Replies

I had previously found an article
that mentioned restrictions on air travel with newborns. I believe I actually did bookmark it, but it happened to be on my phone. ~Two weeks ago I dropped that phone (accidentally) in a bucket of water. It’s gone and it’s not coming back.

I’ve been trying to reconnect with that particular article. So far it hasn’t come up. I did find one that recommends, in the present, waiting until a baby is a month old before flying. From my POV, that would translate to an absolute restriction ~55-60 years ago. Cabin pressure was not as reliably regulated, and turbulence was a bigger issue.

However, I do not have a link for that information. I remain convinced that the onus is on those who claim it was not an issue. After all, Obama’s apologists are usually more than eager to prove that his claims hold up. Why be shy now? As I said before, if my entire theory rested on the proposition that the airlines in ‘61 welcomed newborns, I’d understand that the burden of proof rested on me.

I remain convinced that the onus is on those who claim it was not an issue.

You’re asking me to prove a negative. You’re the one who’s claimed that that these regulations existed, the onus is on you to back that up.

Btw, what is your theory as to why SA would have rushed out of HI under the circumstances? Had she given birth there, she had many reasons to remain. Why would she have undertaken such an upheaval in her life?

No idea. Maybe a 17 year old with a new-born child to an older African guy in 60’s America has already demonstrated that she makes unusual decisions. But that’s just conjecture as is your point that it doesn’t make sense.

You keep talking about how there’s no evidence of Dunham’s existence in Hawaii during her pregnancy or shortly thereafter but that’s not true.

There’s evidence that she was married in Hawaii in February. There’s evidence from the Polk directory and from the newspaper birth announcements that she was living in her parent’s house.

There is also this note from the INS which states that the child was born on the 4th August 1961 in Honolulu and was living with his mother at her parents house while the father was living at a different address – and that she was due to travel to WA state for the upcoming semester. Which, BTW, also supports Maraniss’ narrative that Dunham and the baby lived at her parents house but ‘not as a family’, i.e, with Barak Obama I.

But I don’t have to prove that bc all known facts point to Stanley Ann already being in the Seattle/Vancouver area when the baby was born.

Really? I’ve just shown that there is some evidence that she was in Hawaii during her pregnancy. What facts have you provided to show that she was in Seattle/Vancouver or even of her being anywhere else? For someone who claims it’s not credible for someone not to leave a trace for that period of time (even though you ignore the traces that do exist), surely you must have found evidence of her being somewhere else.