Instruction begins September 25.
Posted on 04/29/2012 8:14:03 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Did you say the timeslines don’t fit? Nothing fits!
By Rick Anderson Wednesday, Oct 22 2008
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-10-22/news/may-the-best-mom-win/
Meanwhile, Obama’s mother, whose parents Madelyn and Stanley Dunham had moved here from Kansas a decade earlier, left Mercer Island in 1960. But she returned to live in Seattle around 1962, after Barack was born in August 1961, leaving her husband, Kenya-born Barack Sr., and his newborn namesake in Hawaii. She lived on Capitol Hill and enrolled at the University of Washington.
Baby Sitting Barack Obama on Seattle¹s Capitol Hill
by Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson
Seattle Museum of the Mysteries
1/28/09
http://www.seattlechatclub.org/News.html
Mary Toutonghi who now lives in Soldatna Alaska, (2) recalls Barack as ³a really alert baby, very happy and a good size². She does not remember him ever crying (although she adds she is sure he likely did but does not remember any undue fussing). She recalls as best she can the dates she baby sat Barack as her daughter was 18 months old and was born in July of 1959 and that would have placed the months of baby sitting Barack in January and February of 1962. [Note: 9/3/09: I believe Mary’s daughter was older than what she remembered which would account for the age discrepency].
January 23, 2009 12:50 PM
Obama’s Seattle home?
Posted by Chantal Anderson
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/2009/01/23/_cruise_down_516_13th.html
Some interesting records have emerged in the past few months supporting the belief that President Obama lived for a time as a baby in an apartment on Capitol Hill with his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
There is little doubt that his mother lived in the apartment building around 1962; the question is whether she had Obama with her.
The first excerpt appears to indicate that the woman who is shown in the Polk directory for 1961-1962 as Anna Obama moved in ‘around 1962’ according to RICK ANDERSON - OCTOBER 22, 2008.
The second excerpt is from the famous article by Charlette Le Fevre, in which she adds 18 months to the birthdate of Mary;s daughter and comes up with 1962, which should be 1961. ( So she tries to make Mary’s daughter a year older, to cover for her stupid mistake.) ARTICLE DATED JANUARY 28, 2009
The third excerpt also identifies the woman shown in the directory as Anna Obama by the name Stanley Ann Dunham, and asks the question if she had a child with her. JANUARY 23, 2009.
Actually, in order of dates, you have the Rick Anderson article first - October 22, 2008.
Followed by Chantal Anderson January 23, 2009.
And finally Charlette Le Fevre and her major blunder (she knew it was Stanley Ann because Mary called her Anna!) dated January 28, 2009.
Of course Rick Anderson has a major problem which as far as I know, he has never bothered to address. He says Ann moved in in ‘around 1962’ - AND THEN PRESTO! a transcript for OBAMA Stanley Ann Dunham shows up dated from September 19, 1961...claimed to be from the U of WA (in an email) so the question arose, where was she between the start of the semester (which actually commenced September 25, iirc) and when she ‘moved in’ according to Rick - but wait a minute - they found an answer for that as well. They placed her in student’s accommodation (with babies permitted) IN SOME PLACE CALLED LAURELHURST.
I quit. This is my last entry on the subject. SOME freepers don’t want to know that their legs are being pee’d on - they want to believe it’s really raining...because it’s easier that way.
Thanks. Nothing fits. Noth-thing.
And IIRC David found out that the date the transcript (or whatever it was) showing SAD starting or registering at the University was on a weekend (Sat or Sun) and the U was closed then. And another date discrepancy that I can’t remember; I think the whole registration would have been in September, not August.
Courtesy ping to David.
Just because I don’t believe that those are the SAME woman, doesn’t mean that I believe that EITHER of them is Stanley Ann Dunham. I do not. We do not know WHO his mother is. We do not know WHO his father is.
You seem to believe that Frank was so hideous that a young white woman would have nothing to do with him. And yet an attractive white woman MARRIED him and bore 5 kids with him (going by what you said. I can’t attest to it. I’m not familiar with his biography.)
I have no psychological fear of looking into any abyss. I don’t know who his parents are and neither can anyone, based upon a lack of evidence to support ANY of the speculation, including his own claims in his fantasy-ridden, fictional memoirs.
Instruction begins September 25.
“...We do not know WHO his mother is. We do not know WHO his father is...”
And that’s exactly what I am trying to say here.
As for Helen (Mrs Davis) here she is:
Helen Canfield Davis - originally Helen Canfield Peck (1923-1998) was the second wife of Frank Marshall Davis.
Communist Party
Helen Canfield Davis, was a member of the Paul Robeson Club of the Communist Party USA, in Chicago and her 1947 Communist Party USA card number was 62109.
Marriage to Frank Marshall Davis
Davis’ wife, Helen Canfield Davis was from Libertyville Illinois. She was white and 18 years younger than Davis. It was money from her trust fund, which came to her in the fall of 1948, which enabled the couple to move Hawaii.[1]
The couple married in 1946 and divorced in 1970.
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Helen_Canfield_Davis
So, in 1946 she was 23 when she married him and he was 41.
In 1960 Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 and he was 55, with a wealthy, attractive wife 18 years younger than himself and five children.
As for not being familiar with his biography, that’s easily remedied. I’m surprised you haven’t bothered before. All you need to do is type his name in CAPITAL LETTERS into the search function on keywiki AND PRESTO!
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
IIRC a form (not this one) was dated an August date that was on a weekend and that made it very suspicious.
http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2342/Davis-Frank-Marshall.html#ixzz1Du7gQrwP
marriage, children etc.
See bottom right hand side, highlighted - and that still remains a problem. The revised or corrected date of September 19, is still a week away from the first date of instruction shown as September 25.
I don’t care how the photos were labeled.
The 4 nudie photos in your post to me are of two different women.
The black and white ones are Marcy.
The tinted ones are of a Stanley Ann look-alike or Stanley Ann.
You might not think the tinted photos are Stanley Ann (I’m not positive they are her either) but there is no way that any reasonable person would mix up these two women.
They are completely different looking. It’s not even close.
So whoever labeled them as the same woman either had some sort of agenda or was blind as a bat.
WND has published two documents which are characterized as U of W Transcripts. The first document is a computer print out. The U of W did not record nor publish academic data on computers until the 1980's. Their explanation is that an earlier transcript record was converted to the computer.
I have no real knowledge about the veracity of that response. I have personally seen U of W certified transcripts for earlier periods which are not on the computer print out format and which are in fact on the correct early transcript forms but the explanation cannot be ruled out--the U might have converted some transcripts but not others; I tend to be very skeptical about this explanation for reasons that will be apparent.
However as to the August 19/September 19 date issue, the computer printout carries the error (and as will be seen, it is an error) reflecting the September 19 date as August 19.
Following an initial exchange over this issue, the university produced the form posted by Fred in #188 on this thread. Note that the form as I see it on the post is not the entire form--there is information on the left side (right side of the image) which is significant.
I believe that form is fraudulent although I have no explanation for how or by whom it might have been created--the exchange of correspondence between the U and Dr. Corsi appears to make that form a U of W publication; how it would have originated is an open question.
What the #188 form reflects is that Stanley attended class in the regular University day school during Spring Quarter, 1962 (from late March to June, 1962). The portion of the form which does not appear reflects the fact that she was registered for and completed attendance in Night School for Fall Quarter, 1961 and Winter Quarter 1962.
She then transferred from Night School to Day School for Spring Quarter 1962.
The Night School is an extension college. Grades from her prior academic history were poor so she did not qualify to be admitted to the Day School in 1961 and it would be reasonable to believe that she did Night School to get her grades up and the Night School records would be (if credible) sufficient to justify admission to Day School.
So what the #188 transcript asks you to believe is that at registration for Spring Quarter 1962, an entry transcript was typed reflecting her personal data and her prior performance at Night School. The #188 transcript is not credible for a number of reasons.
On its face, it is the wrong form. #188 is a two column form with two holes punched on the side for insertion in a two hole pin binder. There is a gap at the top of the holes indicating that the form was designed to be removed which would be necessary to add additional data regarding academic data.
The transcript form actually in use at the college in this time period was a three column form. All information on the form was entered in handwriting. The form had twenty one approximate 1/8 inch holes along the side with no removal slit and was designed to be placed in a binder and never removed--the binder was latched and secured.
The form would have been prepared at initial registration. So grades would not have been available until the end of the relevant quarter at which point they were entered in handwriting. The transcript was then photo-reproduced in the binder and a copy was made available to the student as a quarter academic report.
I have never seen a transcript from that period with typewritten data. I have never seen one with two punch holes; I have never seen this form having been used in that period.
The University followed a rule that A & S Freshmen were required to take and pass Freshman English (Engl. 101; 102; & 103) during the initial quarters in school. Whether that rule was applicable to Night School students I do not know. This transcript does not reflect that rule.
The incorrect date, August 19, appears as 8/19/61 on the left side of the form. Initially I assumed that the 8 on the computer form resulted from an error in the transcription--the 8 would have appeared on a fold and the 8 is simply a 9 with the lower loop closed and would have been easy to misread. That does not appear to be correct--it appears that on the #188 form, the 8 is typed as an 8, not a 9.
The underlying facts are these. Fall quarter 1961 commenced class the last week in September for both the day university and the Night School. Registration the prior week for Night School would have been the norm. September 19 would have been an appropriate date for Stanley to have registered for class.
The preceding quarter, Summer Quarter 1961, was a full time program, just like every other quarter. Instruction for hour equivalent periods followed by a week of final exams. Finals week for Summer Quarter 1961 ended Friday, August 18 at which point, the University was locked down for vacation (other than the main libraries which ran on Summer hours) through Labor Day.
On Saturday, August 19, 1961, all doors on campus were locked--the University was shut down. Stanley neither attended class nor registered on August 19, 1961.
More significant at this point, what the form in #188 asks you to believe is that the typist six months later, who was on vacation on the preceding August 19 nonetheless entered a record showing fall quarter beginning on that date over a month and a half early. Might have happened but along with other facts casts doubt on credibility of the document.
For those reasons, I believe the so called transcript record of Stanley's attendance at the University of Washington is Fraudulent.
Further, the transcript record of her address on Capital Hill is the only evidence of her residence at the Toutonghi boarding house and thus in my view casts doubt on the legend that she was in fact there. Other evidence has come to light suggesting that at a minimum, the woman who was resident at that location under the name Anna Obama at some point during 1961 was not accompanied by a multi racial child.
We are not aware of any other evidence than this suspect transcript that the woman identified in the Polk Directory as resident at the Capital Hill address as Anna Obama was in fact Stanley Ann Dunham.
Four years later we have no last name of the Filipino woman in the Nachmannof photos and the going away photo.
It would seem for someone named Anne/Ann and who appears to very close to Obama senior in the photos her full identity would surface. The fact that it has not is interesting.
She may very well be the cog in this broken wheel.
Thank you very much.
. . . . # 190 and # 191. Actually, need to bookmark the entire page...
Everything points to it, she's the girl Abercrombie remembers, he calls her Ann, he knew she had a child in Hawaii, that's why he was so convinced he would find a record. He very well could have, but the date of birth and the name of the mother wouldn't match the myth, so he dropped it like the hot potato it would be...
That child keeps popping its head up but it isn't zero, it's the baby Mary baby-sat for Anna Obama in Seattle. It's the child they were considering having adopted. She was the girl whose parents wrote to the INS about (names redacted) wanting to break up the relationship. And it's the child Aunt Zeituni said the kenyan wrote home about, when he told the clan he had a son in Hawaii. He's the little boy on the right of the two little boys image, and that's zero on the left. That dark boy belongs to the kenyan and his wife who moved to the Philippenes - the same dark boy the kenyan and Ruth are shown with in the family group when the dark boy was about four years old in around 1966 when Mark was still a toddler.
And that's it in a nutshell, as your careful, painstaking analysis makes very clear. And IF there was a child at that boarding house, as Mary maintains, it was there in January 1961 when, in her own words, her daughter, who was born on July 1959, was 18 months of age.
I didn't post nude images, I posted FACES.
The black and white ones are Marcy.
They are identified as such throughout various articles on the web, so I presume that's who it is.
The tinted ones are of a Stanley Ann look-alike or Stanley Ann.
They are of a Stanley Ann look-alike whose images first appeared on free-vintage-porn com a website I traced as the result of the name and serial number on the bottom of one of the three images published...TWO YEARS AGO and the images themselves had already been removed. That website had a section devoted to photographs of girls wearing nothing but high heeled shoes and stockings...
You might not think the tinted photos are Stanley Ann (I’m not positive they are her either) but there is no way that any reasonable person would mix up these two women.
It was not unreasonable however, to make a comparison collage of the faces of the girl who is the Stanley Ann look-a-like and the girl (Marcy Moore) who has been indentified on various websites as the model for the images that came from the free-vintage-porn com website - THAT'S WHAT COMPARISONS ARE FOR. YOU LOOK, YOU DECIDE.
They are completely different looking. It’s not even close.
There you go, that's how it works. I made the collages, I labelled the girls. You have decided that Marcy Moore isn't the same girl as the girl from the VINTAGE PORN WEBSITE - fine. But now you can see that the provocative photographs ARE NOT Stanley Ann Dunham either.
So whoever labeled them as the same woman either had some sort of agenda or was blind as a bat.
I had an agenda. I simply wanted to show that there's no way anyone can be certain that the provocative photographs were of SAD, and the very idea that the author of that new book who says he found THE ORIGINALS TWO YEARS AGO in a 'house' FMD VACATED WHEN HE DIED IN 1987 is not believable. He found them on the web as everyone else did, because by the time I got to the website two years ago, they had already been removed.
a little more darker lipstick.
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.
