If SAD was the mother and BHO from Kenya the father, there would have been no reason for any forgery to occur at all.
Therefore speculation about how Stanley Ann's signature was forged or whether it appeared or in what form on an original 1961 HI LFBC can NOT be based on the White House pdf image, IMO.
You can't see the forest for the trees. A) As I stated above, there would be no reason whatsoever to patch SAD's name using part ball point pen and part fine tip marker (which hadn't been invented in 1961, or at least in common use), if they had a sample of her name they could have just lifted from another document. And B) You are nitpicking things that mean nothing to anyone but your own mind. The point is really quite simple, no advanced degrees necessary. The document presented (actually both) by the WH are forged. And SAD's name is forged using scraps of different signatures. Which they would NOT HAVE HAD TO DO if they even had ONE document with the name "Stanley Ann Dunham Obama" on it to lift. And the other point, real simple, no genius IQ needed:
If SAD and BHO the Kenyan were the parents, no matter where the kid was born, there would have been no need for a forgery AT ANY TIME. The guy in the WH would have had a "fake but real" b.c. his whole life. And if he was adopted in Indo, and somehow whatever he wound up with indicated he had lost his citizenship, of course then he would need a "brand new" forged one. But if SAD were the mother, no need for the patch job on her forged signature.
That's not correct.
If Grandma Toot claimed a home birth on the birth certificate, then the whole lie about the birth would have been exploded the moment an historian or biographer or reporter talked to someone in the other family living in the same house at that time.
In fact, Zero is fortunate there WAS a forgery - a member of the family living with the Dunhams HAS been interviewed and said THERE WAS NO BABY THERE.
The whole claim would have already gone up in smoke, if not for the forgery.
A narrative explaining what you have described would be that the forgers were trying to be cute by making the forgery more realistic through inserting the appearance of a correction made by Stanley Ann appearing to have her insert her legal forename as an afterthought. This would give the appearance that she signed her name as Ann Dunham Obama, as she would “normally do” (in this narrative) and then realized “Oh, this is a legal document, so I better scribble in my legal first name, Stanley, in the available space.”
It it is natural for us today to look at this and drawn this inference as to what happened in 1961, then a very clever forger could also have staged exactly that inference at the time of the forgery for us to see and to reinforce an impression that the document is genuine, having such an “innocent” correction by Stanley Ann on it.
Think of all of the movie and TV scripts that have little things like this in them as part of the plot line.
Look at how insidious the Bomford BC is. Our enemies are very crafty. What you have described regarding the SADO signature is well within their capability of trying to pull off...and then laughing at us for falling for it. That is how it appears to me, in view of the other evidence that the WH LFBC pdf is 100% forged with all elements brought into an artificially created file...including the SADO signature with modifications.