Did Corsi Lie To Zullo? A REAL 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual

UPDATE 8/2 – COMMENTS ARE NOW OPEN ON THIS THREAD.  I WILL BE DOING FURTHER UPDATES LATER TODAY.

READ the newest post please:

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/corsis-code-conundrum

National Center for Health Statistics

.

It’s never a good feeling to get bad news.  In this case the bad news is that the “shocking” information which Mike Zullo, Cold Case Posse leader, released on July 17th is debunked.  Yes, I said debunked.  By the actual 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual. 

Recall that Mr. Zullo stated that Dr. Jerome Corsi had spent a day in the Hawaiian State Archives, and as a result of the research done while there (after Mr. Zullo had already returned to the mainland) Dr. Corsi had found proof that the code numbers penciled in on obamas officially released  “long form birth certificate” had been decoded.  That in FACT the number “9″ being noted in both the fathers race field (box 9), and in the fathers business or industry (box 12b) indicated that no information had been supplied for those fields.  That in FACT the code “9″ meant “not stated”, and those boxes should have been blank/empty, yet were filled with information anyway.  It seems that the information given by Zullo at the press release is wrong.

In the interest of getting plain facts, I followed up on a lead from The Daily Pen on where they were able to acquire a 1961 Vital Stats Instruction Manual, excerpted images of said manual being in a post that they published on Feb. 29th of this year.

I was able to obtain, by email, a link to a scanned copy of the CODING AND PUNCHING   GEOGRAPHIC AND PERSONAL PARTICULARS   FOR BIRTHS OCCURRING IN 1961.  It is a 18 page manual.

It was sent to me by the main office of the CDC – National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsvile, MD.

It does NOT support the claim that the number “9″ indicated “not stated”.  That being said, recall that this is the FEDERAL manual.  I do not know if HI had their own separate coding, for their own state specific data collecting.  I will now attempt to hunt down the answer to that question.  The process of “punching” the coded information seems to have been a tedious and lengthy procedure, and I do not know if HI would have done this for state level stats using DIFFERENT codes than the Federal codes outlined in this manual.

The link to the manual is below in pink.  Further below are screenshots of three full size pages pages from the manual and the cover. I provide those in case anyone cannot or prefers not to clink on the link to the full 18 page manual.

Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961

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.

.click to enlarge

Cover for the 1961 VSIM

..click to enlarge

..click to enlarge

..click to enlarge

..

As you all can see – there is NO chart for the parents race.  It actually does “appear” to be based on the same coding as for the race of the child.  Where did the Daily Pen get the chart that by all implications came from the 1961 VSIM?  I left a comment describing this manual to them over on the Feb. 29 post, asking if this is the same manual they have.  That was yesterday evening, and as of 12:45 PM today, 7/26, they have not answered.  I am sure that they will though.

I’m certain a lively discussion will now ensue.

About these ads

~ by ladysforest on July 26, 2012.

20 Responses to “Did Corsi Lie To Zullo? A REAL 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual”

  1. [...] the hell am I talking about?  You are welcome to wonder.  The most recent post that I did,  Did Corsi Lie To Zullo?, featured a 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual link and several screenshots from said [...]

  2. You’re an idiot. What you have is the guide for coding and “keypunching” info into the old US DHHS IBM card system, not the guidelines for Hawaii vital statistics.

  3. Uum. I don’t think Rob is an “Obot”.

    • Rob is rude. I don’t give a damn which side someone is on – they don’t come into my blog being rude. Period. And stupidly ill informed. Rob had the chance to ASK a question on the VSIM, but out of the gate calls me an idiot. “Rob” needs manners.

  4. The manual you have above was not applicable to Obama’s birth certificate: notice how the manual was “revised August 14, 1961″. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. You need to find the previous revision and it will be different, hence the “revision”.

    • Zebulon, you seem to make the assumption that the race field for the child was likely “revised”. Notice that there is NO instruction for the (Federal) coder to enter a race code for either parent, NOR is there instruction for any coder to use any pre applied codes. That would make any codes entered onto this form (done prior to being sent off to be microfilmed) used for STATE level information.

      Read the latest post on the topic. http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/corsis-code-conundrum I do not think it is at all likely that the revision date makes any difference. We do not know what was revised – but from all that I have read of the manuals and the summaries created from them, the revision was more likely to have been regarding the coding of the geographical information.

  5. Ladysforest,

    I would like to commend you for some excellent detective work, for your honesty and integrity, and to thank you for making this important information available to the public.

    It takes honesty, integrity, humility and courage to bring forth information such as this which is in potential conflict with conclusions that one has reached in the past. You deserve to be commended by anyone interested in the issue, no matter which side of it they might find themselves on.

    • It’s about being honest first, and seeking facts for the sake of the plain truth.

      I am aware that all of you “Birther” bashers are thrilled that I published this, and that’s too bad. It would be better if you all had the courage to understand that most “Birthers” are just interested in the simple facts that should have been easily confirmed during a vetting process which never really happened. The scant vetting, combined with obama’s strange resistance to providing transparency, is what drives suspicion and controversy. Your side of the camp is just as thoroughly wrapped in this web as are the “Birthers”. However, very few on your side of the fence seem very concerned with actual and tangible research. I commend those that do at least sincerely try. Would one of those bloggers make the same call I have? Would any of them publish material that exposed information which is even in the least contrary to their own established mantra?

      I do not know why the Posse leader, Mike Zullo, was given that material to work from. I do hope that Corsi did obtain a copy of the HI specific code instruction manual. My main concern with obama is not that his public records have so many anomalies, (and truthfully every thing I have seen is remarkable for just that particular reason) but rather the question on the contemporaneous meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” used in the Constitution. That is research which I am still engaged in.

      Sadly, I think that both “parties” are so corrupt that even if obama gave a press conference and announced that the birth certificate released by the WH was a fake, not a single politician would bat an eye. Neither would most “Birther” bashers.

      No, the question really is the meaning of the term used in the US Constitution – natural born Citizen. This clearly isn’t important solely because of obama, but for future candidates as well. The answer does exist, and it will be found, and when it is it will be irrefutable. Does it truly mean born to two US citizens and on US soil, the purest form of citizenship to be defined? I do believe so, but belief is not PROOF, and I am after facts which will settle the question.

      Why do I research this other side of the obama eligibility question? It is compelling. It is strange to me that a grown man, seeking to lead our Nation, would set himself against releasing the best and most complete version of that birth document early in the campaign – when it FIRST became an issue. I find it odd that all the “records” from his youth are missing or full of anomalies.

      It seems dangerous to me that there is NO required vetting process for the office of the President of the United States.

    • And I suggest you read my final post on this ’61 VS instruction manual:

      http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/corsis-code-conundrum

      • I did see that — thanks.

        I frankly started out somewhat inclined to believe, on the basis of what I had heard to that point, that Obama was either born outside of the US or had something else “wrong” with his long form birth certificate that he didn’t want people to see.

        If I’m a birther-basher, it’s not at all because I started out that way. I am not a fan of Mr. Obama, have never voted for a Democrat to this point in my life, and am not really expecting to start now.

        You say:

        > It’s about being honest first, and seeking facts for the sake
        > of the plain truth.

        I agree wholeheartedly. However, I’m not sure you understand just how rare this attitude and commitment is among “birthers.”

        > Would one of those bloggers make the same call I have? Would
        > any of them publish material that exposed information which is eve
        > n in the least contrary to their own established mantra?

        I didn’t start out to reach a particular conclusion. I would just as readily have concluded that Obama’s birth certificate was forged, or that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen, if I had found the facts led in those directions.

        Kevin Davidson (ObamaConspiracy.org) has recently published a post in which he states that he made a claim without having sufficient evidence to back it up.

        And yes, when it comes to politicians, I’m sure there is corruption on both sides of the aisle.

        > No, the question really is the meaning of the term used in the US
        > Constitution – natural born Citizen.

