Posted on 06/07/2011 6:45:09 PM PDT by conservativegramma
VISA ISSUED: August, 1959 - Date of birth 18/6/34 (I think that's June 18.)
31st August 1961 - Date of birth 18th June 1934 NAME OF WIFE CROSSED OUT, THEN ANN S DUNHAM ENTERED NO CHILDREN
31ST AUGUST 1961. MEMO, extension granted. Full name of child and date of birth. MOTHER NOT NAMED.
17th August 1962 - Date of birth June 18, 1936
MARRIED. NO NAME OF WIFE. ONE SON: ROY
June 6, 1963 - Date of birth June 18, 1936
NO NAME OF WIFE OR CHILD GIVEN
25 years of age on arrival in Hawaii in 1959=BIRTH YEAR 1934
YEAR OF BIRTH ON TOMBSTONE 1936
Year of birth according to above 1961 document: 1936.
Make sense of it? I certainly can't, the MEMO looks like a plant, and they buried him with a year of birth that contradicts his own initial documentation and the newspaper article.
Says the person who can't tell the difference between a curve and a straight line.
Here you go. Good luck with your lawsuit.
That added sentence changes everything...so conveniently.
Why do you claim that the sentence was added? The ink and handwriting appear to be the same.
Because the reason for granting the extension was covered when you get to the word 'Kenya.'
So this is just a presumption of yours not something that has been proven technically?
What are you? The thought-police?
It IS an added sentence...it has nothing to do with granting a visa extension.
I was just asking you for the source of the supposition. Are you afraid of reasonable questions?
No, not afraid, the source of the supposition is all mine...and if you look at the way the names Barack Obama are written, they do NOT appear to be written by the same hand.
That is all I was asking. I don't know why you got your back up about it unless you feel embarrassed to admit it is just a guess on your part.
I found your comment offensive, yes. Just as I do now, with your suggestion that I might be embarrassed. Please confine your responses to the material and leave the personal barbs out of it.
The offense was all in your head. I don’t take orders from snippy little punks either. You have my permission to take offense at that. I meant that to be offensive unlike the simple straightforward questions I asked before.
It was the words ‘proven technically’ that floored me. There’s NOTHING been proven technically in this entire saga...has there? If we could only discuss what has been ‘proven technically’ there would be nothing on this forum.
And I’m no punk, I assure you. I’m a RETIRED Australian.
Is it the word ‘proven’ or the word ‘technically’ that intimidates you? Or is it the combination of them? I will try to coat my words in soft velvet and sugar icing for you from now on so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.
I know that you have mentioned this a few times since these documents were released, but I’ve never taken the time to examine it very closely until now because I also thought the handwriting looked the same.
I just spent a while comparing first letters and other common letter combinations between that sentence and the upper part of the memo. There seem to be a number of inconsistencies. The two “Barack”s are not the same. Up above, all the ‘i’s are dotted, but most of the ‘i’s and ‘j’s in the hgihlighted sentence have little circles for the dot. The bottom ‘H’ looks forced. The word “have” appears in both places. There is the word “at” up above that is consistent with the word “that”, but in the hightlighted sentence it does not look the same at all. The word “one” is in both places, but doesn’t look the same. Look at the difference in the “re” of “return” and “resides”.
50+ pages and that is the only mention of him? Seems odd.
not very logical are you?
Since Fred couldn't give me anything more solid than his hunch (which is fine but isn't a solid disproof) I went ahead and posted it there.
You could try being polite.
And then there was the second snotty reply to another patient question.
Twice burned is enough for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.