Posted on 03/08/2014 6:07:03 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
So when did Ann's and Obama Sr.'s "whatever happened happened fast" wedding happen? For no apparent reason, confusion abounds among Obama's biographers over the wedding date:
1. Dreams claims that Ann and Obama Sr. were in married "in 1960"; similarly, Mendell's 2007 book claims that the couple were married "sometime in late 1960" when they "slipped off alone to the island of Maui"; and both Obamaland (2008) by Ron Jacobs (with contributor David Maraniss) and a 2007 Washington Post article claim that the two were married "late in 1960."
2. A 2007 Chicago Tribune article vaguely claims that Ann and Obama Sr. were married "six months before" Barack's birth on Aug 4, 1961 -- or, in other words, sometime in early 1961.
3. An April 2008 Time article by Amanda Ripley, as does Maraniss's August 2008 article, gives a specific date of February 2, 1961 for the wedding, apparently based on Ann's and Obama Sr.'s 1964 divorce records – mysteriously appearing on the web. But since fake documents have been known to appear on the web, Obama's biographers, Ripley and Maraniss, might want to verify the 1964 divorce documents – especially since a Feb. 2, 1961 marriage date for "Ann and Obama Sr." wasn't reported in any Honolulu Advertiser or Honolulu Star-Bulletin marriage lists from February 1961. Take the February 8, 1961 Star-Bulletin, which listed eighteen marriages from Feb. 3, Feb. 4, and Feb. 6, and no Feb. 2 marriages, and the February 7, 1961 Advertiser, which listed eleven marriages from Feb. 2 to 4, including two Feb. 2 marriages.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Or, simply put, we have Mark identified as being the dark child in both images. He can't be Mark standing with his father and Ruth and be five years old in 1966, and then show up as Mark sitting next to zero in 1961, when he was born a year after Ruth arrived in Kenya in 1964.
That dark child isn't Mark, and the lighter child is zero, so the dark child was born a few months before zero, in 1961.
I'm going to leave it there. It's not worth the trouble.
‘I can’t help it if you don’t like it.’
Please stop speaking for me, Fred. You have no idea what I like and don’t like. If you are wondering, ask me. I will give you honest and accurate information. Thank you.
So Mark never claimed he was five yrs old in ‘66? Or do you have a link to the actual quote?
If you’re wondering in what year Mark was born, so are we. The only information we have is that Ruth followed the kenyan in late 1964, one biography has her marrying the kenyan on Chistmas Eve in 1964. The earliest year for Mark’s birth would therefor be likely 1965. The family group image which shows Ruth holding Mark has him about a year + in age. So that image would be from around 1966.
And that’s what makes the dark boy, who almost reaches to her waist, about five years old; born in 1961.
Mark has never revealed his age. All he ever said was, ‘I’m younger than Obama’. Which again raises the question, who is the dark child in the Two Little Boys image? Because that dark boy is evidently the older of the two.
Last one and never again.
He really does have gramps’s chin and face shape. Stanley has that chin too.
I have grave doubts that obama wrote that poem ‘Pop’
I believe he did write it. He wanted to express his gayness subtly in poetry form. His friends say he was pretty open in his neighborhood circle with his homosexuality, even turning tricks for $. At the same time, there were many closeted gay artists who loved hinting subtly at their gayness back then. I believe he didn’t see what happened with Frank as abuse; he thought it was cool.
You make an assertion - write something that never appeared, and then answer it yourself; and ask ME for a link? LOL! You crack me up.
I think the only time I wrote 1966 was trying to explain in what year the family group photograph was taken.
You’re not worth the effort and time it takes to try and explain anything. Your knickers are too knotted to comprehend. And that’s a fact, not an insult.
Now I’m going to do what the BOSS recommended me to do. I’m going to STAY AWAY FROM THESE PEOPLE.
So it’s have a nice day from me to you.
Re soebarkah: that sounds like that religion. I grew up with a best friend whose parents were Subud. I didn’t know the name of it at the time but it is subud because her father is proud of it and it is on his website. Their “guru” (that subud)insisted on changing people’s names - legally - sometimes multiple times - to improve their lives. They were ordered to change their names or that of their kids. My friend lived 5 years with one name and it was changed on her then.
‘Yet the dark child Mark claims is he, is at least five years old in 1966.’
So this is an inaccurate statement? Or if it’s accurate, can you please provide a link? Thanks.
The entire bottom row is zero. On the top, the far right is not him, and the first photo I’m not sure. Second top and third top look like him.
Soebarkah is the name of a very prominent Indonesian family, their family tree with hundreds of photographs is on the web. One of their family was high in the Indonesian military, was a coffin bearer at the funeral of Suharto.
The name is sometimes written as SUBARKAH.
SUKARNO=SOEKARNO
SUHARTO=SOEHARTO
SUTORO=SOETORO
SUBARKAH=SOEBARKAH
You’ll find the military fellow on wiki connected to Suharto. No Subud connection required.
Link won’t let me see the book. :(
works fine for me but it’s rather long this way:
That isn’t Barack in that picture. It probably is David. Why wouldn’t it be?
‘You’re not worth the effort and time it takes to try and explain anything. Your knickers are too knotted to comprehend.’
Why do you find it necessary to make it personal?
‘Yet the dark child Mark claims is he, is at least five years old in 1966.’
This is your assertion, Fred, not mine. Turns out it’s inaccurate.
WTFYMBt??????
WFHTTWWN?
S!
“This is your assertion, Fred, not mine. Turns out it’s inaccurate.”
The chronology of the images and the images themselves show when that family group photograph must have been taken. Mark identified the children in that group as himself and David. I’ve shown that is not correct. You maintain it is. Fine. It’s not compulsory to see what our research shows. It’s a free country. People give you information, you disregard it. Want me to recant? I can’t. The facts remain as they are. The children have been misidentified, and I think it’s for a reason.
It’s a take it or leave proposition. You are insinuating that I am a liar, which I find most offensive. You inability to follow the progression of images and chronology does not me a liar make.
Actually the shape of his chin is not very much like the Dunham family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.