose that shows that Zullo really has hit obama-fraud where it hurts).
I don’t believe it is plausible mainly because ole Sr. wasn’t anywhere near that hospital (LF)
I too have questioned whether he was present at the hospital at all.
WELL! It looks promising kittens! I asked The Daily Pen about the source of their 1961 race code chart, and here was the response:
**”The code reference information was published in Part 1 of the VSIM which, according to the NCHS was not published for public disbursment but was provided to all State Health agencies. We acquired a copy of Part 1, Sections A and B of the coding manual in the main offices of the NCHS in Maryland for this story. The NCHS also informed our researchers that the coding references applied in 1960 were not changed until the 1970 Census. This is because demographic coding definitions were tied to the decadal Census every ten years (vital statistics reporting methods are conformed to meet Census population accuracy) which means the NVSD (NCHS) and the Census Bureau did not alter coding reference information until the next decadal Census. If you want to find a copy of Part 1 of the 1961 VSIM, first try your state’s Health Department archive.”**
NOW I understand – the “unpublished” coding manual is THE manual we want.
Woo hoo! Getting somewhere.
They may be misstating part of this. If the codes are tied to the census, then it’s mostly like that it would have been the same from 1961 to 1970 (or perhaps from 1960 to 1969), not from 1960 to 1970, which would span 10 years instead of 11. There are some differences between 1960 and 1961 in the race classifcations in the natality reports, but I think it’s because the 1960 report was still using the 1950 census.
I recall reading in the geological manual that in 1960 changes had to be made (HI and AK) so, yes – there were changes in ’60….to parents race codes it is only important what they were in ’61. And it looks like the Pen has the ’61 VSIM. I’m gonna get me one.
Yes, it is as I thought in that these are still available in archives. I won’t bother to speculate on why the geographical coding manual (part ll) was published, but the manual addressing coding for personal particulars was not. Not important.
You did good finding all of that out, LF!
Well, The Daily Pen found it out, I only asked for the source. I can’t take any credit. It clears up what I found in the footnotes though.
On the every pages from the manual for 1962 (and 1961 from the link) it reads:
Race and color
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
That matches exactly the codes published by Doctor Conspiracy from the tape guide for 1961 and in the same order. Did you miss that?
Don’t be an asshole, asshole. Do you ever read this blog? I intend to get the ’61 VSIM mentioned in footnotes. I have stated that if it backs Dr, Con, so be it. If it backs the Cold Case Posse, that would be good. Until I am in possession of, and verify the correctness of, one historical ’61 VSIM – I reserve judgement. I don’t bash Dr. Con – though I doubt he NEEDED to file a FOIA to get a ’68 VSIM. I disagree with his commitment to a person that keeps so much of his past locked away, and who only admits to “composite” accounts of his history.
I don’t base my blog content on the outcome I want – rather it will be based on fact.
If you’ve read here, you would not have missed that. Unless you have your head up Dr. Cons ass.
Doc C did not file a FOIA for anything in 1968. He filed a FOIA request for the missing section of the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual and was told it was not available. On appeal he obtained the 1961 tape guide. This guide had the table that showed “9” was the code for “other non white”. If the tapes used these categories that is exactly the way the punch cards had to be coded.
The category for “not stated” you found in the 1962 summary was not a code. It was to account for the fact that New Jersey did not specify race. It was a calculated number that represented the difference between the category totals and the total of all births.
You do not need to search to the document mentioned in the footnote. It is already linked at Doc C’s blog. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/Inman_IIa.pdf
Lovely of you to go round to other blogs to promote Dr. Con. And hey, Dr.Con represented that 1968 VSIM as having been obtained via FOIA – fact.
I will get my hands on the ’61 VSIM, and as I have stated, I will post it regardless of what it contains.
I do not dabble in conclusions or dig fascinating rabbit holes for readers to fall into. When I express an opinion, I state that it is my opinion. I use words like “maybe”, and “perhaps”.
Bottom line is that if Dr. Con does not have a ’61 VSIM, he must be making some assumptions. I do not call him a liar – just as I did not automatically assume that Zullo is telling absolute truth.
That is why I am personally trying to verify – one way or the other – what is contained in a specific manual.
I think you are incorrect on how Doc C obtained the 1968 documents. Go read his articles on this. It doesn’t matter however. He got them on-line just like the Daily Pen did. The problem was the The Daily Pen tried to pass off the 1968 tables as if they were from the 1961 document. (Even the smudges and marks on the figures match the later document exactly.) The Daily Pen is not a reliable source. They have been caught lying several times.
Corsi and Zullo used the Daily Pen as a source. They have been caught either using fabricated evidence or doing remarkably bad research. I could believe either. Zullo has not been a detective for 20 years and he worked for a tiny PD in NJ. Corsi just invents things.
If you are really after the truth just read the documents you posted and ask yourself whose version of the facts they support with your confirmation bias turned off.
Regards
Asshole (I will use the name you gave me for pointing out things you want to ignore)
OK asshole 🙂 go read my new post. I don’t avoid the truth, nor make up my own facts. If I have an opinion, I indicate that it is my opinion.
It doesn’t mean that I stop looking for facts, nor that I will run away from them when I find them – even if they are not the best possible outcome from my perspective.
Facts are what they are. If I were afraid of them I would never search for truth.
Congratulations for going the extra mile. You have earned my respect. I just read your new article. I think if you look at how Corsi/WND/Gillar/Zullo’s story has morphed over the last week from “we have the 1961 federal manual” to “we have the codes” to “we made a production error on the video but we have the correct codes” it was pretty obvious they were in damage control mode.
There is of course a reason that all these so-called anomalies evaporate away under careful scrutiny. It is because Barack Obama really was born in Hawaii and those really are his COLB and LFBC.
Regards
Asshole
Well asshole, thanks. But the only person whos respect I really worry about? Me.Mine.Myself. It’s why I ran the post. It’s a piece of research material that contains facts. It’s a piece of truth – not posting it would never change that. I’m not out to create a narrative or build a better rabbit hole, just find REAL material and promote facts.
I haven’t followed the Corsi story much after a few days beyond the presser. But the thing bothered me a little from the outset, it seemed quite last minute thrown together – and was almost entirely based on Corsis’ say-so. Recall that Zullo was not in HI when Corsi “found” things. I don’t recall if Zullo claimed to have the FEDERAL manual – I’d have to check.
From the implications we were expecting something quite “shocking” and rock solid. No matter how it’s sliced, this “code 9” thing was no really big fat deal. It supposedly spoke to the veracity of the content contained in parts of that certificate. ONLY that. The fact that the certificate presented as real to all appearances looks like a hot mess of compiled crap hasn’t changed.
As I watched the presser I wondered if they had something else planned, and substituted it with the “not stated” at the last minute for some reason.
The fact remains that regardless of WHERE obama was or was not born, he simply is not an Article ll natural born Citizen. I know you don’t read my blog, so I’ll just let you know that the nbC issue has always been issue one for me. The rest of this stuff (missing/unreleased records) is concerning because it is so unnecessary and frankly bizarre.
Congratulations for getting the 1961 Manual. Is the comments working on that article?
BTW, under “Determination Race of Parents”, it says under (3) “if birthplace of parent is not in the United States, code as other nonwhite.”
In his interview with ABC15, Zullo speciifcally says that the race of parents is based on federal requirements and the usual business or ossupation is based on Hawaii codes.
So seeing “African” or “Kenya” on the BC would trigger the coding of “other nonwhite”.
Interesting.
Again good work.
Powering OFF due to weather – very bad here
Stay safe.
BTW, did the Daily pen get their table of parents race codes from the 1969 tape instruations?
Click to access Nat1969-71doc.pdf
I don’t know. It seemed implied that it came from the ’61 VSIM (federal), until you read it again carefully. Then you realize it is ONLY implied.
I left a comment asking them if the description of the VSIM I have matches what they got from the same facility. If it does not, then there may be a different manual that does have code charts. I am sure they will provide an answer to me soon.
Sr. self identified as Kenyan on every thing I’ve seen. Just not for his kids birth certificate. ??
Thank you for the compliment – grudgingly. I would rather have found what we were led to believe was out there. But then I think your attitude would be different towards me, yes no? 🙂
“Sr. self identified as Kenyan on every thing I’ve seen. Just not for his kids birth certificate. ??”
Were the things you saw forms asking for his race? When you are asked for your race do you put down “American”?
No. Nor do I put “New Yorker”. I’ll re-check the INS paperwork. It was always “Kenya or Kenyan”, except twice when it was typed by an official.
Well, I missed on being the first to congratulate you on your Herculean task (finding what was supposedly nonexistent). You proved your ethical approach to research…and that you are the best researcher around. I haven’t been a regular commenter I think until last week, but I have always admired how thorough you are in your research. Truth no matter where it leads.
