[Seizethecarp]

There is no provenance for any claims that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was NOT at Mercer HS, at U. of HI or at U. of WA. There is no provenance or any evidence of a conspiracy to produce false records for SADO at those three public institutions.

There is no provenance for documents of any kind or eyewitness on any claimed record for any “Anna Obama” who was supposedly NOT Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and who was supposedly married to BHO SR or who attended any of these institutions instead of SADO or that this other Anna was ever in Seattle with or without a baby in January of 1961.

It is totally a conspiracy theory to fabricate an imaginary alternate “Anna Obama” out of whole cloth and claiming her to be the "real" Anna Obama and claim that all public documents relating to Stanley Ann in three public institutions are fake.

All of the public records for Stanley Ann can be verified to be (or not to be) at these institutions in the custody of the registrars or other custodians.

The claimed provenance for documents that certain named officials sent out as verification of attendance or as a transcript on letterhead and under a signature can be verified in court by the custodians of the public records who can be called to testify.

This is a perfect falsifiable interlocking chain of claims of provenance for evidence for Stanley Ann at the three institutions which doesn't exist for the alternate Anna Obama at all to date from what I have seen.

So I leave it for you and all FReepers reading this to decide who is creating deliberate distraction, thread hijacking and conspiracy theories out of thin air.

Remember, only when evidence is actually presented in a court can any alleged provenance of any kind be proved.

[LucyT]

.

Ah, ha.

More crickets.

[little jeremiah]

Remember, only when evidence is actually presented in a court can any alleged provenance of any kind be proved.

This last sentence was useful. Most other sentences were the opposite; in fact, the tossing around of the word "conspiracy" smacks of Alinsky tactics and you should explain why you are using that word.

[Natural Born 54]

Without getting into one details of proof or lack of proof, let me say that just on general principles, you should view the school year era of SAD with suspicion. Why should this part of the Obama family saga be accepted as credible when virtually every other aspect of the story has been shown to be very questionable?

If you start with the assumption that much of O’s family bio is BS, then you have to question SAD’s school years as well. And if you do approach it as probably bogus, the next step is to try to find the weaknesses in the story and figure out what might actually be the facts.

So, instead of criticizing the theory of others because “there’s no reason to question that” because we have a transcript or we have whatever, how about actually refuting a theory with which you don’t agree by using something other than Obot supplied information?

How about your brain? You have a pretty darn good one. How about using it instead of serving up provenance supplied by people we know are lying scoundrels?

[mojitojoe]

Hey, what’s going on with you lately? Did someone highjack your screen name?

[Greenperson]

“Remember, only when evidence is actually presented in a court can any alleged provenance of any kind be proved.”

Exactly! That’s why we need to see REAL documentation about his birth, presented to a court of law, which might have been done long ago, except he preferred to spend millions to keep from showing it. Without real documentation, nobody knows WHO his parents were. Stolen yearbooks sound like pretty good circumstantial evidence to me.