same child...little zero with a hammer...but where was that photograph taken, and how did the dark boy and zero end up sitting together...
btw, the image of the two little boys has been removed from the Mark Ndesandjo website.
Posted on 12/17/2011 9:58:17 PM PST by Seizethecarp
“...and that you should answer the questions put to you even when you find.....”
Reviewing your posts to me reveals not one question, other than a rhetorical one about my opinion of the current USSC justices, put to me..... so I have no idea what you are talking about.
You’re welcome.
same child...little zero with a hammer...but where was that photograph taken, and how did the dark boy and zero end up sitting together...
btw, the image of the two little boys has been removed from the Mark Ndesandjo website.
Interesting - now I remember that the photo of the two boys was removed. IMO the photo of baby Barry with the hammer is in HI, or some other tropical/subtropical location. I lived in HI for many years and older houses were very often built off the ground with exactly those kinds of boards covering the underneath part. The plant is familiar looking, could be a variety of croton, and houses often had those outside utility sinks. I washed clothes in one just like it in 1970.
And as has been noted, the two boys photo looks like studio phototraph. Maybe the two boys were in HI before the “real” BHOII left for - where ever he went?
Of course the zero with hammer photo could have been taken in any tropical/subtropical location. I wonder how old - looks like about 2 1/2 to me.
"The boy on the left is zero, the dark boy on the right is the son of the kenyan, the same dark child is approx four years of age standing with Ruth and his father, while Ruth holds Mark who was apparently born after Ruth arrived in Kenya - she married the kenyan on Christmas Eve in 1964 we are told - and the child Mark whom she is holding is about one year old."
I disagree with Fred Nerks claim in #160 that there are different boys shown in the two pictures. The same boys are six months to a year older in the studio picture compared to the family picture, IMO. In the studio picture, the younger child's knee is visible and reaches mid-thigh on the older child.
Remember that Barry and Africans in general tend to be short-waisted and longer legged, so when sitting they can appear shorter and younger then Europeans, as Barry does. The older boy has quite a bit of long bone growth compared to the younger boy and could be between two and three years older, IMO.
Mark has been silent on his year of birth but it has been put in 1965 while David's has been said to be 1968. A very late birth of Mark in 1965 and a very early birth of David in 1968 would make the age difference closer to two years.
If, as all of you insist, that younger child being held by Ruth is Mark, and given Mark was born in 1965 (at least in Kenya) and you say the other child is between one and two years older, then that older child would have been born in 1963 or 1964!
This would be two to three years after Barry's 1961 birth and three to four years after what I understand to be your mystery Seattle baby's birth...that being the alleged child of "Anna Obama" (not SADO) that was babysat by Toutonghi in February of 1961?
It seems clear that a child supposedly babysat by Mary Toutonghi in Seattle in February 1961 or landed on a dock in a bassinet in 1959 cannot be only one to two years younger than the youngest child of a couple who's first child was born in 1965.
Sooooo...how about your best guess as to the year of the photo?
Would that be connected to Roberts swearing him in again privately? That has always been a very strange red flag of something or other.
From what I can understand (and hopefully Fred Nerks or David will chime in), the baby in the bassinet in the dock photo, is the darker boy. He is the "real" or original BHOII. The son of the Kenyan and Anna Obama. Mark is the son of the Kenyan and Ruth. Zero (who is now using the name BHOII) was most likely born around 1961 to another mother and father, elsewhere, making him one and half or so years younger than the dark boy. And thus about four years older than Mark, if Mark was born in 1965. There is no photo that I've seen showing Mark and zero together as children.
Thanks, that was a very helpful comment.
It is disputable to say a person is not natural born if he was born on American soil but his parents weren’t.
What is definitely indisputable is if a person is not born in America, he is definitely not natural born.
IMO, 0 has not shown he was born in the United States.
I assume your reference to the "studio picture" is to the picture we refer to as the two boys picture?
I assume further that your contention is that the baby Ruth is holding in the third picture which is a studio picture, who I believe you recognize is also the same little boy as the baby she is holding in the family picture; your contention being that baby is the same as the younger boy in the two boys picture?
If my assumptions are correct, your contention is wrong--the smaller boy in the two boys picture is not the baby as Ruth is holding in either the family picture or in the third picture. You ought to be able to tell that by looking at their chins. Both Mark and BHO II have inherited their father's recessed chin; zero is not related to BHO Senior and has a protruding chin as indicated also in the tricycle picture. The second smaller boy in the two boys picture is zero.
We do not know for sure what BHO II's birthdate was nor do we have the name of the mother on that birth certificate. We believe that the Anna name is actually a variation such as Adrianna or Maryanna. I believe I had access to that birth certificate in late 2007 but I missed the both the issue of birth date and mother's name and have no way now to reach information on the certificate.
We believe that BHO II who is the darker boy was most probably born in March of 1959; the alternate possibility is January 1959. His current web page says he was born in March however some Moslem sects appear to use their conception date as a birthdate--I believe zero uses his presumed conception date has his birthdate. So for BHO II, that would use a March 58 conception date and birth in January 59.
I have told you that David does not exist as a separate person--they have a number of different stories about his period and death; I believe one of their few mistakes is in failing to have coordinated a common story. David is simply the name they used for BHO II where they had a person for whom they needed a name.
We believe Zero was born July 15, 1960.
You got that right...and that's because Mark was born in Kenya sometime in 1965, and the only photographs we have seen of Mark as a child is as a baby with Ruth, and as a toddler, again being held by Ruth, in the family group.
Sooo...What year was the family photo taken, do you think, and does that year fit with the ages of the boys in your scenario?
Would that be connected to Roberts swearing him in again privately? That has always been a very strange red flag of something or other.
Yes. Apparently there are several different renditions of the second swearing in event. One involves the presence of Dick Cheney.
Cheney is the Constitutional officer charged with certifying the election of the person to be sworn in. So if I were the lawyer charged with perpetuating this fiction on the American people, I would have Cheney certify that BHO II is a name used as nominee by xxx who is the person who actually received the most electoral votes and then swear him in as xxx.
I don't know that does any good but where they are is exposed to having someone say well, BHO II got the most votes for President--we should move him in to the White House. Not likely to happen but it would certainly call attention to the issue.
And another comment about Anna living with the Dunhams at the Kalanianiole Hwy Address. So it seems the Dunhams knew Obama the Kenyan and Anna Obama and helped her. I wonder what the connection was. Communist party connections? Freepmail coming your way.
My guess is as good as anyone’s; Mark looks to be around 2 1/2, he looks as though he’s long for his age. So that would make it 1967? And the dark boy, the first son of Obama the Kenyan, born in 1959 would be 8. Looks a bit short for 8 though.
While all of this is fun there is one person who knows the truth and facts - Gilardy H William Jr.
Someone should stick a camera in his face and ask him what the facts are.
I want to see what was presented to the court as ID for the child she was given custody of.
Thanks for laying that out, too.
Sooo...What year was the family photo taken, do you think, and does that year fit with the ages of the boys in your scenario?
As you can see, the ages and dates dont’ seem to work. Fred Nerks just insisted that there was three or fewer years difference in age. There is no way the dark boy is 8 unless he is some sort of “little person” and that has not be introduced into the scenario, IIRC.
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.