Main Menu

Tag Archives | race codes

Did Zullo lie again trying to cover up lie?

I’ve beaten the fake race code issue to death here on the blog with articles like:

I’ve proven that the Race Codes that Zullo presented as 1961 codes were not really 1961 codes, and they weren’t used in Hawaii.

I want to revisit the cover-up and perhaps give a little insight into Mike Zullo’s essential dishonesty when representing his investigation to the birthers. So first, let’s go back to that 2nd official press conference in 2012 with Sheriff Arpaio Mike Zullo. Here is a screen shot from the video presented by Mike Zullo, referring to a “1961 vital statistics instruction manual”.

The video showed a one-page screen shot from a 1968 manual available on the Internet, instead of the real 1961 manual they claimed to have, but which was not readily available at that time. The screen shot itself came by way of a birther blog. The source of the manual could be determined by matching marks and dust spots on the image.

It appears that all Zullo had was a screen shot, that he could not verify, from some birther source. Subsequently, Zullo tried various diversions to get out of the dilemma, such as the smoke screen of a 1960 manual (the race codes are the same for 1960-91).

Now let’s fast forward to 2014. Zullo continues to be embarrassed by this fake race code table from the video, evidenced by him trying to recover from the event. Zullo tells a story that might have a grain of truth in it. Here’s the story as told by Zullo to Carl Gallups on October 4, 2014:

Zullo: “And for two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate who this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day, it was about two and a half hours I believe before the press conference was going to go, at that point in time the “9” code issue was not going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in wanted to say hello to the sheriff. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman’s associate, Sheriff Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC. And I have her information, who she is and she’s not a clerk. She’s a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speaker phone. I remember Jerry sitting there with his fingers crossed. And she confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting, what the number 9 meant was in fact what it was. He asked her to repeat it. ‘Are you saying this 9 in this box yada-yada-yada means X?’ And she said, ‘Yes.’”

Basically Zullo admits not having a manual but rather some other source of information that had to be verified. If he had a manual, then there would have been no need for verification (and if he had a manual he would have known the screen shot was a fake). Zullo lied about the source of his information, trying to make it seem more official than it was. This is the key lie of Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse—representing that they are competent and that they are conducting a real law-enforcement-style investigation, when they are neither.

Let’s assume that everything in Zullo’s 2nd story is true. What does it tell us? Some unnamed “Corsi associate” (“Corsi associate” could basically be anybody who contacted Corsi) called Mike Zullo and put someone on the phone who said something that Zullo took for confirmation. Zullo had no way of knowing that the person he heard on the phone was from the CDC, and the wording of the statement suggests that Zullo didn’t even know her name.

But even if it really was someone from the CDC, Mike Zullo never tells us what she really said! Look it again:

And she confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting, what the number 9 meant was in fact what it was. He asked her to repeat it. ‘Are you saying this 9 in this box yada-yada-yada means X?’ And she said, ‘Yes.’”

Yada-yada-yada? Didn’t our crack investigator take any notes?

“African” proves birth certificate authentic

Birthers think that Obama’s birth certificate is an obvious forgery. Some of them knew it even before they looked at it. They claim that it was hurried and sloppy, but I argue that it is not.

A hurried, naive or sloppy forger would have done minimal research and selected the value “Negro” for the race of Barack Obama, Sr. The naive and sloppy birthers certainly selected that value and declared it must be the only valid entry.

A specialist in vital statistics like me would have known that this was wrong. Parental races are supplied by the parents, not assigned by the Department of Health. However, someone like me would not have known that in 1962, Kenya, the native country of Obama Sr., used “African” as a standard racial category in its census. Of course, “African” first appeared on Obama’s “short form” in 2008 and was much criticized at that time. That is a hugely obscure fact found in an academic archive (commenter TollandRCR at The Fogbow is the first I know to have reported it in July of 2009). The correct selection of “African” is simply beyond what a hurried, naive or sloppy forger could have done (either in 2008 or 2011).

The second point against the birther forgery theory is the penciled race code next to “African.” A hurried, naive or sloppy forger would have had big trouble getting those codes right. They probably would have assumed (incorrectly) that they were federal codes, but the 1961 federal code sheet was not on the Internet. I had to get it through FOIA and that took some months. The crank crack investigators of the Cold Case Posse couldn’t get that code sheet, and had to make up one that was wrong. But what a forger would be hard pressed to have known was that the codes were actually unique to the State of Hawaii, not federal codes. Indeed, it was not until quite recently that I was able to obtain from the State Library in Hawaii the 1961 Statistical Supplement to the Department of Health Annual Report that lists the code categories. Who could have guessed that Hawaii didn’t even have a race code for negro, and had to use code “9” for “other race” for Obama’s father? It took 3 years to figure out the correct race code to go with “African” using obscure sources not available on the Internet. A hurried, naive or sloppy forger simply could not have gotten it right.

The deeper we dig in any direction, whether into the file format and compression, or into the contextual data on the form, Obama’s birth certificate is recognized as more and more exactly what it should be.

The OID and I

This article is off topic and likely not of general interest.

I was commenting over at Birther Report, explaining why Zullo’s race codes were fake, not federal codes nor Hawaiian codes. I showed from an example certificate that code “3” stood for the race “part-Hawaiian” on a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate. One of the rather dim bulbs that comment there argued based on the same certificate:

[A] 3 is also placed by the "steamship" company, what kind of race is steam ship company. Looks more like people making things up as they go on this piece of forged paper.

That comment stuck me as pretty dumb, but then I had to realize that I am somewhat of coding wonk. Maybe some people think that the same number represents the same thing no matter what the context. Codes are meaningful only in the context of a code set, like a set of race codes, or occupation codes, or diagnosis codes.

Continue Reading →

As the Birther Turns

[This article first appeared as a comment from me at Birther Report.]

For those who haven’t been following the story, Vogt’s now unsealed affidavit highlights all sorts of problems for birthers.

First, here is the Johanna Ah’Nee birth certificate for those who haven’t seen it. This came through Orly Taitz.

Notice that block 9, the Race of the Father is “Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese” with a penciled code of “3”. Block 14, the Race of the Mother is “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean” also coded “3”.

Birther Miki Booth vouches for the authenticity of this certificate [Jerome Corsi called it “authentic” too], but what does it do to the birthers? First Mike Zullo’s 1960/61 Race code table has code “3” meaning American “Indian,” which is not the same as “Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese.” Zullo also emphatically stated that the race codes on the forms were double-checked and error free. So either Zullo presented fake codes or the Ah’Nee certificate is a fake. There is no other alternative. (For reference, the real meaning for Code 3 in Hawaii was “Part Hawaiian.”)

The second problem is that birthers, since the beginning of time, have claimed that only ] a short list of values could appear on a birth certificate for Race, and certainly “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean” was NOT on that list. So birthers have been deeply mistaken about how race is recorded on birth certificates, or this certificate is a fake.

However, Miki Booth is firmly with Team Arpaio and represents that Zullo thinks the certificate is genuine.

On the other hand, Doug Vogt has this certificate numbering scheme he dreamed up to prove Obama’s certificate number is wrong. But again the Ah’Nee certificate totally contradicts the Vogt numbering scheme, and BOTH of them contradict the numbering scheme in Mike Zullo’s affidavit. Vogt of course, says that every certificate that contradicts his numbering scheme must be a forgery (if the evidence doesn’t fit the theory, discard it). This certificate dismantles ALL of the birther certificate numbering claims because Ah-Nee was born towards the end of the month, but has a certificate numbered way below Obama’s (and below the Nordyke’s).

Even those on [Birther Report] who like to make fun of the registrar’s signature on the Obama certificate, calling it “ukelele” are brought to heel by this certificate with the same signature.

So basically you have one story from Zullo, one story from Vogt and one story from Booth. No more than one of them can be true.

Booth is telling the truth. Zullo and Vogt just make stuff up.

Vogt has turned on Booth in a big way. What will Zullo do to cover up his fake evidence?