Thank you Charo.
Listen, I don’t believe I am a good researcher, just that I am an honest one. And that I CAN and DO state a plain fact
withwithout adding conjecture or presenting my conclusions as facts. I also don’t encourage readers to go jumping into rabbit holes because I have a personal agenda of some sort.Thank you for the kind words.
I think you meant “without” 🙂
Hehehe. Thanks – fixed it.
I offer my heartfelt congratulations to you for finding the 1961 Vital Statistics Manual (which confirms the 1961 tape file layouts I published last March). There were some interesting tidbits in the manual you found including the fact that “Afro-American” was actually considered as a valid response by the US Office of Vital Statistics in 1961, and that they accepted national designations such as “Mongolian” as well. This debunks the “short-list of acceptable races theory” that has been around ever since “African” appeared on the short form in 2008.
OK, well, thank you.
If I may point out, “Afro-American” was considered a possible parental response – it was an example. It was in the sixties when civil rights got very heated up, and I do know that some black people self-identified as “Afro-American” back then. Mongolian was also used as an example of a entry that the coder would have to make a determination about how to code correctly if they ran across it. “Yellow” was mentioned also. The manual warned the coder that they may encounter these uncommon/unusual parents races, and what to do if they came across these. It does not debunk a “short list”, the coding chart is the list. The coders had to determine how to “fit” these rarely encountered parent race identifiers into that code chart when coding the childs race. I believe at one part it mentions the coder should call a supervisor if they are in doubt upon encountering such items.
President Obama was born August 4, 1961, ten days before this 1961 manual came out. Is it possible he wouldn’t be eligible for the provisions in the new manual ?
No, I don’t think so. These were used for the census for that decade.
Yet that’s a problem because this manual isn’t using the same standard and methodology as the census. I already pointed out that the census didn’t categorize self-declared Africans as other nonwhite because they weren’t born in the United States.
The thing is what it is. I still have other things to look for – I just have to put together a list of what I have questions about, and figure out how to get those answers from an official source.
You said “The only thing that will pull Corsi’s stones off the fire on this is IF Hawaii did indeed use their own codes differing from the Federal codes shown in that manual.”. I do not think that is correct. During the press conference Zullo showed the federal codes and stated in another interview that the codes were from a federal manual. Hawaii may have well had there own codes for some fields but Zullo never even hinted at that in the press conference. We know the slide in the video came from the federal table published in 1968 and represented to be 1961 at the Daily Pen. If they now magically produce some different codes from Hawaii why would anyone buy it?
I think that the codes for info like box 12b may have been state specific. It doesn’t appear that the feds were interested in coding where the parents worked.
Is somebody trying to pull a fast one with the newly found instruction manual that was revised 10 days after Obama was born?? It has this odd statement that if the parent identifies himself with a term that would otherwise be construed as Negro should be coded as “other nonwhite” if born outside the United States. The problem is that the U.S. Census does NOT use this methodology. It has a traditional category of foreign born Negroes. IOW, there’s no reason to make a racial distinction on the basis of being born outside the U.S.
I don’t think this has settled out yet. It is not beneath obama-fraud’s flying monkeys to plant data, alter records, lie, misconnect, etc. – after all, the ends justify the means, don’t you know.
Hopefully, as ladysforest desires, the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth will win out in the end (wherever that may lead).
No idea. This came from the main facility.
You said they sent you a “link” … where’s the link??
The link to the manual is in my article posted yesterday. It’s highlighted in pink. I did not open comments for that post due to not being able to moderate – and I certainly would have had a bunch of weirdo comments – we had MAJOR storms come through and we lost power until late this AM. Anyway, as soon as I realized how bad the weather was likely to get I knew I probably wouldn’t be able to access my blog again for some time after publishing the post.
Some have been commenting on this thread about the new post (which has the link to the manual) because there is no comment box on the new article.
In here:
Maybe I’m not being clear. You said they SENT you a link. I know you posted a PDF on your own site and provided that link, but I’m asking about the link that you said they sent you. If it wasn’t a link to their site, then you need to say they sent you a file.
They sent an attachment – the file to download. I do not do all this computer speak well I’m afraid.
I’m making a point about the difference between a link and an attachment because if this document was already posted on a website, there would be a way to check how long it has been posted and perhpas when it was created or replaced, etc. If they just sent you an attachment, then it could have been created or doctored recently. You’ve been broadcasting that you wanted to find such a document, so this gave whomever might be involved, time to prepare something. Didn’t the Daily Pen people tell you go to your state health department?? This might have been a good way to try to find a hard copy of this manual.
It is not as easy as all that to go to the states Dept. of Health main office, or to get them to reply to a request for information. I emailed them (mine) prior to calling Hyattsville, and the reply from my state is that they had nothing. They quite likely do have it tucked away in a cabinet somewhere, but it’s a state government – most encounters I’ve had with this state are truly aggravating.
By the way – I doubt that my blog is important enough for a effort to be made to create a fraudulent manual in response to my request. Nor is the information contained in this manual that big a deal. What I wanted to know is if a ’61 Federal VSIM had a parents race code chart. It does not appear that it did. But it does indicate to me that the codes entered by state DOH staff were state specific codes. BECAUSE the Federal manual gives instructions on how to DETERMINE the code to be punched. The coding on the HI bcs was apparently added before the forms got the file no stamped. The coding was apparently already on the bcs before the forms were microfilmed. The federal coding and punching was done while looking at the microfilms. I did not read anything in that manual which indicated the coder was to use codes already entered onto the bc at the local level.
You doubt your blog is important enough?? Dr. Conspiracy and his toadies came here to do a celebration dance the minute you posted something. Don’t be so naive. You posted on the Daily Pen site a few days ago. All they had to do was augment a page out of the document that you received by e-mail.
Still, I personally can’t see how this “coding” thing is such a very huge hairy deal. I thought it was anti-climatic when Zullo showcased it – I was wondering where the big “shocking” earth shattering revelation was.
All that aside, why not just have the CDC staff say that it does not exist? What does Pen have? They still haven’t answered my question in comments. If they have the same manual, and obtained it many months ago, we could compare. Nada. If Dr.Con is aware of my blog – so must Pen and Crosby be – yet I have had no contact from them.
I post what I personally obtain from as official or uncorrupted sources as I can. That’s my schtick. It has been since I began to look into the newspaper birth announcements. While I am very much aware that material can be corrupted, I can not assume that every thing I obtain can not be published BECAUSE it may have been corrupted at some point. Besides, if it has been, this is a good way to document and track that happening.
It wasn’t a “huge hairy deal” when it came from the Daily Pen. But when it comes from a Sheriff who is a thorn in the side of the Kenyan Coward™, it becomes very, very problematic. The effort the Obots are putting into trying to defuse this point is very telling IMO. Plus, it makes a big difference that Zullo talked to the woman who signed the certificates. This can’t be dismissed just as “birther” stuff.
Second, no one asked you to assume that what you obtained was corrupted, but did it not occur to you that it was a little TOO specific in how it explains how to code the parent’s race?? It woiuld have been one thing to find codes to match Dr. Fraud’s DDP document, but this goes farther with instructions that are a little too specific. No other similar documents have this much instruction on them. I’ve noticed some other odd discrepancies that make me doubt its authenticity. Sorry if this offends, but I have to be honest about what I’m seeing.
Congratulations on finding the manual. Like some others commenting here, I agree that caution would be wise before taking this manual at face value. Anything from “high up” may be designed to protect Obama. Remember sympathetic federal judges that changed their tune and the one judge’s opinion on a Berg case that appeared to be faxed to the judge.
Did you note that the title page and the subsequent pages were in a different font? Elite and Courier I believe, common fonts on a Selectric or perhaps the manual was type set. Is this format consistent with other manuals from that time frame?
I hope that you can find a confirming copy somewhere.
The revision date (at the bottom) on cover of the VSIM photo you posted is August 14th, 1961. When again was obama-fraud supposedly born? 🙂
I don’t know what was revised. It may have been a geographic item or a personal particular item. I do know that in ’60 they did a lot of revisions due to HI and AK becoming states. Mostly geographical codes/related geographical “stuff”.
We know the guide for the tape files was one document for 1960-61 so it seems very unlikely that the same race codes were not in use for both years. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100438616/Vital-Statistics-Tape-File-Information-1960-1961-Natality-Tape-Files-for-the-United-States
The race classifications in the Natality Reports between 1960 and 1961 are treated much differently between the two years, plus neither jibes with the alleged 1960-61 tape file.
