You wrote: “I find the certification by the four Ancestry.com genealogists based on solid circumstantial evidence consisting of records and DNA to be persuasive when they concluded that Barry descended from the slave John Punch.”
Did they “certify” the relationship? They have no DNA to prove that John Punch was the father of John Bunch. Their circumstantial evidence is anything but “solid.” I have shown how these “genealogists” (seems that only two have genealogy credentials) have put forth assumptions that anybody with common sense can PUNCH holes in (pun intended). You’re free to accept their assumptions or not. I don’t. Their hypothesis is full of holes. I take note that you do not address any of the holes I’ve punched. Telling.
Even their “fact” that Punch was the first slave is in dispute. He was an indentured servant. He was not a “slave” in the sense most consider an American black slave to be: That he was captured in Africa and brought here against his will, in the hold of a ship as cargo (as in the Middle Passage), sold in the US as a slave.
That they are going to such lengths to create a slave is also telling. It reminds one very much of how “it all depends on what the meaning of is is.” This is circumstantial evidence that they are seeing what they want to see.
You wrote: “The FOIA INS documents are uncontested by any competent expert and confirm Stanley Ann to have been reported to the INS to be pregnant in April 1961 by U of HI officials presumably by BHO Sr. U of HI also reported that they married on Feb 2, 1961 and subsequently that she was intending to go to school at a university in WA.”
Nope. Not a university in WA. Washington State University. But she didn’t go there; she went to the University of Washington. Two different schools. If we’re going to hew to the accuracy of these INS documents, then either they are true or they are not.
When has anybody seen these “documents” to contest? Has ANY “expert” had them submitted to him or her for authentication? Probably not, so it means nothing that they are “uncontested”.
The fact that you qualify further by saying “competent expert” is rather telling, imho.
Like so much else, these “documents” are digital images, subject to modification. The original source would be what needs to be examined. To use Ancestry’s word, “PRIMARY” sources. Those are the best sources.
You wrote: “Numerous subsequent newspaper, INS, passport and divorce documents confirm SADO as Barry’s uncontestd mom.”
There have been NO DOCUMENTS presented, much less “numerous” ones. A woman can be a “mom” without having given birth to said child. The newspaper announcements named neither child nor mother. Since the senior Obama had at least two, possibly three, wives in 1961, it’s anyone’s guess who that “Mrs.” was.
That is, if the announcements are real. Has ANYONE seen a paper version? btw, an INS memo from July 1964 appears to say that he had “over two wives now.” That’s before he married Ruth, because the memo discusses Ruth’s plan to marry him, despite his “over two wives now.” Who was the third? The “wife in the Philippines?”
SAD’s passport files are contradictory, missing, or locked away.
You wrote: “Absence of evidence (baby photos etc.) is not evidence of absence.”
Presence of digital images is not evidence of documents. Presence of photoshopped images is not evidence of a family.
It’s not our job to prove a negative. It’s Obama’s job to prove a positive—that he is who he says he is and that he’s qualified under the Constitution to hold the office he holds.
It’s also a genealogist’s job to present and use the best evidence available and not to make conclusions based upon an “absence of evidence,” which also means that one cannot invent evidence one wishes existed, when it does not exist.
You wrote: “The FIOA INS docs are solid, verifiable (can be forensically examined) evidence that Stanly Ann is absolutely Barry’s mom.”
Yes, they certainly can be forensically examined. Will anybody allow anyone to examine them? His birth records, his college records, his selective service records, his social security records, his passport records, his state senate records, the port of entry records—all can be “forensically examined,” except for the fact that nobody can pry any of these original documents out of the public repositories where they allegedly reside (or should reside) and this person will not release any of them for examination.
The INS questioned the “bona fides” of the marriage. Right there in the “documents” released. Nothing in the record reports whether they ever investigated further and, if they did, what they found.
You wrote: “There are no documents whatsoever that support a different mother for Barry that I have seen. No BC, passport, baby pics for a different mom for Barry, such as Valerie Sarruf available on the web that I have seen.”
There are no documents that support THIS mother for Barry. Where are they? DOCUMENTS. Circa 1961 paper documents. We don’t know WHO his mother is.
Ok, so let’s accept that SAD had a child in August, 1961. Given that those INS documents state that she was arranging to give the baby up for adoption, how do we know that she didn’t? How do you know that the man who claims he is SAD’s son IS the child that she gave birth to in August 1961?
Up until citizen researchers discovered the lie about the family being together until Barry was two, nobody mentioned that SAD was in Seattle, going to college, only weeks after she gave birth. Now that would be consistent with a woman who gave a child up for adoption. Getting on with her life in a new place. Away from the father.
Suddenly, now, the official biographers “find” and reveal what’s already been revealed with no explanation as to why they didn’t discover that truth on their own, during their initial research (as if they did any).
“The only evidence missing is proof of where Stanley Ann was when she gave birth to Barry.”
Nope. We could be missing the evidence of when she handed that baby over to the Salvation Army.
Per Greenperson: “Not a university in WA. Washington State University. But she didn’t go there; she went to the University of Washington. Two different schools. If we’re going to hew to the accuracy of these INS documents, then either they are true or they are not.”
A serious forensic investigator is concerned with whether a contemporaneous document is authentic, not whether all of the in formation in it is accurate. The person who prepared the document could be reporting incorrect information for any number of reasons.
Contrary to what you stated I did not use quotes and deliberately said a university in WA knowing that it was the wrong university relative to where she IS documented to have gone. You have not in any way called into question the authenticity of the FOIA INS doc by observing this discrepancy between the INS file note and what she did.
It is entirely reasonable for getting the particular WA university wrong to have been an honest mistake or it is possible that at the time she WAS intending to attend WA State, not U of WA. People get the “U. of (fill in the state)” vs. “(fill in the state U.” wrong all of the time in the numerous states where such confusion can arise. I went to one such university myself.
Per Greenperson: “SAD’s passport files are contradictory, missing, or locked away.”
IMO, SAD’s passport file is complete except for the “missing” pre-1966 record of either a renewal and/or initial application. Yes there are wrong dates and the mystery Soebarkah cross-out, but absolutely nothing that indicates ANY forgery of the FIOA passport records which are verifiable and available to anyone...except the “destroyed” ones, of course.
All of the information in the “non-destroyed” passport records confirms that Stanley Ann IS Barry's mom.