“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.
Correct. And Sven's explanation accomplishes this better than any other explanation of which I have heard.
And Sven’s ‘explanation’ is replete with new assumptions. He relies on the existence of a secret adoption,
Do you know of any adoptions that are NOT SECRET? I have actually read quite extensively on Hawaii's laws regarding the secrecy of Adoptions. There are many pages of it. Bottom line, Adoptions are SECRET.(at least as far as the state is concerned.)
AND a secret adoption nullification,
Which makes sense if Obama was adopted twice. First by Lolo Soetero, Second by the Grandparents. It hangs together very nicely.
and not one but TWO secret undisclosed birth certificates for Obama. That’s a lot of assumptions with no evidence to support them.
Oh, there's plenty of evidence to support it. Both Circumstantial and Actual. Perhaps you haven't kept up. Beckwith has a pretty good run down, but I think he left out a few things.
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.
Might be a point for your argument, but adoptions were usually kept secret, so it's hard to say if a failure to mention it means anything. It is the "dog that did not bark" theory, and it could be correct. I'll keep it in mind in the "anti" category.
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.
I don't know if it is groundless or not. My own adopted birth certificate contains a similar peculiarity, but I do not know if Hawaii placed any significance on this point back in 1961. Perhaps, perhaps not. Even if it is meaningless, it is one bad piece in a theory with a lot of good pieces in it.
If you got a better theory that explains all the little tibits of the Early Obama years, lets hear it.