Posted on 07/19/2012 5:28:21 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.
The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailypen.blogspot.com ...
I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that if the sign was there and was deliberately cropped from the image, the photograph might just as well have been taken in any other town or city in the US.
Without a yearbook, there’s no way you could tell.
Leaving aside the photoshopping issues, the fact that just about every single photo is cropped shows very clearly that there is stuff in the photos they do not want us to see.
And why would that be? Why is there stuff in all these photos they don’t want us to see?
Why, it would destroy the “narrative”, the “story”.
Didn’t I see a written thing on a photo saying “Thank you, mom for saving your yearbook”?
Where’s the yearbook? Why won’t she show it to anyone? Is that Box’s daughter who wrote that or someone else?
I just dont know where i first saw it- but it is certified from the post by fred.. It does look like a chopped up version of the hawaii one though.. I have no idea why it would be hand written eather.. if we had some of the same year to compair with would tell the scoop
What bothers me the most about this photo is that it was taken at night, so there had to be some sort of flash to light the foreground and the faces. Yet there are no natural shadows from any of the people on the ground, except for the rear of the younger boy squatting near the center and the leg of the man next to him. Must have been a powerful flash, but they aren't squinting.
David Maraniss who provides the Balloon Boy with Genevieve produces a wider shot of the Girl Who Wasn't There.Not only is she the only one who forgot her sweater.
She is the only one not looking at the camera.
The only one not smiling for the shot.
The only one not bending her elbow.
At least three in the second row (Jones, Hayward and King) are cut off to our right, to Space Girl's left.
It's as though she were dropped into the shot digitally.
Like Tourist Girl in her trenchcoat:
She's not the Girl With Bette Davis Eyes--she's the girl with Zombie Body-Snatcher Eyes
No vest and her arm is not bent in conformity. Defiant, if not an aberration.
Daughter also says, that's my mom standing next to...Stanley Ann...(I just inadvertently cropped the top off that image, but that text is there where I previously posted the image.)
That indicates the girl from the French Club image, you can see her THREE times in a composite.
Because the same girl appears as 'her mother' in the French Club Group on the daughters webpages:
The question then arose, is that rather plain looking girl (in the centre) the daughter refers to really her mother, or might it have been one of these three girls? We try not to make obvious mistakes...
However, the question answers itself by the image Maraniss shows, because there's a name for the girl, one to the left of Stanley...(who he tells us is Maxine Box.)
All very innocent mistakes, right? Not meant to confuse? Bamboozled by experts, more like it. Silly Maraniss - thanks to him, the last piece of the puzzle falls into place.
So, you might think, well there she is, and her name is in the list of names with the image he shows us, although it took an hour or more to sort out the gibberish. But if that list of names isn't genuine, AND IT DOESN'T SAY STANLEY ANN DUNHAM...what have you?
...and his 'mother and stepfather' didn't claim him as a dependant on their 1973 tax return for the income in Hawaii...welcome aboard, you're on the right track, (but keep your images smaller, we don't want to be ticked off for wasting band-width.)
Using this larger photo to make the following observation. DM said SADO was 4th from right.
“Stanley Ann (top row, fourth from right, without vest)”
You identified that young woman as Maxine Box (post #1461)-—as depicted in what we can see.
BUT, look at the “official” names and the placement of commas after each name. The original picture had 22 girls -— 11 in each row.
ACCRA GHANA APRIL 1964.
I have absolutely no idea.
The image is cropped on both left and right...her name wasn’t Stanley Jones.
I don’t get what you are trying to say, he identified Maxine as Stanley Ann Dunham. But her name appears (Stanley) as the girl far right, back row.
Have you worked out the name of the mother yet? (I’ve got a huge headache now)
I looked at it again...the names for the back row don’t make any sense at all, it’s almost as he didn’t know who they were, or who-ever put the image together with the caption was off with the pixies.
Look at the “official names” for the first row and the second row.
Don’t focus on the names (for the moment)-— just count the commas.
Doing so indicates there were 11 girls in each row. That also reveals how Stanley could be said as being 4th from the right.
Interesting point about night/flash/no shadows.
Maybe that was mentioned before, I just don’t remember. What a melange.
The year of 1964 began with Malcolm X having called the JFK assassination "chickens coming home to roost" December 1963.Censured by NOI and forbidden to speak for 90 days he broke with the organization.
That was March 8. On the 26th he met with MLK for one minute.
April 13 he departed for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
April 19 he completed the Hajj.
July 9 he returned to Africa.
He stopped in Paris November 23.
He returned to USA November 24.
His home was firebombed February 14, 1965.
He was murdered February 21, 1965 at the Audubon Ballroom.
His speech December 1964 at the Oxford Union appears in tape and transcription (with a photo of him at the event) at http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2010/12/malcolm-x-ascended-extremism-in-defense.html
There isn’t any innocent reason to crop the names and the girls. Or for the ridiculous “mistakes” about which girl is next to Stanley.
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.
