lol, Greenperson, the “pointless” conversation was me referring to diaperable babies, toilet training, yada, yada, yada, because I took your comment about two diaperable babies, literally. I was conversing about that as “fact”, since it would be a more reliable memory than a specific date. It was not fact, so my points made no sense.
Regarding, the rest of your post.....thanks for the additional info from the WND article. I hadn’t realized WND had also interviewed Mary.
I try to weed through all the info using actual university transcripts, polk directories as the more reliable date markers.....timelines from personal recollections, less so. Personal recollections about events/phases are more reliable, IMO, because that is how people tend to recall memories. Transcripts from UH show Stanley Ann in HI in fall of 1960, receiving credit for a course that ended in Jan, ‘61. Transcipts for UW show her at UW in fall of 61. Recollections from her friend, Susan Blake, (if you believe her) indicate her visit was in late August, ‘61 (or thereabouts). I’m not using any exact science.
I’m not saying you are wrong. I tend to agree with Corsi on this one. You have further defined that Mary thought she babysit in the spring for Stanley Ann, Ann, Anna, whatever she was called. I don’t know about Mary’s possible pregnancy at the time or some other time, so won’t comment on this event......lol, I might get into another conversation about diapers/toilet training from something that isn’t known.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that WND interviewed Mary Toutonghi. They claimed they did, but I don’t think they did. I have my reasons.
Another thing, for what it’s worth: Can we rely on anything on the Internet? You have to accept that the images of school records seen on the Web are legitimate. If they are, then statements like Mary Toutonghi’s should match, but when they don’t match, it’s suspicious. And then you have the evolving story, after her original memories are called into question. As I said, a cop would have a gut feeling. I have other reasons for doubting her stories. Not only prior inconsistent statements but prior interviews with the media, shortly before this supposed interview with that blog, when she was CAMPAIGNING for Obama, but never mentioned to a local reporter that she babysat for the candidate. She was interviewed about her Obama signs being vandalized, but didn’t mention that she knew Obama or his “mother” personally. Or, if she did mention it, we’re supposed to believe that a reporter in a little town in Alaska thought it was a bigger story that the yard signs were swiped than that the victim personally babysat for a presidential candidate, about whom voters knew very little.
As for Ann’s Mercer Island friends, yes, it’s interesting that they all now decline further interviews. (I don’t believe Susan Blake.) At the “request” of the POTUS, they say no more.
Why would he ask (order? intimidate?) all of her high school friends to NOT SPEAK?
One friend is quoted as stating that is exactly what happened, so if one is to believe her stories about her school days with “Stannie”, then one must also believe that Obama’s people have told her to STFU. Why?
All the stories correspond, just like a rehearsed story. Again, a cop’s radar would be going off.
All of her “friends” and all of his “friends” recount the same tired old “memories,” right down to the headband she wore and his pets in Indonesia. (Except when the memories DON’T match, and then those people are never again interviewed or discounted as liars or too old to remember correctly or golddiggers.)
A soon-to-be-released book about “Ann”, again, tells the same tired old tales, just in time for the 2012 election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24Obama-t.html?_r=1