Corsi’s Code Conundrum

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/obama82_01.jpg

The courage to be honest always has a price tag.  For research bloggers like myself, those of us unwilling to manipulate material to cause it to support our preferred platform, things can be dull.  We don’t get the readership for example, as those that make sensational discoveries out of the sows ears of nothingness.

However, we do collect some “friendly” fire wounds from those who profess to desire the “truth and nothing but”, those that march confidently alongside us while we uncover facts and find obscure records, who praise us (me) as long as the material I find agrees 100% with the narrative that they are invested in.

But just let me uncover something that does not do that, and it’s a bit of a different story.  Being a student of human nature, I expect this to happen.

This is one of those times Kittens.  Oh, it’s not too bad.  It can’t be, simply by virtue of the disappointed ones having no grounds to discredit my material, or the way in which it was presented.  I am careful that way.  I am honest that way.

Yet my honesty can backfire a little, as those who have much invested in protecting their ongoing narratives are quick to invent concerns out of a wealth of non-issues.

What 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 manual.

It has been somewhat misrepresented by both sides of the “birther” issue.  Big surprise..  The most recent example of this surfaced today : What-Does-the-Number-9-Mean?.

screenshot snip, click to enlarge:

.

.

As this only came to my attention this afternoon, this has been sitting out there unanswered for a few days.   I did send an email to D. West detailing a few fine points that I disagree with her on.  Seeing as how I have read the manuals and the summaries, and anything related that I could dig up, I am in a fairly good position to discourse on this topic.  I also do my readers the simple courtesy of including the link to the full manual. 

While D. West did include one screenshot of a single page from the manual, that which most seemed to support her conclusions (based on her opinions), she overlooked the opportunity to include the link to the full manual and so provide her readers with an easy resource to study the materiel she was referencing in such a authoritative manner.

In fact, she left off mention of the AVAILABILITY of the full 18 page manual altogether.  Instead I find this reference:

My reader next sent me a link to a blog displaying images of several pages from a manual titled Vital Statistics Instructions Manual: Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961.

Obviously I was not the “reader” mentioned.

After having read, re-read, debated and argued the 1961 VSIM contents V. Corsi and Zullo’s press released “shocker”, I have made some educated assumptions about the FEDERAL punch codes referred to in the 1961 VSIM, versus the penciled codes that appear to have been written directly onto the original paper certificate forms while at the Dept. of Health in Honolulu HI.  I will also address the concerns that some people seem to have about the “revision date” of Aug. 14th, 1961 of the (federal) Instruction Manual.

Link to the PDF for the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual

Here is my opinion, based on all of the facts that I do have available.

After reading the entire manual, fortunately only 18 pages, I realized several things.  I believe these things are very important and in the interest of honesty, you will surely agree with me.

The first that I would like to get out of the way is this “Revised” date.  This particular item may seem to be important, however I find no evidence that the race codes changed FROM using the number “9” indicating “unstated” TO indicating “other non-white” for this manual.  It would make little sense to change the coding on this one item in mid-August, 1961 only to change it back later in the decade. In addition, by the time these certificate forms were processed at the local level, then microfilmed, then received at the location for federal coding, at least four weeks would have passed.

On reading the manual it becomes obvious that the code punchers utilizing the instructions were NOT reading the codes that were penciled on at the local level.  They were following instructions on how to determine which code to use, and not once in the manual are pre-applied codes even mentioned.

We know that there were indeed codes written on the certificate forms at the local offices.  We can know this not only because Corsi confirmed it with Mrs. Lee, but also because these codes were on the certificate forms at the time that the forms were microfilmed.  We know that because certified copies of birth certificates from HI (1960’s) show these penciled code numbers.  That can only happen if the codes were written prior to microfilming.  The point I am making is that the “federal” coders worked from these microfilms.  Do I honestly think that by the time the microfilm of births that occurred on Aug. 4 arrived to be processed, the punchers had to handle/code the births occurring prior to the Aug. 14th revision date differently?  No, I do not.  That is my opinion only.

The next point that I will make concerns the code in box 12b on obamas official long form birth certificate, father’s “Kind of Business or Industry”.  As has been pointed out by Zullo (and everyone else) , this too, is a “9”.
 
What very few realize is that nowhere in the Federal 1961 VS Instruction Manual is a code puncher given instruction on how to code this box 12b.

