Recent WND Inquiries Appear To Have Established Obama’s Birth In Hawaii

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/09/2011 | Leo Donofrio

[Fred Nerks]

pssst....might have been from that 'motorcycle accident' from when he went to Kenya in 1983...perhaps not all of the clan were prepared to go along with the 'return of the prodigal son' scenario?

Reconstructive surgery? Plastic ear, LOL!?

[Brown Deer]

As I mentioned earlier, I am proposing a scientific standard: Take all evidence, use Baye's theoretic techniques to help determine the probative value of each hypothesis, and use Occam's razor to select the most economical explanation, or set of explanations if we aren't able to narrow it down to a single explanation.

What an asinine statement!

There is nothing that I am saying that differs from my desire to find the truth.

[Brown Deer]

There you go again, mentioning FReepers behind their backs. YOU MUST BE the RUDEST PERSON ON FR!

[bgill]

There's a reason I sent you that last post which linked to genealogy research. I have done genealogy for many years and I used to be a county clerk. So, yes, these are public records and yes, they can be pawed through by the general public. Yes, I've pawed around in the back storage rooms and dusty basements and even old jail cells where old records have been stored or thrown and scattered across the floor. Many states began putting their records on microfilm back in the mid-80s to 1) have a back up of the records, 2) to be able to put the older books into storage because they were running out of shelf room (which by no means meant out of free public access), and 3) because some of the centuries old books were fragile and falling apart. Some years later, they took the microfilm/microfiche and transferred it to computer.

Per the link I gave you, each step removed from the original is one more step away from it being accurate and tamper proof:

1) The original certificate is the primary source, but even so, there could be errors in the date or name spellings, etc.

2) If they xeroxed the certificate or typed it onto another form for the marriage book, that could lead to typos or smudged xeroxing.

3) Then it was handwritten in the original index which could involve further mistakes or sloppy writing or page numbers switched with another certificate the clerk was entering.

4) A hair or bug or dust or whatever could obscure something when it was microfilmed. Or it could have been picture-snapped twice or out of order or completely skipped over. Or the focus blurred. Or the ink was too faint, etc.

5) Then, I promise you, the microfilmed index was what was used to type it into digital form. So, between the dust, hairs, sloppy writing, skipped documents, typos, etc. can you see how mangled the record becomes?

Not to mention the big volumes and the index books have loose pages which can be added to or subtracted. The exception would be the very old big volumes had the pages sewn into the spine and those didn't have a separate index. The problem is that tampering would be so easy - just unscrew the posts and slip in whatever forged page you wanted in a matter of 20 seconds. It'd be a tie between Sandypants folding papers and stuffing his socks and how long switching out these pages.

Also, if when Stanley Ann filed for divorce her lawyer had to enter a delayed marriage certificate, that wouldn't appear on the digital index because that index is a condensed form of what was in the original index (i.e. no volume/page number and there would be a grooms’ section and a brides’ maiden name section so you could cross reference). If there was a delayed filing, it would be at the back of those sections because, obviously, it would have been entered late. Same with any amendments/adoption/name change/etc. with the long form birth certificate. Since all we have is the digital index, we don't have any way to determine all those other red flags. And just how easy is it to hack into the HDOH to hit delete and type in Obama/Dunham, uh huh. IOW, we ain't got jack.

[bgill]

Ok, got that verified.

[Brown Deer]

He probably didn’t even have to fill out an application. ;-)

[dinodino]

Why don’t you pull out your passport and look at it?

I have mine in my hand. On mine, it says under endorsements, “SEE PAGE 27”. My passport has been extended and contains 52 pages—I just counted.

[dinodino]

I forgot to add: yes, the “SEE PAGE 51” bit is indeed referring to that page in the passport. Fifty pages may sound like a lot, but it’s really not when it comes to passports.

[Fractal Trader]

I fully realize that the marriage records are printed. In a perfect world, we would like to see the exact original documents and a hand-written index. However, if I go to my local registry of deeds, I am restricted entirely to the use of their computerized records. I suppose that a subpoena might do the trick, but that is not something that is available to your average everyday citizen. Unless you have subpoena power like Orly, you are going to have to deal with printed records.

The truth is that there will never be 100 per cent certainty with any document, especially as it relates to Obama. This given the case, the entirety of the document including the contents of the cells becomes exceedingly relevant. Additionally, you cannot throw at an entire document because of one alleged error.

It got me really pissed off when people were talking about the Lucas Smith BC that people would go on endless tirades about the correct spelling and legal status of Mombasa and the hospital there. You have to look at the entirety of the document rather than throwing it out because you think that you know, for sure, that the legal status of the Coastal Protectorate of Kenya was different than in that document.

So let's ask some basic questions:

Does it appear that the hospital existed at the time of birth?

Does the street address of the hospital correspond to public records?

How does the time of birth compare with other documents?

Do the signatories exist? Did they have the official capacity revealed in the document at the time the document was generated? Were they acquainted with the parties? -- Lucas hit a home run when he showed that the birth doctor was a personal friend of the Obama family.

Etc., etc.

What we have is a whole lot of evidentiary fragments, each with a different level of uncertainty about them. How does that level of uncertainty change when you apply the results outlined above? How many documents corroborate your belief?

In terms of the Obama/Dunham marriage, there are several documents that point to the same wedding date. There is the printed marriage indexes with the Hawaii DOH. There is the divorce decree in 1964. There is the reports from Harvard contained in the Obama Customs/Passport file. In fact, every mention of the marriage uses the same date. Am I 100 per cent certain that the date/existence of the marriage is correct? Certainly not. But, on the other hand, no one has presented any document, official or otherwise) that claims a different date, nor is there any specific document which claims they weren't married. Bottom line: There is a significant likelihood, corroborated by several different documents that they were, indeed, married.

That's all we have to deal with here is likelihoods. But certain documents can be highly revealing. The UW transcript, which exists in two different forms and had been provided to several requesters upon asking, links the "Anna Obama" street address in Seattle, her freshman UH transcript, and her (Mercer Island) high school transcript. Here we have four separate, unique characteristics of Stanley Ann that are all linked into one document.

When such evidence is examined forensically, it becomes indubitable that there was one Stanley Ann (often known as Annn -- see the Obamafile) who, for whatever reason, ended up in Seattle after Obama Jr's birth. And then, when you look at different statements from friends and baby sitters, you will see that, despite their various inconsistencies, they support the idea of the Seattle Anna Obama. I know people have made many complaints about such statements, but certain aspects of the stories (e.g., Stanley Ann's inability to change diapers) are quite distinct, memorable, and hard to invent on the fly.

We know that many of the people herein named have been instructed to avoid speaking to anyone, especially birthers, about her time in Seattle. There are stories that she told a gripping tale of being unable to get on a plane out of Hawaii. There are the missionaries in Kenya that remember her plight. THERE ARE THE BOGUS INVENTION OF OBAMA RECORDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE COMPLETE FABRICATIONS BY "THE ENEMY."

Absolutely nothing will ever be known with 100 per cent certainty. You have to look at the entirety of the evidence, not just official documents, to make a correct determination. You need to apply Occam's Razor: What is the most economical hypothesis that supports the entire range of evidence surrounding the question at hand, like the Seattle Anna Obama story.

I know I am using a scientific method and can give you specific citations to that fact. I am not going to claim that I have "the answer," but I will claim that my methods are sound, reasonable and basically match up with the concept of "evidence" in a court proceeding.

What's your methodology? What records have you ignored? Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just saying that you don't like where the evidence leads you? Have you incorporated the entire range of documents, from "official" documents, to corroborating documents, to confounding documents, to recollections of conversations, to hearsay that you picked up on one random website that has been repeated a half doze times, always without attribution or supporting evidence?

It is only by analyzing the totality of all evidence that you can even begin to make a reasoned hypothesis, especially given that we have seen forged documents, missing documents, photoshopped pictures, and that great work of fiction, "Dreams." I have laid out my methodology, what's yours?

[Fred Nerks]

btw, that scar looks like it almost killed him, have you ever wondered why Ayres wrote in ‘Dreams’ that zero was mistaken for ‘David’ in the street in Nairobi?

And zero explains that no, he’s not ‘David’ - ‘David’ was killed in a motor-cycle accident? Now remember, we are supposed to accept that zero’s first trip to Kenya was in 1986...but the death of ‘David’ is variously shown as 1984 and 1987:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/7368/recalling-jack-kemps-cameo-dreams-my-father

“...A bit of digging reveals that it is pretty tough to find when Obama’s half-brother David Ndesandjo died; some sites put it at 1987...”

http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/Barack-H-Obama-Sr.html

Photo: David Opiyo Obama (1968-1984), son of Barack H. Obama and baby brother of Abon’go Malik Obama.

And if that 1983 date is correct for the first trip to Kenya, then ‘David’ would still have been alive...if there was a ‘David’... which I very much doubt.

[thouworm]

Well! Both Obama, I assume. Can you/we approximate what years these photos were taken? Those ears don’t belong on the same head. Can you post the full photos, as well as the ear photos?

[Fred Nerks]

I didn’t create that composite, like so many other images in my collection, I picked that one up from a website...because I thought it was interesting. I do have a number of others, though not as spectacular...scroll through:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/385/260/Arrest_Obama_Hes_a_fraud_and_no_Commander_in_Chief.html

GOOGLE ‘OBAMA SCARS’

[thouworm]

Can’t get that link to work, but if they are both photos of Obama...those ears don’t belong on the same head.

[Fred Nerks]

Here's the full photo image:

For comparison, image from during the campaign...

[thouworm]

thanks; posted before I saw your latest post. This deserves a thread of its own. Body-double? Those ears do not belong on the same head.

[little jeremiah]

I believe the substitution took place when Zero was around 3. Dark boy - aka Roman Obama (not Roman at that time, the original BHO) is in the photo with Ruth and Obama standing, dark boy standing by Ruth, she’s holding Mark.

Zero went to HI (this is what I think happened) around age 3-ish, and Stanley was basically hired to take care of him, thus the fake “divorce” to give her custody.

[little jeremiah]

A little fear doesn’t make people rabid. Unless they have a big fat vested interest in the truth remaining unknown.

[Fred Nerks]

Reconstructive surgery IMO. See previous comments (’motorcycle accident’?) upthread. There has been a Post about it on FR, I’ll see if I can find it.

[Fred Nerks]

Mystery scars on Obama’s head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists
Daily Mail UK ^ | 6th April 2011

Posted on 04/08/2011 8:05:31 AM PDT by COUNTrecount

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2701672/posts

[Fred Nerks]

Mystery scars on Obama’s head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists
Daily Mail UK ^ | 6th April 2011

Posted on 04/08/2011 8:05:31 AM PDT by COUNTrecount

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2701672/posts