What I have is probability. Let’s say we accept your claim of a February wedding. [It is not as clear cut, btw, as you claim. Maraniss tracked down multiple people who knew O Sr in Honolulu. Not a single one of them was even aware that O *knew* SA, much less that they had any kind of relationship. No one knew anything about SA having his baby. The records that Sally Jacobs obtained via a FOIA request confirmed what Maraniss independently discovered; the two never lived together. Against all that you have a notation plus a judge saying he was convinced it had happened. No mention at any time by anyone of a marriage certificate. Just a notation plus a judge’s comment that would have been unnecessary had a marriage certificate been presented.] That still gives you a 6 mo gap. If people tended to be less noticed in ‘61, then why did people come out of the woodwork in Seattle to talk about SA and her newborn? Cindy Pratt, who lived with SA’s parents, not only confirmed that SA wasn’t living there during the pregnancy; CP didn’t see the baby until SA returned from Seattle.
To understand what happened requires adding up all the circumstances. 1, the address listed on both the fabricated birth certificate and the birth announcements is one where SA and the baby NEVER lived, 2, Abercrombie went looking for the BC and all he found was something written down, 3, Obama’s SS# previously belonged to someone else, and the skip tracer who confirmed this was handcuffed and deprived of his computer/livelihood, despite the fact that he was never even *accused* of wrongdoing, 4, Obama’s draft card is indisputably forged, 5, a senior HI elections clerk swore that Obama’s lack of a BC was an open secret, 6, Brian Schatz, former HI DNC chairman, refused to certify Obama as eligible, 7, Kapiolani only displayed a letter claiming Obama was born there until they were informed that fundraising off that letter, unless it was true, constituted fraud, 8, there is no evidence that SA would have been allowed to take a newborn on a 2,683 mile flight in ‘61, 9, there is no credible, evidence and/or fact based explanation for such a trek, 10, there is no credible reason why no one would have seen SA in HI during the [at least] 6-mo black-out or after the birth, while so many people reported seeing her in Seattle, 11, there is no credible explanation for Obama’s own literary agent being unaware of his HI birth, IF it was a fact, 12, O Sr said the baby would be adopted via a Salvation Army home for unwed mothers. If SA went to the one in Honolulu, there would have been every reason to stay in HI. If, however, she went to the one closest to her Aunt, she would have turned up afterward in the vicinity of Vancouver—which is what in fact happened. One location fits every known fact, and the other fits none.
I could go on. But the point is that all the information has to be taken together. There are not this many issues with a person who had a simple, straightforward hospital birth. Nor does one who was born in Kapiolani initially claim to have been born at Queen’s [see my prior post]. Only an Obot could take all the evidence and conclude this was merely a whole bunch of ‘coincidences.’ No one has this many. The probability of so many anomalies converging on a person who had a normal, regular US citizen hospital birth is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable.
Actually there is:
1) Hawaii DOH index data for marriages.
2) April, 1961 memo by Lyle H. Dahling reporting Ms. McCabe's statement about the February 2nd 1961 Maui wedding.
3) Stanley Ann's divorce petition
4) Judge King's statement on the decree.
Your claim about the judge's statement is nonsense based on ignorance. Even in the Lolo Soetoro divorce decree, the judge said he was granting the decree based on the evidence. Judge King is saying the same thing.
So you’ve got no evidence whatsoever that SAD was in Seattle/Vancouver for the months leading up to the birth? I can see a lot of stuff about your doubts about the evidence she was in Hawaii and I can see some unsupported assertions about the WA/Canada hypothesis but no supporting evidence at all. No documentation, no witness testimony, nada. Am I wrong?