We identified the anomalies in the Susan Blake conversation specified by the researcher (set out in BP2's post) where we suggested some of the same conclusions he and BP2 reach and this is to emphasize a couple of the points and suggest one other obvious factual inference they don't reach.
There are a handful of factual disconnects in Susan's statements.
August of 1961 is clearly the wrong date for the excuse that Stanley Ann is going to Boston to set up a joint residence with Obama Sr.
I view the diaper changing story as both a factually accurate story as to the occurrence and clearly inaccurate as to the timing relationship with his birth.
The fact that the August 1961 time frame is so clearly wrong for the excuse in my view leads to another fact--Stanley Ann didn't tell Susan why she was there or where she was in fact coming from (redating the event from late August to early August per the analysis below is conclusive that she was not "coming from" Hawaii if the birth certificate date of August 4 for the birth is correct which I believe that it is).
Like the other researcher, I view the factual disconnects as both adding credibility and confirming my view that Susan had been prompted before the interview but also that the preparation was done in a somewhat hasty or incomplete manner.
If the preparation had been better, she would have had a better fairy tale for the reason for the visit; and she would have been told not to tell the story about the diaper changing.
The diaper changing was a step too far. It has an absolute ring of truth. But it too is just one step in excess. Women who are slow know how to change diapers in 48 hours. Stanley Ann was neither slow nor stupid--someone else may have changed diapers for her in Kenya but she was a lot closer to the birth date than three or four weeks. Had to be.
There is also a statement in the early version of the video interview which got removed at some point which indicates that the baby is the wrong color to be three weeks old at the time of the visit. I am not sophisticated enough to recount exactly how that works but some of the experts view that as conclusive of a much earlier date for the visit.
I have taken it as pretty close to a fact (although not evidence per se) that the Susan Blake visit occurred within three days of the birth at the outside.
I have suspected that Susan's point that the visit had occurred in late August was a factual invention in part because of her demeanor reflected in the live video interview--she knew the visit happened earlier but she also knew she shouldn't place it too close to August 4 because the person who prepped her told her not to.
And would also speculate that she didn't tell the person doing the prep the diaper story because the story in fact tells too much.
The fact that Susan hung up when she realized that the interviewer was on the other side coupled with her understanding of at least some part of the Natural Born Citizen rules, both confirms the fact that she was prepped and that she didn't really know all the facts about the trip which was interrupted by the visit.
I have a couple of other legal editorial thoughts on BP2's post. Is BP2 a lawyer? I have read several BP2 posts the last few days and all are really excellent (I do recognize that people who aren't lawyers can also do really excellent analysis).
Unless there is a scientific defect identified by laboratory analysis or some other patent deficiency in the Orly birth certificate, it is prima facia legal evidence that the birth occurred in Kenya on August 4.
What that means is that if this argument gets down to a legal contest in a court of law where the controlling issue is his place of birth, the opposing forces will need to prove by real evidence, that the birth certificate does not accurately report his birth data. I doubt they can do that.
I recognize the legal deficiencies in his Natural Born Citizen position even if he had been born in Hawaii--the two parent argument; the alternate citizenship argument; his personal representations that he was not a US Citizen. But my view, having been involved in many lawsuits over issues like this and watched them play out is that in the current political setting in the US, if Obama can prove factually that he was born in Hawaii, he is likely to win. I tend to ignore that possibility because I have known for some time that he was born in Kenya and my experience also is that the facts ultimately tend to crawl out.
I wouldn't predict how the end game is likely to play out here. And it may well play out over an even longer period than I expect--but the end of the day answer is that a strong majority of the American People will recognize that he is not President and at about the same time will also recognize how bad the policies he supports are for the Country.
From your lips to god's ears!
Good analysis. Thank you.
Just want your opinion in this ... judge King granted the Divorce Decree in Hawaii as posted by BP2, exhibit page 1 to 14, with page 11 missing. Surely, a divorce court must be satisfied that the couple was indeed legally married in the first place.
Then, is it possible that missing page 11 contains a copy of the original Marriage Certificate of Stanley Ann and O Sr. and not Barry’s Kenyan Birth Certificate ?
Thank you, David.
Pinging to #7,309.
-
Also check out other news:
Today’s GLOBE magazine has a front-page article on Obama’s fake birth certificate, but it features Pam Geller and TechDude’s bogus analysis. There’s a paragraph about Polarik who “confirms” TechDude’s forgery findings “who also claims that Obama’s birth certificate was made from Patricia Decosta’s,” referring to Polarik’s July 27, 2008 posting.
(no link provided)
-
Obama birth doc update: Kenya sources weigh in
Comparison with similar certificates suggests fakery, WND probe reveals
NEW YORK – The Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND’s investigative operatives in Africa, though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135
“I have taken it as pretty close to a fact (although not evidence per se) that the Susan Blake visit occurred within three days of the birth at the outside.”
I don’t know what you are basing this on—maybe just the dirty diaper—but when I had a baby in 1967 the birth was on the 7th of the month and we didn’t go home till the 13th and that was the usual time to spend in the hospital. So based on that if you add on travel time I think it would have to have been in the 2nd week at the least. That also fits into the University registration on the 19th. Her mother’s friend that she was staying with could have been giving her a lot of assistance to get settled. I think the story Susan gave about what they were talking about is bunk. I can’t believe that you can remember real conversations that happened 47 years ago. You can remember perhaps having a conversation but exactly what it was really challenges credulity. Of course there probably are exceptions like if they are tied to some really personal life-changing decision but I think they are pretty rare.
There is also a statement in the early version of the video interview which got removed at some point which indicates that the baby is the wrong color to be three weeks old at the time of the visit.
_________________________________________________
What is that from ???
The photo of Obama as a baby lying on his tum with his head up ???
He would have to be about 3 months old at least in that pic
3 WEEK old babies dont usually do that...
Oh, silly me...
Obama is not usual....
He was born walking andf talking and organized his Kenyan community before he got his first diaper...
Never mind...
Thanks for posting your thoughts.
Susan Blake mentioned something about the baby being pink. Black or bi-racial children are lighter at birth than later.
It’s entirely possible — even probable — that the Dunhams sent Ann back to the Pacific NW to have that child out of wedlock and spare themselves the disgrace that would have attended such a birth in 1961. Barry may well have been born in a maternity home in British Columbia, and Susan Blake may have seen Ann and the baby soon after their discharge.
That would explain why there are no photos or eyewitness accounts of a pregnant Ann Dunham.
Then, upon receiving news of the birth and that Ann was determined to keep the baby, Madelyn filed an affidavit of home birth with Vital Records, which, in turn, listed the birth in the newspaper column with others recorded that week.
The marriage itself? Maybe, maybe not, maybe common-law, maybe a myth to avoid scandal.
It fits.
Maybe some of her friends in Seattle were also dabbling in Communism at that time, which might explain the vagueness in their recollections, mixing up dates, etc. Just seems kinda weird to me.