I think that the codes on the bc are NOT the federal codes. The way the manual reads is that the microfilm is viewed, and the coder determines what codes to apply according to the instructions laid out in the manual. Neither in the summary or in the instruction manual is the “type of business or industry” of the father mentioned, yet there is a code in that box on the HI BCs. This would indicate that there were state specific codes as well as the coding done by the federal guidelines.
Anything coming from Dr. Con is not to be trusted without airtight verification. This brouhaha about the pencil codes, while an important piece of the mystery surrounding obama-fraud and deserving to be illuminated by the light of truth, is not critical (or even at all necessary) to know that obama-fraud is a criminal con man who by all rights should be removed from the office he fraudulently holds. Stolen social security number, fake draft registration, bogus birth certificate, born half Brit – not legit! (And that’s just the beginning of the list.)
If congress had a scintilla of respect for their oaths of office, this country and the sovereign citizens they supposedly serve, they would have sought out the truth and tried (and likely convicted) obama-fraud for treason by now. Why our politicians get away with substandard behavior, I’ll never know. Our so-called leaders (of both stripes) ought to be held to a higher standard, not lower.
About now, obama-fraud ought to have been long convicted and serving out a well deserved sentence of five to ten years of hard time in the electric chair, in my opinion.
Anyway, thanks to ladysforest for her relentless pursuit of the truth. Rant over now.
ksdb said:
“The race classifications in the Natality Reports between 1960 and 1961 are treated much differently between the two years, plus neither jibes with the alleged 1960-61 tape file.”
Could you provide some links to support that statement?
The links are posted at the CDC website. Why don’t you ask Dr. Fraud to find them for you?
The tape guide covered both years so any differences in results would only be from formatting the results and not coding. You made the statement ksdb so support it instead of making childish attacks on Doctor Conspiracy who has been right almost all of the time. He first discovered that the Daily Pen was lying and that the CCP was lying. I suppose that is a bitter pill to swallow for you, isn’t it?
Dude, I just told you where they are located. Dr. Fraud made a statement that I proved was false when he originally “found” the codes to try to dispute the Daily Pen. He said 1961 was the first year Hawaii participated in the Natality Report. This was false and the 1960 report proves that. Now, Dr. Fraud pats himself on the back as an ace researcher yet he made a very obvious mistake (one of many), so if you want those links, I’m going to tell you again, to get them from Dr. Fraud. I’m not doing this work for you because you need to do this on your own instead of letting others do your thinking and research for you. You’ll find that the 1960 natality report handles races classifications differently than in 1961, so this idea that the codes applied to both years is total hogwash.
I’m going by memory here – but I think the ’59 and ’60 lists were shorter. Just like all the rework that had to be done to the geo coding with the inclusion of HI and AK.
ksdb,I am not looking through literally thousands of comments at OCT for an exchange I remember to be of little significance. Doc acknowledged the mistake immediately. Has the Daily Pen acknowledge their “mistake” of pulling a chart from a 1968 document and presenting it as from a 1961 document?
The point is that Doc C had debunked the Daily Pen article months ago with the 1961 tape guide. He is the one who blew the CCP presentation out of the water on the same day it was given. The codes in the tape guide agreed with the instruction manual obtained by ladyforest. Are you disputing that? I already commended ladyforest for the research but Doc bought the ingredients and baked the cake. LF provided the icing.
Actually, LF, I credit you for confirming what the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction manual stated. You sourced it and presented screen shots of it. Until then, there was no definitive proof that the page was not the same in both the 1968 and 1961 manuals.
I do not agree with that statement charo. The tape guide that Doctor Conspiracy posted left no doubt what the codes were in 1961. While ladyforest provided confirmation there was no doubt what it would say if found. The VSIM provided some interesting information on how conflicting or missing information was handled. However, as far as the race codes were concerned we already knew thenm. I am sure ladyforest would credit Doc with finding them first for whatever that is worth since it seems Hawaii used a modified list.
While ladyforest provided confirmation…
Which is what I said by the phrase “definitive proof.”
I just read today that the bust of Winston Churchill was indeed sent back to England in 2008. There was a mini brouhaha over that, and low and behold, PROOF! A picture of Obama and David Cameron gathered round the bust at the WH. Turns out there are two busts: one was given to Bush when the “twin” was being repaired. Obama sent the former bust back to England when he took office. Imagine that: a picture was not the proof in the puddin’ after all for what really happened. This was just a small matter really, but an example of an unexpected twist on proof.
I’m glad that LF followed up. Good for her. One would think Dr.C. would have learned from past experience about FOIA’s. He never received an answer to the request he made several years ago (at least that was what he said publicly) regarding a document that he also didn’t need. That document would be an even bigger nail in the ole coffin.
charo
I am not sure what the story over the Churchill bust is supposed to prove. England is our ally and despite the colossal blunders by candidate Romney they still are.
Doc sent in a FOIA request just over a year ago after the Daily Pen’s bogus article. When he was not satisfied with the first answer he appealed and received the tape guide which definitively proved the Daily Pen was lying. ladyforest is to be commended for obtaining a confirming document but no one with a brain is surprised that it confirmed what we already knew.
The big picture here is that Cosri and Zullo relied on a website that has been caught lying multiple times. Now Corsi is letting Zullo and Gillar take the heat while he vacations in England (where the Olympics just happen to be occurring) while ostensibly researching god knows what.
1) Churchill bust: sometimes what is proof is not really proof. It was a story to express a general statement.
2) He had another FOIA long before that one having something to do with Stanley Anne Dunham’s passport application- I can’t remember the wording. If you look on his side bar, you’ll find it maybe under FOIA.
3) The point about the lying has been discussed ad nauseam.
4) Why did you try to horn in on a compliment? You don’t have to feel the same way as I do.
Doc C has documented his frustration with the State Department’s response to his requests and is still working through that issue. The fact that the results are not perfect does not make the process useless as you seem to imply. A similar but not identical request by Chris Strunk provided a great deal of information including a key letter from a State Department official that he had investigated the background of the Obama child and was satisfied he was born in Hawaii. That government agencies might be overly protective of information relating to a presidents family members should not come as a shock. If I were in such a job I would certainly give that kind of request extra scrutiny.
Give it up.
Hey asshole, er I mean Charlie, don’t come over here hassling my readers for what Corsi did or did not do. No one is saying that Corsi maybe didn’t give Zullo garbage, poorly researched stuff. But as even Dr. Con admits – there likely is a state specific manual with it’s own codes. IF they have that, and used the info – but put up images from the older fed manual, then parsed the presentation………..giant stretch, but who knows? It does appear from the wording in the ’61 VSIM that the coders doing the punching were to do the coding – NOT read any coding entered at the local level. And the forms had the local codes before they were microfilmed.
Here is the thing – if I hadn’t gotten that manual, Dr. Cons stuff would have no easily verifiable source to show it’s veracity. As to the Daily Pen, they are excellent writers. Their conclusions are well constructed, and plausible. They are not proven facts. It’s why I didn’t spend much time, or put faith in what they wrote. It’s opinion stated as fact. I personally have huge problems with such because I feel it is irresponsible.
This isn’t a pissing match here as to who got what. We know who got what. I got a manual that everyone thought was non-existant. I didn’t hide it away and let you people defend the lessor material. I wonder if your side of the camp would act in a similar fashion?
The Daily Pen has been caught fabricating evidence at least twice and blatantly lying that the President’s attorney (Alexandra Hill) said that he was not eligible at a hearing in New Jersey. When I say fabricating I do not mean misinterpreting evidence. I mean outright fabrication. If you call that excellent writing you have different standards than I have. No one interested in the facts would accept anything from them without double and triple checking their sources.
Listen. to. me. They have excellent writing skills, as in they write very well. I admire fine writing skills even if I don’t care for the content. Get it? A well written “conclusion” does not make a conclusion into a fact.
That being said I do not care to debate the Daily Pen’s material or the veracity of the conclusions they draw. Read. that. again.
Clearly you have a problem with the Daily Pen – go over to that blog and comment there about it.
My last word on The Daily Pen:I hear Jack the Ripper had excellent surgical skills too.
extremist and irrelevant
And how come you’ve got three different avatars?
I noticed the first time charlie appeared, he transposed letters-
Chalrey the Tuna. Would a change in spelling account for one of the different avatars?
You would know about these things. I just happened to remember seeing the transposition (I miss those kinds of things in my own writing but spot them with others’)
Chalrey the Tuna said this on July 25, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Not only transposed but different spelling altogether- charley versus charlie-
It is a little different for each avatar. Spelling, caps.
I just like getting new avatars. 😆
Did the folks at the “excellent” The Daily Pen ever reply to your question LF?
Go over there and answer your own question. The comment was left on the Feb. 29th article.