Replies

I fully realize that the marriage records are printed. In a perfect world, we would like to see the exact original documents and a hand-written index. However, if I go to my local registry of deeds, I am restricted entirely to the use of their computerized records. I suppose that a subpoena might do the trick, but that is not something that is available to your average everyday citizen. Unless you have subpoena power like Orly, you are going to have to deal with printed records.

The truth is that there will never be 100 per cent certainty with any document, especially as it relates to Obama. This given the case, the entirety of the document including the contents of the cells becomes exceedingly relevant. Additionally, you cannot throw at an entire document because of one alleged error.

It got me really pissed off when people were talking about the Lucas Smith BC that people would go on endless tirades about the correct spelling and legal status of Mombasa and the hospital there. You have to look at the entirety of the document rather than throwing it out because you think that you know, for sure, that the legal status of the Coastal Protectorate of Kenya was different than in that document.

So let's ask some basic questions:

Does it appear that the hospital existed at the time of birth?

Does the street address of the hospital correspond to public records?

How does the time of birth compare with other documents?

Do the signatories exist? Did they have the official capacity revealed in the document at the time the document was generated? Were they acquainted with the parties? -- Lucas hit a home run when he showed that the birth doctor was a personal friend of the Obama family.

Etc., etc.

What we have is a whole lot of evidentiary fragments, each with a different level of uncertainty about them. How does that level of uncertainty change when you apply the results outlined above? How many documents corroborate your belief?

In terms of the Obama/Dunham marriage, there are several documents that point to the same wedding date. There is the printed marriage indexes with the Hawaii DOH. There is the divorce decree in 1964. There is the reports from Harvard contained in the Obama Customs/Passport file. In fact, every mention of the marriage uses the same date. Am I 100 per cent certain that the date/existence of the marriage is correct? Certainly not. But, on the other hand, no one has presented any document, official or otherwise) that claims a different date, nor is there any specific document which claims they weren't married. Bottom line: There is a significant likelihood, corroborated by several different documents that they were, indeed, married.

That's all we have to deal with here is likelihoods. But certain documents can be highly revealing. The UW transcript, which exists in two different forms and had been provided to several requesters upon asking, links the "Anna Obama" street address in Seattle, her freshman UH transcript, and her (Mercer Island) high school transcript. Here we have four separate, unique characteristics of Stanley Ann that are all linked into one document.

When such evidence is examined forensically, it becomes indubitable that there was one Stanley Ann (often known as Annn -- see the Obamafile) who, for whatever reason, ended up in Seattle after Obama Jr's birth. And then, when you look at different statements from friends and baby sitters, you will see that, despite their various inconsistencies, they support the idea of the Seattle Anna Obama. I know people have made many complaints about such statements, but certain aspects of the stories (e.g., Stanley Ann's inability to change diapers) are quite distinct, memorable, and hard to invent on the fly.

We know that many of the people herein named have been instructed to avoid speaking to anyone, especially birthers, about her time in Seattle. There are stories that she told a gripping tale of being unable to get on a plane out of Hawaii. There are the missionaries in Kenya that remember her plight. THERE ARE THE BOGUS INVENTION OF OBAMA RECORDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE COMPLETE FABRICATIONS BY "THE ENEMY."

Absolutely nothing will ever be known with 100 per cent certainty. You have to look at the entirety of the evidence, not just official documents, to make a correct determination. You need to apply Occam's Razor: What is the most economical hypothesis that supports the entire range of evidence surrounding the question at hand, like the Seattle Anna Obama story.

I know I am using a scientific method and can give you specific citations to that fact. I am not going to claim that I have "the answer," but I will claim that my methods are sound, reasonable and basically match up with the concept of "evidence" in a court proceeding.

What's your methodology? What records have you ignored? Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just saying that you don't like where the evidence leads you? Have you incorporated the entire range of documents, from "official" documents, to corroborating documents, to confounding documents, to recollections of conversations, to hearsay that you picked up on one random website that has been repeated a half doze times, always without attribution or supporting evidence?

It is only by analyzing the totality of all evidence that you can even begin to make a reasoned hypothesis, especially given that we have seen forged documents, missing documents, photoshopped pictures, and that great work of fiction, "Dreams." I have laid out my methodology, what's yours?