Replies

Here is the comment where David erroneously opines that “WND posts a copy of the actual original entry document” and that the course data on the transcript should have been typed.

That is not correct. What WND posted was a late 1960s or early 1970s computer CARD system that would have replaced the 1961-62 system that David would have been familiar with. The course data and Mercer HS transcript data on the WND “original entry document” was obviously computer generated, not typed, and entered onto the pre-formatted card.

David says he says he has “concluded” that the UW record “may” NOT be “credible and accurate” which is a lawyer’s way of saying it has been FORGED.

IMO David has made a clear error in judgment.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2821875/posts?page=85#85

“That is based on the U of W academic record and subsequent events. I have long been a proponent of the argument that the U of W record is credible and accurate. I have intimate familiarity with the UW transcript and academic record system, particularly for the 61-62 academic period. The security system is extensive and sound—it is difficult for me to conceive of how the records might have been penetrated.

“Nonetheless, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that my original view may be in error.

“In the first place, the computer generated report is not the original document—I believe those documents were generated long after the fact from the original entry documents. WND posts a copy of the actual original entry document here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106018

“When a student entered the regular University, a document like this one was generated. The original is on two hole punched paper and it is inserted in a pin ledger binder. The system is designed so that the original is never removed.

“The academic record is to be hand inserted (written) on the face of the original document from quarter to quarter. When a certified transcript or a copy transcript such as the one depicted by WND is required, a copy system is in place to photocopy the entry area on the original and a certificate is stamped on the face of the copy.”

Interesting info. Thank you.

Here is the issue that makes no sense. As it has been explained to me, according to the Mal-Val POV, SADO did all her undergraduate work at UoHI from ‘63 onward. Well what do you know. That timeframe perfectly supports the Dreams fairytale! What a happy coincidence for the Pathological Liar in Chief.

Yet both universities (supposedly) collaborated to produce forged transcripts that destroy Obama’s Dreams fantasy.

Why???

Why wd the libs unnecessarily alter SADO’s transcripts in a way that is so fundamentally damaging to Obama’s credibility?

None of the Mal-Val crowd will answer. Perhaps because there is no answer. It’s just a load of drivel.

David needs to use the info that al hendershot wrote about (link is in post 11495) that shows SADO was in Washington state in 1961, to update his evaluation of the transcripts.

The evidence al wrote about is a soc sec NUMIDENT file.

Now that its shown that SADO was in Washington state in 1961, then the transcripts agree with her being there.

Also the INA FOIA documents (wood memo) show her destination the state of Washington.

I'm still wondering why the questions keep coming up about how she earned enough credits to graduate from the University of Hawaii, yet you and others are not at all interested in making any attempt to obtain those complete official transcripts from the University of Hawaii.

That was my original point and you tried to claim that they've already been posted on the internet, but then said you made a mistake when called out on it. Following up by posting links to meaningless pictures, such as these, although you never bothered to post them.

Remember the question to Greg was, "If the transcripts are fake, where & when did SADO earn enough credits for a BA from the UoHI?"

David says he says he has “concluded” that the UW record “may” NOT be “credible and accurate” which is a lawyer’s way of saying it has been FORGED.

and from there seize jumped to the erroneous conclusion that, "David is accusing Corsi of FRAUD."

IMO seize has made a clear error in judgment.

Here is the comment where David erroneously opines that “WND posts a copy of the actual original entry document” and that the course data on the transcript should have been typed.

That is not correct. What WND posted was a late 1960s or early 1970s computer CARD system that would have replaced the 1961-62 system that David would have been familiar with. The course data and Mercer HS transcript data on the WND “original entry document” was obviously computer generated, not typed, and entered onto the pre-formatted card.

The books are still there at the University of Hawaii. You are trying to suggest to us, that each time a change is made, they stick the preprinted card in a printer, and add the newly updated information to the card?

How about producing another one of these cards from the University of Washington for comparison? You have claimed that you are an expert in that field. Prove it!

Another obviously computer generated printout for Feb 13, 2009, but the question is, who's computer generated it? I know that I could very quickly and easily print one that is exactly alike, and change the information on the page to any name and other information and you wouldn't know the difference.

Looks a bit like these from the 1990s: