I guess birthers believe each other but not much of anyone else. Blogger ladysforest published the 1961 coding manual for vital records “debunking” (her word) the Cold Case Posse claims about inconsistent race coding of Obama’s birth certificate, and the birthers seem to be taking note since she’s a birther. When I had earlier published another document proving the same thing, they just waved their “not credible Obot” wand and made me disappear (in their minds at least). It’s not important to me how the facts get out there, but that they get taken seriously, and if it takes a birther that tells the truth to make that happen, it’s fine with me. As they say: “only Nixon could go to China.”
That said, even if the birthers believe ladysforest, there is a tiny problem with her document. It says that it was “revised” August 14, 1961, 10 days after Barack Obama was born. It is that little dark corner, “what it said BEFORE August 14,” that birthers like to hide in.
Well, it’s pretty silly, and we can fall back to the manual I have, which 100% matches the race codes in the manual ladysforest obtained, and MY manual doesn’t say “revised.” In fact, it makes this emphatic statement:
The construction of the tape file and code structures are identical for these two years [1960-1961].
I pity the birthers’ lack of common sense sometimes. An agency isn’t going to change its codes in the middle of the year because doing so invalidates everything they did for the first part of the year. And some revision issued in Washington isn’t going to be implemented in Hawaii a mere 6 days after it was issued. The whole suggestion is ludicrous, but then so is the whole foreign birth conspiracy theory.
Add to that the fact that none of the federal codes match Hawaii data in the first place. I don’t think many birthers have the subtlety to follow any of this.
Wise fools get so excited over shiny surfaces!
In 1961 it might very well take 6 days for the stuff to get from D.C. to Honolulu, let alone actually be implemented.
And I repeat, changing a code table in 1961 was not a trivial exercise. The most common ‘business’ computer was the IBM 1401 and in 1961 they were programmed in assembler (SPS or Autocoder) or possibly FARGO (Fourteen-o-one Automatic Report Generation Operation) the predecessor of RPG.
COBOL was a gleam in everyones eye. According to WIKI: “The first compilers for COBOL were subsequently implemented in 1960, and on December 6 and 7, essentially the same COBOL program ran on two different computer makes, an RCA computer and a Remington-Rand Univac computer, demonstrating that compatibility could be achieved.”
FORTRAN was older but according to WIKI again: “By 1960, versions of FORTRAN were available for the IBM 709, 650, 1620, and 7090 computers.” Notice this leaves out the 1401. Fortran on the 1401 was not available until the mid ’60s and was an innovative approach, it didn’t compile to machine code, it compiled to a ‘psuedo-code’, presaging “UCSD p-Code” by decades and JAVA by almost half a century. Even if they had an older IBM machine, or a competitors machine, FORTRAN would be an unlikely choice. It could be argued that FORTRAN would have been the language of choice for statistical analysis, it really wasn’t that good for data transformations (not out of the question, just not as ‘lightweight’ or as flexible as Assembler or FARGO/RPG).
I have programmed Autocoder, and dealt with a lot of legacy code that was converted from Autocoder to 360 Assembler (a nightmare). The 1401 was a fun machine to program but nobody ever accused it of being easy to change programs. I don’t know for a fact that Hawai’i had a 1401 in 1961, but I think it is highly likely. They may well have had a Univac or an RCA or a Honeywell or an older IBM machine. My argument is the same whichever machine they had – they were very unlikely to be using a ‘high-level’ program for this job.
Even in the early to mid 70’s, we had ‘compile and test’ time slots. Get one card punch wrong in one column, and you had to wait till tomorrow’s window. Consequently desk checking became insanely rigorous. Because of the time spent waiting for something to happen, the next time window, the program to come back for punching, a scheduled design walkthrough meeting, what ever, you were often working on 5 or more programs at a time. Each time you went back to a program, you had to reorient your self to the particulars of that program.
Today you get an idea for a program, you rough out a general approach, then you sit down and start coding. The program IDE provides for incremental compiling, modularization, linking, source code formatting, debugging, test cases, everything. You are in your own sandbox and not competing for resources with anybody else.
Back then you designed it, discussed it with your colleague at the next desk, redesigned it, flowcharted it, took it to the design walk-through meeting with the lead programmer or analyst, redesigned it, re-flowcharted it, got the lead analyst’s approval.
Then and only then did you write it up on coding sheets, and get your colleague at the next desk to review it. Sometimes the lead programmer/analyst would want to review it too. Then and only then did you take it to the keypunch section. They would then put it in the “punch” queue with all the other programs. The keypunch section would get to your program a couple of days later, and they would key it and put it into the “verify” queue. A couple of days later it would be verified, meaning it would be rekeyed on a special verify machine that read the original punched card while the operator rekeyed from the coding sheets. Mismatches were highlighted and corrected. Eventually you would get your program punched onto a card deck.
You then desk checked your deck against the your coding sheets yet again, and sometimes you might notice logic errors to be corrected.
You then had to schedule your job into the compile and test window. Some shops had separate time slots for initial compiles only, so first time compiles could be done quickly and got out of the way. The first time compile listing was the first comprehensive view of your program in a coherent listing. It had cross references from code to variables, you could see poor organization, and stuff that was inconsistent. So you examined that listing in great detail, sometimes discussing it with your colleague at the next desk.
Then you had to test it every which way could possibly think of. Throw bad data at it. Throw every possible valid data combination at it. And each test run had to fit in the test window along with the work from all the other programmers. Then you had to document it for the operators and future maintenance (two entirely different documents). Then and only then could you take it to the lead analyst for approval, and finally to the operations section for inclusion in the run schedule.
The simplest most trivial program change could take weeks. A program change that required a change in the underlying data layout or codeset could take years, LITERALLY.
A 6 day turnaround is not even in the realm of imagination.
This part is off topic and you might want to move it Doc. but as I wrote the above novel I was reminded of this anecdote.
One place where I worked had a General Ledger suite writen in 1401 Autocoder in the early ’60s. When they upgraded to S/360 they translated the Autocoder to 360 Assembler using an IBM supplied conversion tool. They were still using these translated programs, now heavily modified, in the early 1970’s when I started there. One of my first tasks was to convert this suite from using ‘DAM’ to ‘ISAM’. The very first program I looked at I couldn’t make hide nor hair of so I started flowcharting it on my giant desk pad that I, as a new programmer, thought was just the coolest thing since sliced bread.
Anyway, one day the boss walks by when I’m about halfway through and asks about my flowchart. I pointed out all the obsolete code that is never used anymore and how I was getting lost following it around and just needed to make sure what was obsolete and what wasn’t, and that I had come across a couple of places that I think are errors and I need to discuss it with the lead programmer. I casually mentioned that this program would be a lot easier to convert if I could rewrite it in COBOL. He said ‘do it’. The rewrite reduced the object size (the executable) by half, mostly due to the enormous amount of obsolete code that was traditionally left in place (just in case we need it again!), and the run time by 10% (I don’t remember if that was due to ISAM or not, but I wouldn’t think so).
About half that suite was converted to COBOL and in the mid 70’s (I think) it was converted to VSAM. It was used until the late 70’s when the whole thing got rewritten from first principles and built on ADABAS.
The point is, that essentially the same system was used for 20 years or more. Each technology upgrade was retrofitted on top of the existing code. If something went wrong there were only two people who knew how to figure out how to fix it, and just about every month they were in there shuffling the run deck around to back out whatever caused the problem and restart it. You squeezed every penny of your existing investment in program code until you just couldn’t stand it anymore.
It took a completely new paradigm (the ‘Database’ System) to justify a completely new system, with more flexible features and robust recovery systems.
Wow! Doc C. is going to love this. I guess I am going to have wet his whistle. Apparently, Doc C.’s research has in fact angered a harden birther known on the YouTube Channel as Bigone5555J. Bigone5555J is a hardened birther who does believe that Obama’s BC is a forgery for a multitude of reasons. However, Bigone5555J is angered because of the research Doc C. has uncovered which Bigone5555J has apparently confirmed. You see his video here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk6eBelfKIc
As Bigone5555J put it – “It is a fraudalent document but you cannot prove a fraud by committing a fraud.”
Thanks for the link. I’ve now found TWO birthers who aren’t willing to outright lie about the evidence.
LOL! How perceptive. I do love his response to a more deranged birther commenter at YouTube, and I suggest it for QotD:
😛
Squirrel!
Youtube is a terrible place to get evidence, John. But something tells me you will never learn that lesson. You might as well be getting your information from a tabloid. Posting “evidence” on Youtube requires ZERO fact checking. As someone who at least pretends to want to truth, you should really take that into consideration.
I think that sums up the whole birther movement, Doc. Sigh.
Doc: I guess birthers believe each other but not much of anyone else.
John is always a willing fool.
Question:If you have the 1968 manual that references the codes on HI birth certificates why is not the WH pouncing on this? If the unidentified, undocumented, non-natural born citizen in the WH is who he says he is, why won’t he (obama) just release the microfilm to his CT SSN 042-68-4425 issued to him in 1977; Release the microfilm to his Selective Service Draft Registration; Release the microfilm to the birth certificate? If there is nothing to hide why spend between $2-3 million dollars to protect your alleged bona fides? These sound like reasonable questions. How about 3 more questions you can ask the WH: Why did aka Obama go to Pakistan in 1981 and why wasn’t this made known to the public;
Why was aka Obama disbarred in Oct 2008 by the IL State Bar?
Does Barack Hussein Obama speak Arabic?
The silencing, mocking, slandering, maliciousness and marginalizing of those who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not government totalitarianism will be the victors in the end for truth and justice. Eyes are being opened to the truth. Try to run and hide from it, but it is vain and futile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
Dear Michael,
The Clown Car Posse was proven to be lying again. You’re just a kook and nobody but the 37 other kooks care what you believe.
Regards,
Joe
Thanks, Michael, for that generous contribution to Thomas Brown’s list!
Oh, you were actually asking those questions? No, sorry, not reasonable. Rather high-larious, actually!
You might want to check the grammar of your run-on there …. you’re predicting victory for “silencing, mocking, slandering, maliciousness and marginalizing”? That’s not how these nutty expectorations usually go. Why so pessimistic? 😀
Dear Michael,
The Clown Car Posse was proven to be lying again. You’re just a kook and nobody but the 37 other kooks care what you believe.
Regards,
Joe
*********************************
ditto!
I think “clowns” fits the CCCP very well, as clowns are deplorable degenerates.
Why are you asking when you know better than anyone that you’re not interested in the answers?
Do you speak birther?
Do you even bother to read the article (or at least its topic) before dumping a spam comment? if you want us to even consider taking your comment seriously, at least pretend you have read anything on this article, or no this site (since there are other articles that actually are closer to you topic).
Like the typical birther troll, you want to stand on the corner screaming your same tired argument and not bother to listen to what anybody else says.
I moved your off-topic comment onto this article which sort of fits.
In answer to your question:
a) Obama was born in ’61 not ’68
b) I don’t have (nor does the Cold Case Posse) a coding manual that fits Hawaii’s state codes in 1961
c) The White House in general doesn’t dirty its hands with birthers, the exception being the release of the long form in April 2012, where Obama gave the press a well-earned lecture on their priorities.
I go back to the time when a “chat room” was where you kept your CB radio. CB had a rule that I think you would do well to take to heard, listen before transmitting.
> It says that it was “revised” August 14, 1961, 10 days after Barack Obama was born.
[birther]So obviously they changed the codes after they noticed the forger had put the wrong codes on the fabricated vault document. And then they changed them back again in 1968 to mock the enlightened protectors of the Constitution.[/birther]
Are there really still birthers who *don’t* believe the conspiracy started in 1961 (or earlier)?
Bigone5555J has blocked me from further commenting on his video.
Yeah I’ve encountered him before I think I’m blocked as well. Anyway I notice someone claimed Verna Lee ran the department above and beyond being a registrar. I love how birthers like to promote people.
Tim Adams, temp intern, became “The Senior elections officer in Hawaii”
The Ayers’ postman became “a government official”.
Emerich de Vattel, a philosopher that the founders occasionally referred to, became “the architect of the Constitution”.
(Some earlier “expert” on the BC was described as “having had business relations with Adobe” which, accounting for the above inflation, probably means “once downloaded Acrobat Reader” or “delivered 20 rolls of toilet paper to their office in Greenland”.)
I think the birthers are from Austria where every street sweeper is addressed as “Herr Professor” in formal talk. (At least that used to be true in the ’60s.)
I wonder they haven’t yet called Mara Zebest “the inventor of Photoshop” or Mario Apuzzo “the most prolific SCOTUS ligitator in history”.
Well, since they don’t have a handy org chart, the imagination runs wild!
Doug Vogt was puffed up considerably …. considering the claims made in his pseudoscience publishing, in his case it was just par for the course. Mundane really. He should have been credited with inventing the CCD, or referred to as the brains behind Xerox.
I haven’t seen any mocking of any of those people.
I have seen mocking of Birthers who knowingly pass lies on hoping to influence the gullible.
Which is as it should be.
He was not.
Your statement that:
Is particularly ironic here.
Time to apologize?… Or are you allowing ignorance and fear to turn you into your worst nightmare?
Listen to you own advice and realize how you have been lied to and allowed yourself to become foolish and a willing pawn in those interested in destroying what our nation stands for.
I’ve seen people say things like, “Members of the Adobe Illustrator team debunked the PDF.” I’m pretty sure they’re referring to Zebest (whether they know it or not).
Michael, yuo’d ge t a lot more respect if you didn’t repeat others’ lies? What do you mean, why wasn’t the Pakistan trip made known to the public. It was, or else how you wouold you know about it? Yopu certainly give no evidence of ferrting out facts on your own.. The disbarment lie, others have addressed. Does Obama speak Arabic? I don’t know, and what does it matter? .Actually, since Arabic is the language spoken inf one of the world’s great trouble spots, I’d think speaking Arabic is a plus.
Read some of the pro-birther websites if you want to find slander. They’d also like to marginalize their opponents, but they don’t have the wherewithal to do so.
Mocked? Sure. Slander? Point it out, and please be speficic rather than vaguely general.
(A hit: The turth isn’t slander.)
Yeah, I’ve seen that one. They call her “the guy that invented Photoshop.”
Because the WH knows you’re still going to be an (and I do beg your pardon for saying so) idiot no matter what they do.
I thought that’s what they said about Vogt that he was one of the first hires at Adobe and was an engineer of theirs
I know Brian Wilcox who hangs out with the andrea shea king crowd claims He’s a photocopy expert having worked within fortune 500 companies etc. When I quizzed him on it he was really just a copy boy.
As if they had any idea of the number of people involved in Illustrator over its 25-year history!
Her claim to fame is having edited how-to books on Photoshop. As if they realized how many of those there are. How many of them are dreck. How many of them were (are?) simply collections of magazine columns. How many of them involve no technical mastery of the software itself or the hardware and formats it interfaces with, but are merely repetition of rote processes. And she worked on these tomes in the late ’90s, when what had become Photoshop was over a decade old, and already in version 4.0 under the Photoshop name. The books she edited were so influential, I’ve never heard of them, until I heard of her a decade later.
________________
Today, I got in a PDF that would really blow de birfers’ minds. An engineer filing a report had made a last-minute note in blue ink with a cheap ballpoint. Due to the fine lines, soft edges, use of cursive, and that fact that the writer had intersected ruled lines on the form, the hand-writing was relegated to the background and compressed. However, the edges of the negative spaces inside the letters were detected, and highlighted with overprints of white.
Overall, it gave the impression of writing being ‘carved out’ of the background. What would birthers make of that? LOL!
That would be Local Registrar, which (for the main office in Honolulu) appears to be no more than a fancy title for whichever DoH employee happened to collect the birth certificate and stamp the date it was received by the office.
Remember the “ALAN” birth certificate from 1963?
http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
The “Local Registrar” who signed that one had a military title typed after the signature. The military title was “LT COL, MSC, USA” which I looked up. MSC stands for “Medical Service Corps”. The “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” was also typed in what looks to be the same type. Obviously they allowed some hospital administrator from the Army hospital to serve as the “local registrar”. I guess the logical conclusion from the birthers would be that some Army medical administrator was running the Hawaii Dept of Health in 1963.
I’m pretty sure some people have said, at one time or another, that both Vogt and Zebest were the “guy that invented Photoshop”, and never gave it a thought.
They would make quite a pair. Are they both single?
Don’t know about Zebest, but Vogt is in a committed relationship with the voices in his head.
Commitment is only as strong as the enforcement of the court order.
I’d rather say he’s living in sin with them. And he can’t marry them unless he turns Mormon. And even then all of the voices better be female. 😉
Because IF Obama did bow to all your demands then the microfilm would no longer be accepted as evidence by your crew. You will move on to demanding some other document or evidence.
You will just move the goalposts… AGAIN!
I believe first you and every single birther must get and release all videos of your colonoscopies, and then give 50% of your income for the last four years to the IRS as a donation marked “for wasting your time.” After that we will consider your request, but we reserve the right to ask you for more irrelevant information first. A list of every person if the opposite or same sex you all have looked at with lust might be the ticket, with contact information of course, for all those people plus any spouses or ex-spouses. But don’t worry we promise to stop pestering you with nonsense someday…