It usually does!
B. and extensive reliance on the authority of “Dreams” depend on the thinnest shreds of evidence, and are almost universally uncorroborated with any known verifiable documents. To continue to pursue such lines only gives credibility to those who want to discredit the “birther” movement, at least as it is presented on Free Republic.
With all due respect, "A" has nothing - nada - zilch - to do with "B". At all. In fact, Fred Nerks (who you did not ping, is he now a non-entity?) has repeatedly stated that accepting anything in Dreams as a given is heading up the wrong path. And now you falsely accuse him of doing exactly what he says not to do.
It sounds to me as though you are the one trying to smear any research done by Fred Nerks or anyone else questioning the basic assumptions of Dreams as a kook and "conspiracy" wingnut.
It stinks, actually.
I’m not trying to smear his research. I’m just trying to indicate that he has very little corroboration for his claims and has conclusions that are radically different from the highly detailed, corroborated research of many authors available on the Internet. If we wants to make his conjectures, then he should have the same high level of proof of the other web sites out there that I have mentioned. Without detailed corroboration, his research is useless and counterproductive.
Put together a blog like Lady Forest, Butterdezillion, D’Inofrio and others have done and look at the comments that you get. Adjust your hypothesis to the research as reflected by your commenters. Compare versus documented facts, etc...
Splattering a story with swapped babies, changed birth dates and radically different chronologies across a series of widely dispersed posts is not the way to advance the state of knowledge about the Obama narrative.