“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.
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.