Someone is posting lies and talking behind your back.
Posted on 06/09/2011 1:51:48 PM PDT by rxsid
Rondeau saw listings on Maui? Or that mentioned Maui?
******
Another strange item: Barack senior does not seem to know his wife's name, because he wrote "Ann S. Dunham" when he should have written "Stanley Ann Dunham". That is, why Barack senior would put the "S" for "Stanley" in the middle of his wife's name instead at the beginning is strange to me.
Also, his address on the form dated Aug. 31, 1961 is different from the address on Obama's long birth certificate that Obama released on April 27, 2011.
My point is this about the address: Either Barack senior and Obama's mother moved to the address on the form just days after Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, or Barack senior kept paying on his apartment at his old address while living with Obama's mother at the address on Obama's long form birth certificate, or, worse, Barack senior never lived with Obama's mother as husband and wife, and that is the reason why his address on the form is different from the address on Obama's long form birth certificate that Obama released on April 27, 2011.
I think that is called "circular reasoning". Since it is patently obvious that Zero and his handlers/enablers/string pullers are a criminal gang who have falsified all kinds of documents, just because a few things are consistent you take that as evidence of fact? I take it as evidence that they coordinated some dates! There is a lot more stuff that seems to hang together, sort of, in the myth. You take that as evidence of truth too?
Should have added:
There is a lot more stuff that seems to hang together, sort of, in the myth.* You take that as evidence of truth too?
*If taken at face value without any digging for back up info that often proves the face value “story” wrong.
I don't think you are correct. You are stating an opinion as though it's a done deal. Tons of people do know what the truth is. I am sure it will come out eventually. Also you said:
So if it's a choice between total ignorance and assigning some degree of truthfulness to an eyewitness report,
Again, and Beckwith can correct me, it's not Rondeau who is not trustworthy, it's what she was looking at. Kind of like witnesses at an accident scene - they know they saw something, but often what they saw had a different reality than what they think it was. Beckwith isn't saying Rondeau is lying, but the so-called documentation is fake.
I am well-aware of your site and signed up as a paying member. However, when I discovered that all "new" material was available to all readers, I rescinded my membership.
If you think Team Obama wants anyone to apply intelligence and reasoning to the birth certificate and related issues, you are quite wrong. They want people to blindly accept what is said and what documents which they have provided, including the COLB and the latest BC.
Intelligence, rather than obstinacy will get you to the most likely answer. One key area to be aware of is when multiple different documents of different provenances corroborate each other. For example, all BCs and related documents agree on the date and time of Obama's birth, even though they differ as to the location of birth. There are two possibilities: 1) They reflect the actual circumstances of his birth or 2) They are all copied from the same underlying document. My money is on the first hypothesis.
Similarly, a large number of accounts agree with the date and place of the wedding. Are we not to apply sound reason to this unlikely coincidence, also?
There is no reason why belief in the existence of the Obama marriage would help the Obama team in the least. In fact, as we know, in "Dreams," Obama's voice (Bill Ayers?) says that he is not certain that they were ever married. Michelle O has made similar statements.
What is important is to have a commitment to discovering the truth by the analysis of evidence and the application of sound reasoning. To do this, one needs to examine a wide range material, some of it original documents, some of it statements from trusted individuals, and some of it just plain hearsay. Then, when the facts disagree (which seems to happen all too often) you must come up with the best possible answer.
One thing I find galling is the widespread reference to Obama-related pictures. As we have discovered, the working assumption should be that the imaged are photoshopped. If, as in the case of some people on this board, you rely on photos of unknown provenance rather then a University of Washington transcript which has been acquired, in exact duplicate, in a demonstrated fashion all from the same source, you have real problems and truly serve the needs of Team Obama and make us look like fools.
I have no stake in whether they were truly married or not. I have a stake in finding the right answer. Until I see you reject some of the poppycock theories about switched babies, Stanley Ann as a nanny, changes to the well-documented timeline of Obama Sr's arrival and departure to the US, and one random quote about Anna Toots from that great work of fiction, "Dreams," you have zero credibility with me.
Sharon is not the source of that listing. If she has found a marriage certificate then why hasn’t she published it?
So let’s look at a totally different set of documents, Obama Sr’s passport file. In the memo from Harvard University, he acknowledges his marriage to Stanley Ann (and also, his Kenyan marriage?) and that she is studying in Washington state, though they confuse Washington State University with the University of Washington.
How could this treasure trove of authentic documents from an entirely independent information source be in agreement with all these other documents I have cited? Maybe it could be that it was true; there is no other economical reason to believe otherwise.
In terms of Sharon Rondeau, she has established credentials and works fore a paper, The Post and Email, which strives for accuracy on the confusing issue of the Obama birth narrative. Let me know when you or Fred Nerks get published to an authoritative source which edits and fact checks its submissions.
He also acknowledges a marriage to a woman in the Phillipines.
That would be 100 per cent incorrect:
"I actually captured an image of the page on which Mr. Obama’s name appears. In regard to the other indexes, I looked at the 1960-65 marriage index by groom and confirmed that Obama Sr. was listed there as a groom and Stanley Ann as the bride to confirm that there was a record that he was married to Stanley Ann. I also wanted to see if there was a record for Ann and Lolo, and I looked at the 1966-1970 groom marriage index, and it wasn’t in there, but I didn’t look for it in the 1960-65 groom marriage index. I also reviewed the bride index for 1960-65, and there were actually two entries in that one for Ann for both marriages.
Personally, if you don't think the researchers who post here have any credibility, that means less than nothing to me. Just since you pinged me I'm putting my .02 in. For the record, the research and comments I read from Beckwith, Brown Deer, Fred Nerks - to name a few - has a lot more credibility than your comments. You talk as though you "know" certain things are true, and that certain things are not true, just "because". Your reasoning amounts to your opinion - nothing more and nothing less. You seem to think that your opinion is much more weighty than others', and anything they find in support of their positions is worthless to you. Your perjorative words of scorn and derision display an attitude that is haughty, arrogant and not conducive to truth finding. And such superiority is based not on any factual evidence you've brought to the disucssion, but based on "everyone should believe what I say and not what others say, solely because I say it".
I have never posted any comment questioning anything Ms. Rondeau has said she has seen, or has written. As a matter of fact, I don't ever remember posting anything about Ms. Rondeau.
We just have another new poster that believes the crap running through his head is somehow connected to reality.
There are 8 gazillion posts on this forum that beat the same dead horses.
My position is, for those with limited reading comprehension, the only reliable documents are original, source documents.
Those of you that have a problem with my position can save themselves, and me, a lot of time and aggravation by discussing the false, forged, counterfeit, bogus, and ad hoc documents with others.
http://www:TheObamaFile.com
I did not know that was your blog. You have compiled just about the most awesomest collection of Obama information i've ever seen. Many searches that I do looking for specific Obama related info leads back to your blog. I have to say "Thank You, and Well done."
Okay, then why don't you directly come out and say that Fred Nerks' stories meet none of these criteria?
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.