Stay tuned for the next episode of “As the Birther Turns.”

Race tabulations in Hawaii–1961

Much discussion has taken place over the penciled notations found on birth certificates in Hawaii from 1961. Here’s an example from President Obama’s birth certificate showing a “9” at the right representing “African.”

Excerpt from Obama's birth certificate

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse devoted a significant part of their second news conference towards making an argument that the code “9” shown on the President’s certificate was inconsistent with the text entry of “African.” The posse made a number of false claims, one of which was that the penciled notation was part of a Hawaii state process of tabulating data for the federal government—actually the federal government did the tabulations themselves from microfilmed certificate copies provided by the states that year1. The second false claim was the the table shown following, captured from a Cold Case Posse video presentation, was the federal table used in 1961—actually it was from 1968 and different from the 1960-61 table.

1968 Race Code Table

The Cold Case Posse’s misrepresentations are covered in more detail in my article: “Code ‘9’: the Cold Case Posse’s big lie.”

Examination of a few Hawaiian birth certificates from 1961 proved that the penciled codes are not only inconsistent with the Cold Case Posse’s codes, but also with the real federal codes used in 1961 (where code “9” represents “Other nonwhite’)—Hawaii used their own codes. The question of interest for researchers of Hawaiian birth certificate lore is: what are the race codes?

From various known certificates, I pieced together what we knew about the race coding and published that in my article: “1961 Hawaii Race codes: disclosed!” The result of that exercise was the following:

Race Code
Caucasian/White 1
Hawaiian 2
Part Hawaiian 3
Negro 9

Today I obtained from the Hawaii State Library pages from the Hawaii Department of Health Annual Report Statistical Supplement for 1961 that show the birth tabulations by race of father. Here’s the table (click image to enlarge):

The racial values listed in the order presented in the table are:

  • Caucasian
  • Hawaiian
  • Part Hawaiian
  • Chinese
  • Filipino
  • Japanese
  • Puerto Rican
  • Korean
  • Other race
  • Not specified

One immediately observes that the codes from the Zullo table could not have been used to create the Department of Health statistics for 1961 because the categories are different, not to mention the codes themselves.

Note that race codes “1,” “2” and “3” found on actual certificates correspond exactly with the first, second and third entries in the tabulation, and that code “9” for “African” on the Obama certificate matches the 9th entry (“Other race”). Another certificate published by Lord Monckton showed code “9” used for “Negro.” Based on the information available, I think it nearly certain that the race codes used to classify birth certificates by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 are 1-9 in the order that their tabulations were published in the preceding table. (“African” and “Negro” would fall into the same category.) For convenience, I’ll put it together :

Race Code
Caucasian 1
Hawaiian 2
Part Hawaiian 3
Chinese 4
Filipino 5
Japanese 6
Puerto Rican 7
Korean 8
Other race 9

This obscure bit of information is just one more indication of the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.

1The federal tabulations only coded even-numbered certificates, and the final totals were multiplied by 2. President Obama’s certificate was odd-numbered, and so not actually coded by the federal government. (See Vital Statistics of the United States 1961 – Volume 1 – Natality pages 227 and 232.)

Questioned birth certificate

Fair is fair. If the birthers are going to question Barack Obama’s birth certificate by comparing it to another “authentic” one, it seems only fair that the birthers should provide some authentication for theirs.

The Hawaii Department of Health says:

On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

I have authentication for Obama’s birth certificate. What do the birthers have for this one?

Click for original version

Birthers don’t even say where that redacted image came from, much less provide any authentication.

A number of purported Hawaiian birth certificates have surfaced over the past 5 years, but only Obama’s has any official provenance–and yet Obama’s is the only one called into question by birthers. That seems backwards reasoning to me. The photo above came from a British eccentric, Lord Monckton of Benchley via WorldNetDaily, who never says where he got it. Monckton labeled it “authentic;” however, Vogt labeled another birth certificate (one Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily called “authentic”) a forgery. If the birthers cannot even agree on what’s fake and what’s not, why should others have confidence in their judgment about any of them? Continue Reading →