In fact, there is no mention in the VSIM or in the 1960-1961 summary manuals, of the parents employment status at all.  Nothing which indicates that the information in box 12b was collected or compiled by the federal government code punchers.
 
This indicates the numerical coding applied prior to the certificate forms being microfilmed is used for local/state level statistical purposes. It is very plausible that the “9” used by the local office did not have the same meaning it would have to the federal code punchers.  I am just as certain that the coding at state level may have shared some similarities with the federal coding, but it (HI local codes) was not used by the employees who worked from the 1961 Federal VS Instruction Manual.
 
This also indicates that the number “9” could indeed mean the same “not stated” in both the box 9, and box 12b.  But of course that can only be proven if Corsi found a local, Hawaiian DOH 1961 coding instruction manual which spelled that out.  That is my hope.  More for Zullo’s sake than Corsi’s.
 
What I am fairly certain of, after having read the manual, and the part 2 geographical coding revision instructions as well as the summaries compiled from the reports, is that “other non-white” (Obama Sr.’s race) is certainly appropriate coding re the federal instruction.  Also, that the “9” was not entered on the birth certificate form by the same agency that would have used the ’61 Federal VSIM.  That federal agency would not have physically written on the microfilm with a pencil.
 
That it is very probable there is a state/local coding manual in addition to the federally issued 1961 VSIM.
.

Cover for the 1961 VSIM

.

.

.

About these ads

~ by ladysforest on August 2, 2012.

15 Responses to “Corsi’s Code Conundrum”

  1. [clap, clap, clap] Excellent work ladysforest. In your dedication to ferreting out what actually is so, you truly have the mentality of an engineer (that was meant to be a compliment :) ). In science and engineering, repeatable experimental results, not reputation, not personal beliefs are the ultimate arbiter of what is fact and what is fantasy. However, such luxuries as a repeatable experiment are not always easy to come by in the social sciences or political forensics, but what can you do but make the best of the hand that you are dealt?

    I am a big fan of Diana West as she has the courage to tell it like it is and challenge the regime-stream media (very often to her own personal detriment) with unpopular and uncomfortable questions and facts about obama-fraud and the general demise of our once great nation, but we are all human, fallible and subject to error now and then, so I hope you are willing to cut her a little slack if she is stubbornly less than perfect about this.

    By the way, even if often as a silent lurker, I have been reading all your blog entries religiously for many years now. For every one like me, there must be dozens or hundreds more who silently consume your insightful and often uniquely researched postings. Take care. — tw

    Usurper OUT! NObama 2012. Protect the Constitution – elect a natural born American!

    • Thank you Thinkwell, I am humbled.

      As to Diana, I respect her work. Usually. She most certainly has the opportunity to digest the information that I sent her, and either respond or…not. I don’t judge her harshly on this one thing, of course not.

      I have had the benefit (torture) of spending hours going over the material multiple times, and the opportunity to debate it rather rigorously – which always results in fresh insight. I expect she just scanned it quickly after being made aware of it by some reader.

      Regardless, I have represented the material – the genuine material – honestly and as neutrally as is possible. My position in this eligibility controversy cannot be allowed to intrude on the facts.

  2. With regard to D.W. – look at all the troubles/misery (most often self-inflicted) that the majority of the denizens of Hollywood suffer as part and parcel of their fame. It is not a blessing – it infests their egos and eats out their lives, their marriages and their souls. Not many seem to be able to resist the seductive rot. I don’t envy their lives at all.

    Maybe even the generally levelheaded Diana West has been somewhat dazzled/blinded by her own moderate celebrity?

    • I don’t hold it against her – not everyone has time to read, re-read and roll around in those manuals. I do feel it to be irresponsible to ignore the bulk of the manual, and just post one page to support her opinion. Perhaps she will correct that, or she’ll tell me to piss off. Or ignore me altogether.

  3. a. Yes, i want an answer from the ccp about this. absolutely. we must get one.
    b. No, i don’t accept “why would they change it?” as an excuse to use a manual that doesn’t fit the date of the birth cert in question. No, i don’t accept that notion at all.

    • Your question b. – do you mean that the CCP showed a later 1960s manual and posit, “it probably wasn’t changed”? Or were you referring to something in my post?

      As to getting an answer from the CCP. He’s is my read on this, Corsi may “control” some of the material and info. And Zullo can only release what Sheriff Joe and/or Corsi authorize. Since Corsi went to Honolulu on his own dime when Zullo traveled there, he was his own man. He was assisting the CCP, but I’m betting anything he dug up he has “ownership” of. Corsi writes books.

      I feel it’s very irresponsible of them to leave this hanging in the air. It was presented to the public at large that the number codes penciled on the bc came from the federal instruction manual. Never did anyone connected to the CCP mention the possibility of a separate coding system for local/state stats. Zullo also implied that the FEDERAL codes were the same for the decade, and we know that is not the case. What I would like to know, did they do this purposefully for some reason that I can’t begin to imagine?

      Who compiled the material and put the presentation together? The “code” part of it? It almost seems to have come straight from the Daily Pens Feb. 29th article. My experience with Zullo is that he is a very careful, thorough and professional person. My experience with Corsi was …… quite different.

  4. Corsi, not answering as of yet, is very concerning. If he found a Hawaiian DOH coding manual, he needs to come forward with that information.Thanks for spending your precious time and efforts on these important issues. The truth always comes to the surface, though many pains may be taken to make it such.

    Lets hope that none of the information from Mr. Zullo and the CCP was incorrect so as to expand the narrative to issues that can’t be confirmed or to present info that ‘fits’.
    Have a wonderful weekend, and again, thanks for the research. I’m sure more will be written in the near future and I’ll be looking forward to those posts.
    Au revoir

    • Corsi will be sitting on the fence. This I do know.

      Thank you for the kind words, and have a safe and happy weekend ! :)

  5. The question left open is why did the CCP in their videos for the press conference present race tables from the 1968/69 manuals as if they were from the 1961 manuals [they have since edited it to correctly label the 1969 table but not the 1968 table]? During the press conference, no mention was made of state/local codes although the next day in his interview with ABC15 Zullo specifically says that box 12b is a Hawaiian code.

    “[Pointing to the “Race of Father” box] This was a Federal coding, number 9 for statistical purposes for the federal government would take birth certificate information and enter it on magnetic tape, back then in numerical codes. Number 9 for the federal guideline “not stated”, blank field. [Pointing to the “Kind of Business or Occupation” Box 12b.] This however is not a 9 for federal code it is actually for their state code.”

    • Yes, even the “birthers” that are aware of this controversy are asking those questions. Corsi will not answer. It is well that they did at least some sort of honest edit, but I have no idea what the deal is with the other table.

      Until having the 61 VSIM, and being able to read it through, it was still a point (“9″ in race box) that could be argued over. On finding the VSIM, and finding NO mention that the code punchers were to refer to codes applied at the local DOH’s, nor mentioning the parent’s employment status, we could have some better indication that those penciled codes had their own STATE specific significance.

      We don’t know if Corsi has the state code manual.

      • Corsi also wrote about a birth certificate from a girl born 08/23/1961. Her parents’ race code are listed as “3” (father and mother). It is unlikely that they were American Indians and some are saying that they are part-Hawaiian, which would mean the State must have at least rearranged the list.

        I would also like Corsi to reveal the certification number of her BC. She was born at Kapiolani Hospital and some have reported that her certification number is much lower (500 to 600) then the Nordyke’s.

  6. We still aren’t dealing with the fact that neither Dr. Fraud’s instructions pdf nor this new pdf pass the sniff test. Neither conform with the race classifications in the census or the natality reports from 1960 or 1961, especially when it says that foreign-born Negroes would be classified as “other nonwhite” … that’s simply not the case in the census classifications. The natality reports mention conformity with the census in several aspects, so the authenticity of these alleged instruction manuals are highly suspect. Neither Corsi nor the CCP need to address either of these, especially when we know from the Bomford certificate that there are people who forge such documents on Obama’s behalf.

    • So far most things suspected of being forged for obama haven’t been very convincing quality.

      I don’t know the exact relationship between the natility summary reports and the census. From other manuals and reports I have seen, this 1961 VSIM does look to be correct.

  7. [...] asked for this document. Posters and Free Republic and Birther blogger “ladyforest” at her blog my very own point of view have called on Corsi and the CCP to produce their copy of the coding manual. This latest video from [...]

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

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.

Join 25 other followers

%d bloggers like this: