So the gist of the article is that “we couldn’t find any records”.
That’s a bit different from proving he wasn’t there, dontcha think?
Interesting dilemma. The other thing is that I believe someone interviewed many from that era at the school and couldn’t find anyone who remembered 0 actually in a class.
I was thinking the same as you. I’m sure there are explanations why someone’s name wouldn’t show up in a yearbook for example. It’s very, very difficult to absolutely prove Obama didn’t attend, while it would be very easy to prove he did attend. All it would take is a single roster with his name or a single picture with him in it. On the other hand, I admit it is very, very strange that Obama is trying to cover up his past. The most obvious explanation for that is he’s hiding something. Proving it, however, will be virtually impossible. Anyone who is involved in covering anything up will do everything in their power to keep it secret for obvious reasons...the man is now president.
Exactly. The argument ab silentio is useful but of limited use. The absence of the sorts of records cited in the article proves one thing: the absence of records.
The reason for the absence of records could be one of several:
1. he never attended Columbia
2. he did attend but no record has survived.
3. he did attend, records survived for a time, but were destroyed
3. he did attend but the sorts of records mentioned in the article do not record every single student who attends—they are largely ephemeral records but, because Columbia won’t release official records, they are the only kinds of records accessible to the P.Is.
Proving a negative is hard work.
He may not have attended Columbia. But the evidence adduced here is of marginal probative force. The key records are the ones held by the university and they ain’t talking.
Again, there’s more than one possible reason why they aren’t talking:
1. he never attended, they have no records to release
2. he attended but they don’t want to release the records
Yes. Obama claims he went to Columbia and should be able and willing to prove it, but he won't, so the skeptics are left to look for evidence. Finding none doesn't mean he wasn't there--he could have been under a different name--but the skeptics have put the ball back in BO's court.
If you were an employer and an employee you had hired listed Columbia on his job app, but after you had time to research his time at Columbia, you find that there is no record of him ever attending Columbia, and he refused to discuss the issue, what would you conclude?
Whose responsibility is it to prove attendance or non-attendance sat Columbia?
Let the accused present his evidence.
You don't think it's extremely strange that a student register doesn't contain his name for any year he claims to have attended there???
Let's put it this way: if YOU were applying for a job that required a background check, this would get you a red flag in your dossier if not disqualified outright!!
It seems that it would be easy to prove he was. The Alumni Association at the college I attended certainly know I went there. They send me mail all the time. That was during 1946-49. They remember me to this day. Just wondering.
Unless you can prove he was somewhere else, it's pretty hard to prove he was not there, but it woudl be easy for him to prove he was.