        I ended up doing more research on that particular question that I did on the forgery claims — and I wrote a book on the latter.

        I would encourage you to read and make use of the very extensive research I’ve done on that topic. There’s a lot of it. Test all of it. If you find something I’ve said that’s clearly wrong, I’ll change it. I’ve tried to link to original sources as much as possible.

        Here’s an index:

        http://bit.ly/TEHA3D

        Best wishes,

        John Woodman

        • I have so far found roughly equal “facts”, or as close as is possible, that the meaning of natural born Citizen is – born to two US citizens/US soil, FATHER is US citizen and born on US soil (condition follows the Father), natural/native are interchangeable, also simply born on the soil.

          I have not found what I am seeking. I am looking for multiple, matching contemporaneous definitions. From one period in history.

          While I appreciate that you have done research, I have read literally thousands of pages of modern interpretation, assumptions and conclusions. I am tired.

          I want it straight from the source – and I know that I will find it. Those people back then did not pull the term out of thin air, nor would they have included a requirement for the US President & Vice that was open to any interpretation. No, the definition and the intent is the old writings and letters. Easy to get a little burnt out on that stuff, but some of it is fascinating.

  6. I would recommend the parts 1 through 3 of the 7-part series of posts I did on the meaning of “natural born citizen” throughout American history.

    I would also recommend my articles on Natural Law & Calvin’s Case, Early Use of the Term “Natural Born Citizen,” Vattel and “Natural Born Citizen,” John Jay & Alexander Hamilton, American Common Law, the “Law of Nations” (2 articles), Lynch v Clarke, Zephaniah Swift, St. George Tucker, and Horace Binney.

    There ya go. There’s about 14 articles for you to look at. And you’ll find the original sources behind those. :-)

    • Thank you. Time permitting I will look. For now I am spending my spare research time reading material dating from 1870 backwards. Haven’t been well lately, so haven’t gotten too far, but plugging along. I go to the source, it is how I choose to research. First hand/first person original words are what I am after. I will find what I seek. What it will confirm, I do not know yet……that is why I MUST keep looking.

      BTW, I don’t know where you read, but MOST of the people that I have contact with are much like myself in being interested ONLY in the truth. If it turns out our suspicions are unfounded, so be it. What’s a little chagrin when one considers how serious a question this truly is?

      • I definitely recommend you to go the original sources. I suggest those 14 articles because they will point you to a great many such original sources. Some of these are pretty hard to find and took me some time to track down. I’ve provided direct links in hopefully pretty much every instance — I wanted readers to be able to go and read the originals for themselves.

        Although I went through the entirety of American history up to 2008, the specific articles named focus on the years before 1860, which is where you may want to concentrate your efforts… unless you want at some point to do as I did and spend weeks reading through the massive Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s a huge investment of time. There are however some wonderful speeches in there made by civil rights activists such as Lyman Trumbull. So if you are committed to investing the weeks there are some good nuggets of historical drama in there.

        As far as the truth goes, I can only tell you that I’ve had honest, factual, non-attacking comments censored out on just about every birther blog except for Orly Taitz’s — which I’ve never attempted to post to. If you post a fact or good, solid rational argument that goes against the groupthink, it just doesn’t show up. On one, I was personally slandered and had false statements made about me; and when I responded in a factual manner my post was deleted and I was banned from ever making any further comments. As far as I know, the slander and personal attacks remain there to this day.

      • Let me add that if you find any instance at all in which I failed to provide a link to the original source, then let me know, and I will correct that. Hopefully there aren’t any — but if there are, I will correct it.

  7. Hi Ladysforest!!!

    We talked once over on Free Republic before the Birthers got me banned. Anyway, I am glad to see that you are sticking up for the truth on this!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Hi Squeeky! Sorry, you were in my spam filter. I was wondering where you’ve been lately.

      Sticking up for the truth is the only thing to do here. It does none of us – either side of the issue – one bit of good to avoid truth. There are real answers out there, answers that I believe are uncomplicated and irrefutable, but uncovering them is a slog. No use in making the mud thicker.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: