Replies

I don’t think David and Mark were twins.

I recognize that as Fred's chart shows, David and Mark are purported to be brothers out of Ruth.

And like Jeremiah, I too don't think David and Mark were twins--at least, we haven't seen any places where we have images of the two of them at the same time appearing to be the same age. We do have a picture which purports to be David and Mark showing two infants who appear to be of different ages.

But, none of that is conclusive. You could well have had fraternal twins where one had lighter skin and features from the mother; the older had darker skin and features from the father. Or for that matter features from some other ancestor; or appearing to be like some other relative. One fraternal twin might be much bigger than the other. Happens all the time.

Off the cuff, I don't think the picture which is identified as Mark, and David is necessarily Mark and David. As of yet, we don't really have any evidence who it is.

Fred in #76 fills in some details. I respectfully differ with Fred on the proposition that the conflicting location dates is the first time the twin issue came up.

The first time it came up was in connection with a conflict in birth time among Barack (in oral statements); the Hawaii purported COLB; and an early posted image of one of the original birth documents which appears to be a second document in the Hawaii birth file; and the later appearing purported birth certificates.

The fraudulent purported Hawaii COLB was prepared for the purpose of making people believe it was the real thing. Some effort was made to make it comport with known facts as best the individuals creating it could do so. The time on the document would have been considered as to reasonableness.

At that time, it was suggested by someone that the difference might suggest a multiple birth--nothing in any of the documents precludes the possibility.

And after it was learned that David has a middle name indicating that he is the older of twins, Fred also looked at pictures of the two babies who appear to look very similar to each other and noted that although you don't have a simultaneous side by side, the teeth clearly are different. The age is close enough that you would need to see a bunch of teeth being replaced with adult teeth in a very short time in order to see the straight teeth being replacements for baby teeth.

There is also an ear appearance issue between the two pictures--both babies have protruding ears. But the left ear on one has a slightly larger lobe. Also, on one, the ears do not protrude quite so far--they are close; but depending on the angle viewed, there appears to be a difference.

And then, Fred also picks up on the clear conflict resulting from the date of two of the pictures--the picture and school attendance dates are clearly fixed by reliable paper records; the record requires Zero to have been in two places at the same time. Not very likely.

Given the effort that has been undertaken to obscure the birth dates of Mark, David and perhaps Zero; as well as other information about their birth location and actual parentage, it is reasonable to suggest that one of the reasons why this was done is that David and Zero were twins. One was killed in some event that no one wants to clearly identify as to date or occurrence.

It should be noted that the references to Zero in documents which may have originated with Senior identify him as II, not Jr. Which would probably be the usual practice in other parts of the world.

I also don't think (Fred might correct me) that there is anything in the record which has Mark or anyone else identifying which of the two babies is Mark and which is David. In the places where we have the two unlike babies imaged together, we are simply told it is David and Mark. Which is which? How are we supposed to know?