Without a clear understanding of the process used at the time, I don't think a solid conclusion can be drawn.
And yet SvenMagnussen's explanation seems to tie everything together neatly. Occam's razor dude. I'm going to accept his theory as the best explanation till I hear a better one.
You might try actually learning the definition of “Occam’s Razor”.
Hint: It doesn’t involve selecting the hypothesis that requires the largest conspiracy.
“And yet SvenMagnussen’s explanation seems to tie everything together neatly. Occam’s razor dude.”
Are you actually familiar with Occam’s Razor? It says to favor the explanation with the fewest new assumptions.
And Sven’s ‘explanation’ is replete with new assumptions. He relies on the existence of a secret adoption, AND a secret adoption nullification, and not one but TWO secret undisclosed birth certificates for Obama. That’s a lot of assumptions with no evidence to support them.
Sven’s story also has a rather major flaw in suggesting that Obama was adopted in Hawaii in 1967. We’ve seen Lolo’s records where he’s asking to stay in the US, and they say jack-squat about him having a legally adopted son. They refer to little Obama, even in mid-to-late 1967, but only as his wife’s son.
He even seems to be trading on the old Filed/Accepted distinction, which is groundless. Danae’s COLB from 2007 also says “Date Filed,” just like Obama’s. So did Stig whatshisname, the guy who got his COLB on CNN.