Doesn't matter, anyone with half a brain can tell that the boy on the left is the child we have been told grew up to become the POTUS and the other boy shows up in Kenya with his father and Ruth in the family group.
Posted on 11/06/2012 8:42:40 AM PST by Seizethecarp
To find out more about Obama’s time in Indonesia, TheBlaze tracked down Father Bart Janssen. He’s the elderly founder of Santo Fransiskus Assisis who we found in a monastery in Den Bosch, The Netherlands. We asked him, through a Dutch translator, what he remembers of the young Barack Obama.
Janssen doesn’t remember who registered Obama, but he recalls that Obama’s mother didn’t speak Indonesian at the time, so he thinks that both the stepfather and the mother would have been there together to register their son. He also doesn’t think the details in Obama’s registration document should be considered official declarations of his faith or citizenship because it wasn’t a government form and people played loose with such facts at the time. For example, it was typical to register as Indonesian and Islamic just because you were living there, so the religion indicated may just be what his father put down because it was the normal thing to do.
An exit after one term from the White House could act as a catalyst for more information more quickly. An Obama win, on the other hand, would likely keep any information – at least from the president himself — sealed for at least four more years.
Voters on Tuesday, then, may be deciding more than just who the next president is – they could help decide how much more we know about the one we have now.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
“Is Anna of Seattle really Stanley Ann? Maybe. If you were a single mother with a mixed-race child in 1961/1962 you probably have enough problems without using a mans name as your first name. But why not Ann instead of Anna. Anna is not used her anywhere else.”
Anna in Polk is at the SAME address that Ann registered to be her address at U of WA...the same address as Mary Toutonghi’s! Case closed.
“I see you have given up on the Frank Marshall Davis ravished the teenage daughter of a friend - because she was easy, posed for naked photographs - and had the hots for coloured men 35 years older? Care to tell us what happened that changed your mind?”
FMD was 55 when SADO was 17, IIRC. Men at age 55 are often still considered to be very attractive, at least in Hollywood, and frequently marry or have consensual sex with women in their 20’s and father children.
As I said, I am not convinced the naked pics were SAD. Newbies to forensic investigation always overstate their evidence and just because SAD might theoretically have posed nude just before Christmas 1960 when she was already pregnant, wouldn’t mean that FMD did the deed as the video promoter claimed. SAD could have been made “hapa” by BHO and THEN posed nude for FMD. Without DNA we won’t ever know.
But FMD did write porno about seducing underage girls inviting a belief that he did this. He was also married to a white woman, showing an inclination there. He had access to Commie fellow-travelers the Dunhams who I consider to have been KGB assets just like FMD and Stanley Armour and FMD had extensive FBI files.
If FMD knocked up SAD, he would have the means, motive and opportunity to look around for another black man to be designated the father, and BHO Sr. was there needing money. So there is a plausible conspiracy theory that is a candidate for reality.
But since you asked again, the reason I don’t personally believe FMD is the dad (this is belief here) is the resemblance of Barry to his half-brother, David, as I have repeatedly reminded you.
I read the other day that his next swearing in will be private. Real name? Koran?
Nightmare.
I don’t know about them all being on the same team - remember the photo on the day of inauguration with Cheney looking at him “funny”.
I think many were threatened and they’re just cowards (the ones not on the bandwagon). Or just plain scared to upset the applecart since it would impinge their own comfy perks, nest, retirement etc.
Note my tagline, about courage...
There is no documented evidence I have seen of any intimate relationship, marriage or child between BHO Sr. and any Filipina anywhere. If any FReeper has such evidence, particularly contemporaneous evidence, please post it or drop the Filipina references! There is no there there that I have seen.
The “Auntie thread” is worthless, IMO. Read the Mal-Val thread!
And David’s research found that the U of W transcript or whatever it was, was forged. So using that as evidence that SAD went to the U of W at that time is useless.
And anyone reading with an open mind will see that Mary’s statements definitely indicate an “Anna” with a baby months earlier than the myth timeline. So that brings into question everything else. SAD would have had to get pregnant way earlier than the timeline, I guess age 16, before her parents even went to HI!
SAD cannot be stuffed or crammed into Seattle during that time frame, it’s really clear.
One wonders why Seizure keeps pushing the mythology so rabidly.
Odd.
Doesn't matter, anyone with half a brain can tell that the boy on the left is the child we have been told grew up to become the POTUS and the other boy shows up in Kenya with his father and Ruth in the family group.
bluecat6 and All:
Fred Nerks is trying to persuade you in this post that BHO had a different (Filipina) wife and child than SADO and Barry and that this other wife left BHO and went to Seattle with her half Filipino baby, NOT SADO.
Yet with his brilliant picture archive at hand FN has provided verifiable contemporaneous evidence in the INS FOIA docs available to any court in which BHO Sr admits being married to “Ann S. Dunham”...
“He crossed out the name of a person in the ‘wife’ section and wrote Ann S Dunham. Clever. That was 27 days after the ‘birth’ iirc.”
...in the same month that Barry was born (known to BHO Sr. or not). These same INS records reported the “hapa” (pregnant) condition of a coed by BHO Sr. and affirm the Feb 2, 1961 marriage date to that coed reported by U of HI officials and in the HI vital record birth index. The INS FOIA records affirm that the wife BHO has admitted to was living with her parents (address of parents in Aug 1961 same as in newspaper birth birth announcements) and the INS docs confirm the INTENT of the wife to GO TO WA to attend college in the fall of 1961.
Yet FN thinks you and other FReepers are so gullible that they will fall for a total fabrication of mysterious alternate wife and child of BHO as being the ones who went to Seattle, NOT Stanley Ann and Barry...but they went to Seattle somehow a year earlier so that it was that baby that was babysat by Mary Toutonghi and that other Filipina wife/mother that was listed in Seattle Polk in the name Anna S. Obama...at the same address that appears on Stanley Ann Dunham’s U of WA transcript! How delusional is that?
How gullible to you have to be to fall for this? How delusional do you have to be to put this up on FR over and over again?
The above is what Fred Nerks is getting at when he cryptically says:
“He crossed out the name of a person in the ‘wife’ section and wrote Ann S Dunham. Clever. That was 27 days after the ‘birth’ iirc. Imagine, Frank has worked his magic and arranged for the birth announcement of a son to Mr & Mrs Obama...Ann S Obama is shown in the Polk directory, now all the kenyan has to do is enter Ann S Dunham and he’s replaced the wife who left him...and took THEIR child to Seattle, but why would he acknowledge a son he never had?”
Fred Nerks seems to think FMD arranged all of this because he ran an organization that tried to keep “foreign born” Commies from being deported for disloyalty.
You are nothing but a cheap little obot and your reading comprehension is that of a ten-year-old:
Mary Toutonghi who now lives in Soldatna Alaska, (2) recalls Barack as ³a really alert baby, very happy and a good size². She does not remember him ever crying (although she adds she is sure he likely did but does not remember any undue fussing). She recalls as best she can the dates she baby sat Barack as her daughter was 18 months old and was born in July of 1959 and that would have placed the months of baby sitting Barack in January and February of 1962. [Note: 9/3/09: I believe Mary's daughter was older than what she remembered which would account for the age discrepency].
This is David and Mark Obama circa 1970.
Not Barry and Roman Obama, a half-Filipino all according to Fred Nerks who party girl Ruth Baker mysteriously agrees to raise in Nairobi. The timeline can’t work for Barry and Roman and any sane person will realize that.
Did you know that Fred Nerks want you to believe that David Obama doesn’t exist and was invented as part of a conspiracy to hide the identity of Barry who is really the son of Malcolm X and that Roman Obama, whose original name was also Barack Hussein Obama, was forced to surrender his name to Barry protect Barry as the secret child of Malcolm X and Lebanese Valerie Sarruf?
It is all explained in the Mal-Val thread
http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/senior.htm
See link for images.
Aside from the image of a long-form birth certificate released by the White House April 27, 2011 – a document Sheriff Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation has found probable cause to believe is a forgery – what documentary evidence is there that Barack Obama was the biological father?
The recent biography of the president by Washington Post editor and author David Maraniss, “Barack Obama: The Story,” quotes concerns about Obama Sr.’s sexual promiscuity expressed by Immigration and Naturalization Service officers, but he dimisses them as racially motivated.
Maraniss, on pages 162-163, examines a 1961 INS memo that indicates Obama Sr. continued to have multiple girlfriends at the University of Hawaii after his supposed marriage, Feb. 2, 1961, in Maui to Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
In the memo, written by a Lyle H. Dahlin, Obama Sr.’s student adviser, a Mrs. McCabe, indicated Obama Sr. was “very intelligent” but had been a “playboy,” “running around with several girls” since he arrived. The adviser also noted he was married to an American, though he already had a wife in Kenya.
Maraniss writes regarding the memo: “There was a fine line between how Obama acted and the racial attitudes and expectations of those who were working with him, the unanswerable but valid question being whether the official concern was heightened because he was a black man interacting with white women.”
However, a close analysis of the INS documents in Obama Sr.’s immigration file makes clear Maraniss either misunderstood the true concerns of the INS or misrepresented them.
The primary concern of the INS, according to the memos, was not that Obama Sr. was sexually involved with white women, but that he might have engaged in a sham marriage to Dunham so he could remain in the U.S. or gain U.S. citizenship.
The INS documents indicate authorized government immigration agents suspected the evidence for an Obama-Dunham marriage was thin, and doubts that the Kenyan was the biological father were substantial.
The Dahlin memo
In the first paragraph of the Dahlin memo, shown below as Exhibit 1 (click on photo to enlarge), the officer poses the question of whether Obama broke any laws if he married Dunham while he was still married to a Kenyan.
Exhibit 1: INS file by Lyle H. Dahlin. Click to enlarge.
Paragraph three articulates the next problem: If Obama was “running around with several girls” at the university, did Obama’s continued promiscuity suggest he was not married to Dunham or that it was a sham marriage?
Evidently, the best McCabe could get out of Obama was a less-than-credible promise that he would “try” to stay away from the girls.
The last two sentences of the third paragraph appear to be Obama’s rebuttal to an accusation of bigamy: He apparently explained to McCabe that he was divorced from his wife in Kenya because Kenya did not require anything more than a husband expressing to his wife a desire to terminate the marriage.
The fourth paragraph dismisses the bigamy concern, explaining Obama was in the United States not as an immigrant seeking U.S. citizenship but on a temporary student visa under which suspicion of polygamy was insufficient to support a deportation charge.
The last paragraph indicates that if Dunham, as a “U.S. citizen wife,” were to petition for Obama Sr. to receive permanent residence status as an immigrant on track to citizenship, the INS should conduct an investigation to make sure the alleged marriage was legitimate.
Contrary to Maraniss’ assertion, the INS officers didn’t appear to be concerned about the interracial nature of the Kenyan’s sexual activities at the university.
What was of concern was that Obama Sr. and Dunham were not living together as husband and wife, and their marriage might have been arranged for immigration purposes.
Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(c), current immigration law specifies that any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws is subject to up to five years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000, or both.
In 1961, the INS, in investigating suspected marriages of convenience, would interview the two individuals separately and ask questions about the personal, often intimate, habits of the alleged mate.
Give the baby to the Salvation Army?
WND previously reported Boston Globe reporter Sally H. Jacobs had access to an INS file in which the memo seen in Exhibit 1 was displayed without redaction.
As seen in Exhibit 2, this version of the letter permits reading of part of the third paragraph.
Exhibit 2: Lyle H. Dahlin memo without redaction. Click to enlarge.
In the third sentence of the third paragraph, the Dahlin memo adds the detail that McCabe reported the Kenyan had gotten Dunham pregnant, a fact that would have been consistent with the marriage being legitimate.
Except, Dahlin adds, McCabe reported that the Kenyan and Dunham did not live together and Obama Sr. and Dunham were contemplating giving the baby away to the Salvation Army.
The facts suggest a sham marriage arranged for immigration purposes only: a supposedly married couple who do not live together, a “husband” with multiple girl friends on the side and a baby neither parent seems determined to raise.
INS suspicion of the marriage is further reinforced by the handwritten note at the end of the memo. Dahlin makes clear an apparent superior officer within the INS section agreed that the facts did not merit deportation for the Kenyan, a non-immigrant student in the USA on a temporary visa. But an investigation would be warranted if he sought to further extend his visa.
Dating the Dahlin memo
The only date on the Dahlin memo is the handwritten April 12, 1961, preceding the handwritten note at the bottom of the document. That date indicates the memo was written while Dunham was pregnant, less than four months before the baby’s birth.
The decision to give away the baby to the Salvation Army after Obama Sr. “got” Dunham pregnant must have caused the INS to wonder precisely what kind of relationship existed between the two.
The memo indicates Obama Sr. might have been testing the waters to see what impact claiming a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child would have on the INS. Officials would question whether he was the natural father or if he was merely the “stand-in” father, covering up an embarrassing situation.
If the Kenyan were actually the father and the marriage to Dunham legitimate, why not press the claim that the U.S. citizen wife and the U.S. citizen child established a basis for changing the Kenyan’s status with the INS from a non-immigrant student seeking only a temporary stay to an immigrant seeking permanent residence on the path to becoming a U.S. citizen?
But then, why would Obama Sr., as the biological father, want to give the baby to the Salvation Army if the marriage with Dunham were legitimate?
The Dahlin memo, written while Dunham was pregnant, raises the question of whether or not Obama married Dunham at all.
If the Kenyan merely wanted a sexual relationship with Dunham, why marry her?
There is no evidence he proposed marriage to any of his allegedly many girlfriends at the university, so what made Dunham different?
If he was not committed to living with Dunham and raising the baby, why bother getting married?
Pieced together, the available evidence supports the theory the Obama-Dunham marriage was a cover-up from the start, designed to designate Obama as the father, without any expectation the two would ever live as husband and wife or that he would help raise the baby.
The factual record is that Obama Sr. never used marriage to a U.S. citizen or the fathering of a child in the U.S. to bolster his immigration status, even though it could have enabled him to remain in the U.S. without having to apply for yearly extensions.
Dahlin may well have been instructed by superiors to communicate to Obama Sr. and to Dunham that an attempt to use the marriage and child as a reason to change the Kenyan’s immigration status would have led to a full-scale INS investigation.
Obama’s 1961 application to extend stay in U.S.
Further evidence that the marriage to Dunham was a sham is provided by a close examination of the next document to occur chronologically in Obama Sr.’s INS file – an alien student application to extend the time of a temporary stay in the U.S. and to request permission to accept employment. It was filed with the INS Aug. 31, 1961, as seen below in Exhibits 3 and 4.
Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.’s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 1. Click to enlarge.
Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.’s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 2. Click to enlarge.
The document notably was filled out in Honolulu some 28 days after the baby was born.
There is a six-and-a-half-month time period in which there is no record of Dunham’s whereabouts – from Jan. 31, 1961, when she concluded her first semester at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, until Sept. 25, 1961, when the University of Washington at Seattle documents she was enrolled for extension classes on campus.
Nothing in the Dahlin memo documents where Dunham was in April 1961, when it was written.
Interestingly, Obama Sr.’s temporary stay visa expired Aug. 9, 1961, some five days after the baby was born, as indicated by his answer to Box 13.
Clearly, Obama Sr. had to be concerned about the extension of his student visa in April 1961. It would have been convenient to have a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child being newly born just as his student visa was expiring.
Yet, the application to extend the temporary stay provides more evidence the story of a U.S. citizen wife and child was not credible. In Box 2, Obama Sr. indicated he was living at 1482 Alencastre Street in Honolulu. However, Dunham was living at her parents home at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address listed in the birth announcements published in the Honolulu newspapers.
The INS would have regarded the fact the supposed parents did not live together as additional evidence the alleged marriage was a marriage of convenience arranged to commit immigration fraud.
Even more interesting, in the extension of Box 7, the Kenyan blacked out the first name he wrote for his wife, then penciled in “Ann S. Dunham, Honolulu, Hawaii.” Her named, however, was Stanley Ann Dunham, or S. Ann Dunham.
Then, in the space below Box 7, Obama Sr. did not list Barack Hussein Obama II as his son – an omission that is hard to understand if the child supposedly was born earlier that month.
The Woods memo
An additional document from Obama Sr.’s INS file is relevant: a handwritten memo dated Aug. 31, 1961, by William Wood, as seen in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5: Barack Obama Sr. INS File, Woods Memo, Aug. 31, 1961. Click to enlarge.
The memo’s use of the term “claims” suggests the information came from Obama Sr., possibly at an in-person meeting with an officer at the INS office when he filled out and filed his visa extension form.
The memo confirms Dunham was leaving Hawaii to attend school in Seattle, an additional factor the INS would have examined had an investigation been undertaken into the legitimacy of the marriage and the fatherhood of the child.
In the last paragraph, the memo notes the child was living with the mother at the home of the grandparents, while the Kenyan was living at the Alencastre Street address – facts that did not need to be seriously considered if the only relevant question in extending Obama Sr.’s visa was whether or not he was then a student in good standing.
Interesting, the note appended to the memo suggests the information the Kenyan provided raised serious questions about the wife and child that would need to be answered if he were applying for more than a temporary stay.
Given that the INS was not going to conduct an investigation, the Woods memo appears to document only what the Kenyan said and did not determine whether or not the claims were true.
While Obama Sr.’s INS files do not prove he was not the father of the future president, they provide ample documentation the officer was skeptical the Kenyan was legitimately married to Dunham and/or was the biological father of Barack Obama II.
By deciding to stay with the temporary student visa status, the Kenyan obviated the need for an INS investigation that might have uncovered in 1961 that the marriage was fraudulent and the biological father of the child was someone else.
Goodbye, Seizethecarp, I’m going to leave you with your grand illusions and your malignant personallity disorder. Life’s too short to argue with a fool. Have a Happy Christmas.
“She recalls as best she can...”
If the reporter says “as best she can” that is because she herself said she was trying to remember “as best she can.” This would be a normal admission by an old lady that her 50-year-old memory could be spotty in places.
Anything such a hearsay witness says as recounted by a reporter cannot be treated as fact and MUST BE CORROBORATED especially if it conflicts with other known facts. This is what the reporter did when he noted: “[Note: 9/3/09: I believe Mary’s daughter was older than what she remembered which would account for the age discrepency].” The reporter had other facts that made Mary Toutonghi’s timeline impossible.
“And David’s research found that the U of W transcript or whatever it was, was forged.”
David didn’t do research, he relied on his memory as a U of WA student at the same time, IIRC, and said that his transcript was hand-written.
But David’s assumption as to the date of the underlying transcript document was wrong, as I explained to him in the Mal-Val thread, IIRC.
The U of WA transcript was a computer generated transcript form from a database that contained inputs from SADO’s original hand-written record but was NOT that original record that David was claiming it should have been.
Having lived through the automation of university records in those decades and looking at the additional items typed onto the face of this computer generated form I estimated that the underlying transcript printout dated from about 1970. Onto this printout was typed Stanley Ann Soetoro’s subsequent degrees from U of HI in the 1960’s and 1970’s and those dates of graduation proving conclusively that this image was NOT a 1961 transcript image which should have been hand written as David erroneously claimed when he pronounced it to be forged.
Note that this genuine U of WA transcript not only confirms that SADOS was there, but confirms her HS transcript and graduation in WA, something that Fred Nerks also denies based on no corroborated evidence whatsoever.
“If SAD were the mother and BHO the father, and the DOB and place were accurate, there would have been no need for a forgery.”
The original BC was sealed and archived after the Soetoro adoption. Later, the Soetoro adoption was annulled and the original BC could have been unsealed and used as Obama’s verification of live birth in Hawaii.
Why was the original BC not unsealed when the Soetoro adoption was annulled?
Good question. Before Concerned Freepers demand I provide verifiable proof of Obama’s protected, private records, I can only speculate why the original was not unsealed and used after the Soetoro adoption was annulled.
1) Stanley Ann, 1971, testified BHO Sr was not the father and did not have a right to contest the Soetoro Adoption in 1971. In 1961, she had signed a sworn affidavit (the original long form BC) the information on the vital record was accurate. She contradicted herself in 1971.
The judge, in Hawaii, after hearing and examining evidence, decided BHO Sr was the father and a new COLB would have to be created with BHO Sr as the father and Stanley Ann’s sworn affidavit removed because she contradicted herself, under oath, in 1971.
2) The document provided to the White House is stamped with a statement; such as, “Sealed by order of the Court.” Obama doesn’t want people to know the Soetoro adoption was annulled.
Postscript: Statements labeled 1) and 2) are my opinion and should not be construed as verified fact.
“Then, in the space below Box 7, Obama Sr. did not list Barack Hussein Obama II as his son – an omission that is hard to understand if the child supposedly was born earlier that month.”
Here is how I look at this from a fit the curve view. This is for consumption as a plausible scenario. It is not a claim of fact:
- He knew he got SAD pregnant.
- No one at the Dunham house was happy about this (understandable).
- Obama does not want to marry. And family probably does not want him to marry.
- She is set back stateside to stay with her ‘aunt’. After all grandma is now a VP of a bank. Unmarried, pregnant daughter is not good to have around in that role.
- Obama knows what he started but now has no contact after what ever discussions/yelling/etc. is done by all parties.
- Now, almost a month after baby is born - HE DOES NOT KNOW. But he knows he got SAD preggie and knows that if he is not married to her that itself may be an INS problem OR he can possibly leverage it as indicated. So he does claim her as wife but he has no specifics on child.
- Family keeps her stateside until he is gone from island. Then, she comes home. Only after the troublemaker has left and unlikely to return in near future.
Note to this: It is possible that the background of the LFBC is authentic. The 9’s mean - not stated. If the family or SAD wanted no legal connection to Obama Sr. at that time it seems those 9’s would be the correct entry for not declaring a father. That is regardless of Obama was the father or someone else was.
After he is gone and the baby needs a name (and maybe mom needs a past to explain to Lolo) a divorce is done to solidify the story - legally.
So this is a scenario for that omission. He did not know since he was cut from SAD by the family and probably by a few hundred miles of ocean.
David didn’t do research, he relied on his memory as a U of WA student at the same time, IIRC, and said that his transcript was hand-written.
But David’s assumption as to the date of the underlying transcript document was wrong, as I explained to him in the Mal-Val thread, IIRC.
The U of WA transcript was a computer generated transcript form from a database that contained inputs from SADO’s original hand-written record but was NOT that original record that David was claiming it should have been.
That rendition is false.
First place, I have furnished a true and correct copy of a transcript confirming my account of the procedure and process and demonstrating why the purported Stanley transcript is fraudulent. There remains no doubt.
I have not posted the transcript because although I have blacked out names and other information, the process of leaving sufficient information on the transcript to confirm its authenticity might make it possible for someone to identify the record to an individual and I am not willing to do that for obvious reasons.
No, I didn't rely exclusively on my memory--although my memory is pretty sound and proves accurate, I have producing a transcript proving it.
None of the socalled Stanley transcripts is certified or supported by reliable original entry documents. As I set out in my analysis of the WND documents, there is a purported original entry document on a form which was in use in later periods. That document was not in use in the purported Stanley at the University of Washington time period and did not meet the procedural requirements in place in 1961 to confirm authenticity of transcript records.
In the 1960 era, the transcript form was part of an integrated process to authenticate the record and to provide a method for producing a certificate of the record with a minimum of delay and effort.
The entire student academic record was maintained on the three column form in handwriting. The forms were incorporated in a locked binder and the University had a copy process to provide an image of the original record without removing the transcript.
The forms were not typed.
I have never contended that the computer generated document was anything other than a purported later production represented to be a restatement of the original record. I believe that is what the purported letter from the U of W claims. The problem is that there is no original record which supports the computer printout.
And when Dr. Corsi sought copies of the original record documentation from the U, he received the typewritten two column form as the purported original record. My contention is that form is fraudulent for the reasons set forth.
And frankly, I also view the purported computer generated record as suspicious by itself. Published and certified transcript records originally entered in accordance with the procedure in effect in 1961 were produced by photocopy of the original record with a red letter stamp and seal affixed to the face and an original signature on the stamped certificate block--what was delivered as a certified record was not a subsequent production but rather a photocopy of the original entry document itself.
And I have seen certified transcripts produced by that method in recent times (not yesterday). I recognize the possibility that the University may have changed its procedure to use the computer print out but I have never seen a true certified transcript produced by that method and in the context of this particular set of documents, I am suspicious.
There is simply no room for argument that the purported Stanley at the University of Washington documents are anything other than fraudulent.
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.