I received an email from a reader, who writes:
I read your article on WND today. Please explain your position in light of the fact it has been conclusively established that Zullo was wrong about the 1961 codes and neither he nor Corsi have retracted their statements about it despite that proof.
What proof? I asked in response. It so happens the column in question doesn't address the Cold Case Posse's discussion of the 1961 codes from its recent press conference because I found myself transfixed by the tales of stone-walling investigators encountered on its trip to Hawaii, as recounted by lead investigator Mike Zullo. In a separate post, however, I wrote:
The posse recently learned that the pencilled-in numbers on the document come from a federal code to record vital statistics. Two hand-written "9's," which in 1961 indicated information "not stated," appear in boxes on the Obama form that are filled with information. This is a striking anomaly. A box for "Race of Father" marked empty for record-keeping purposes shouldn't be filled with information -- and especially not with the word "African," a term for race that, the posse determined, the US government didn't use until 1989.
Very much worth noting is the location of the second pencilled-in "9" -- which, again, the posse reports to mean information "not stated." It appears in the box marked "Kind of Business or Industry." This box, too, is filled with information: "University."
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. To date, the posse hasn't released documentation to support its reading of the number "9" to mean "not stated," so this 1961 manual becomes an item of interest.
On page 11 (see below), a table appears spelling out the numerical code for marking a baby's race, followed by a series of rules for "Determing race of parent" as well. The number "9" in the table means "Other non-white." The pertinent rule for applying this code to Barack Obama Sr. is as follows:
(3) If the racial entry is "C," Col.," "Black," "Brown," or "A.A.," "Afro-American," and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent's race as Negro. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States, code as other nonwhite.
This is the "proof" my correspondent is talking about. According to this 1961 rule, the number "9" in "Race of Father" is correctly marked, meaning "other nonwhite."
There are two problems with declaring this discovery to have "conclusively established that Zullo was wrong about the 1961 codes." Remember that second pencilled-in number "9." It appears in the box for "Kind of Business or Industry." Why would the code for "other nonwhite" appear in "Kind of Business or Industry"? The second point to take into consideration is that the title page of the manual (see below) marks it as "REVISED August 14, 1961" -- ten days after Barack Obama's birth date listed on the birth certificate. That means this manual wasn't operational on Obama's birthday. It wasn't even in the mail.
In sum, this particular manual doesn't provide the Gotcha Moment my correspondent thinks it does. All we can say for sure is that further documentation is needed -- and a comprehensive federal investigation.