“What happens if the claims in a government record cannot be corroborated by the legally-required paper trail? For instance, Alex Galovich at the Passport Office submitted in Chris Strunk’s FOIA lawsuit an early-80’s DOS “cable” claiming that millions of passport applications had been destroyed, but the retention schedule had never been changed, the IG had given a report recommending changes based on the fact that the retention schedules were not GOING to change, records of the destruction were not made, DOS has been charging people to do searches of these records that were supposedly destroyed, and records supposedly destroyed have been easily found. THat being the case, would you find that “cable” to be credible/genuine?”
The April 12, 1961 INS FOIA letter was NOT easily found. See Corsi’s article here:
http://www.wnd.com/2011/11/365749/
Missing documents are one thing (too many to list) but claimed historic document can be forensically examined as to type face and investigated as to named persons. I have seen no challenge to the April 12, 1961 letter. It can also be cross-corroborated with documents in other government archives and the players, residences, time-frames are affirmed in the UH and UW transcripts, divorce record, (and the near worthless newspaper announcements in TWO papers in multiple archives) for SADO as well as the commercial Polk registries for HI and WA.
Any one of these can be questioned but they cross-confirm as far as I can see. There is no conclusive evidence of forgery as there is for any of the foregoing as there is for the LFBC pdf and the selective service registration, IMO.
I should have elaborated and said that the documents that were easily found were the passport applications for Phil Jacobsen’s mother, which should have been destroyed if that early-1980’s DOS “cable” was accurate but were easily found by the Passport office in a 2010(?) request that Phil made. The records that were missing weren’t just average, run-of-the-mill, easily-lost records for an individual but the record of a records retention change - making permanent records disposable. The government record that DOES exist shows that there weren’t any retention period changes for those records - contradicting this “cable”.
There isn’t direct evidence that the INS records were forged, fabricated, or altered, but we do know they spent a long time resisting disclosure of those records. We also know that BHO didn’t claim to have a US citizen son on one of those records, at a time when it would have been to his advantage, and that BHO’s birthdate in those records disagrees with the birthdate claimed in the current Hawaii record. The part about BHO II could easily have been added to the handwritten memo that mentioned him. I’m not saying that those records were forged because I have no way of knowing whether they were or weren’t. But I am saying that after the documented tampering and outright fabrications by multiple federal and state agencies, I’d want to have the authenticity of those records checked out before believing anything on them.
Also, the Islamists and communists share a technique that causes problems for the rest of us: they fudge their names to the point that it’s difficult to find records or know exactly to whom they refer. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro may or may not be “Anna Obama”, as Fred has pointed out. The Obama-Dunham divorce record was hidden under some variation of those names and initials. “Mr. and Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama” doesn’t give a wife’s name, and the address used in the alleged birth announcement was not where Obama Sr was living.
The HDOH has a marriage record in their index for Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham but they’ve already been caught altering an index to include records that aren’t legally valid.
So while it is possible that they were married and/or the parents of Obama, it is also possible that they were not, and given the non-credibility of the sources at this point I have no idea which is true and which isn’t. There aren’t obvious signs of forgery and fabrication on the INS records but there also weren’t obvious signs of tampering in the later versions of the birth announcements, the birth index, or the BC# (for instance). Those discrepancies were only caught because of other information that eventually surfaced.