Obama: 'I was born in Hawaii,' wink, wink (taunts Trump, complements press on digging up truth)

SORRY ABOUT THE TRIPLE POST!

“I didn’t post nude images, I posted FACES.”

I know. I used that term as a way to differentiate between the known Stanley Ann photo set. It gets confusing crisscrossing references to photos throughout the posts. Didn’t mean anything disparaging by it.

“They are identified as such throughout various articles on the web, so I presume that’s who it is.” (Marcy)

I presume the same.

“But now you can see that the provocative photographs ARE NOT Stanley Ann Dunham either.”

I really can’t say whether it is her or not. It might be her or it might not. In my opinion, she does have a strong resemblance to Stanley Ann is about all I can say for sure.

“THE ORIGINALS TWO YEARS AGO in a ‘house’ FMD VACATED WHEN HE DIED IN 1987 is not believable.”

Agreed. There is no real provenance for these photos. Until there is, nobody can be certain who it is.

“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.”

My analysis of the image in #188 is that WND is likely correct and it is consistent with a computerized record, such as one would expect in the 1980’s.

The image appears to be of a photocopy of a printout of the standardized transcript computer data for Stanley Ann at UW. This could have been produced by a computer at any date subsequent to conversion of the transcripts from hard copy to computer storage.

Her last date of attendance was completed in March 1962 and the date in the top left field is after the completion dates for her spring courses. I believe the transcript data would, of course, be frozen after that date if there was no new academic activity.

Importantly, there is data in the image after March 1962 and that is a recording of multiple transcripts. These are noted in the far right bottom field and appear to have been manually typed into the available fields in a somewhat haphazard, non-computerized manner as follows (my best guess):

U. Haw, 12-20-82; Grad
U Hawaii(2)2-11-72; Grad U Hawaii
(4) 3-23-72; Credit4-24-72;EWCnTr <== guess East West Ctr
(3),NatReCour1-3-73;

So it appears that this computer generated transcript, first generated when they migrated to a computer database for transcripts, was stored in a file but pulled out periodically as needed to update it with new information.

In this case the hard copy was updated several times for numerous transcripts updating Stanley Ann's BA, MA and other postgraduate work. The most recent one was for 1982, so the underlying computer transcript could have been generated anytime before 1982. There don't appear to be any changes after that, such as to record her Ph.D., which was earned in the early 1990’s, IIRC.

This record, including the 1960 HS graduation notation and mini-transcript from Mercer Island, is included in the top of the UW transcript and the Fall 1961 Extension cedits above the transcript notations in the lower right is consistent and corroborated by the confirmation letter from UH and, don't forget, with the INS FOIA docs note that the wife of BHO Sr and mother of BHO II was intending to start college in Seattle.

Marcy has bow-like lips. The girl on the right does not. Marcy has dark eyes. The girl on the right has blue eyes, or so it appears to me.

...Agreed. There is no real provenance for these photos. Until there is, nobody can be certain who it is.

Correct, and that's all I was attempting to make clear; the efforts of the author to convince us that he obtained the originals of the images from the private residence of Frank Marshall Davis is patently false. He obtained the images from the same place we all did - from the web, and any connection to FMD or Stanley Ann Dunham remains conjecture.

... The girl on the right has blue eyes, or so it appears to me.

I really don't know what colour SAD's eyes were, do you?

I see why people get really angry about trolls. Absolutely nothing you say in 203 is a fact or even really responsive to #190. In 1961, they didn't keep these records on a computer. The computer printout purports to be a transfer from original entry data reflected by the hard copy transcript which is the second document.

So the fairy tale stands or falls on the original entry transcript. It's simply a fake on its face, just like the latest birth certificate.

The form is not the form that was in use in 1961; they didn't type transcripts in 1961; the course record doesn't include required Freshman courses; it isn't credible to believe that the typist that was on vacation when the University was closed in a lock down on August 19 would six months later have typed a document that had Stanley in class on a class schedule that started on that date; the document is simply another fraudulent document produced to support the fairy tale in Dreams most of which does not appear to be true.

Per David #207:

“I see why people get really angry about trolls. Absolutely nothing you say in 203 is a fact or even really responsive to #190. In 1961, they didn't keep these records on a computer. The computer printout purports to be a transfer from original entry data reflected by the hard copy transcript which is the second document.”

In #190 you wrote:

“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.”

David:

I refuted your claim in #190 that the image in #188 was from 1962. The #188 is almost certainly NOT an image of a 1962 computer printout and it does NOT need to be to be genuine. I explained that the computer printout could have been produced from anytime between when the records were automated (likely long after 1962) and the most recent hand typed addition to the image which was receipt of a 1982 transcript from UH. My transcript from an Ivy League university was automated as early as 1972, BTW.

You have no personal knowledge of all 1962 UW transcript office policies and possible alternative methods of recording and communicating transcript information by your own admission. You are speculating. Perhaps some were handwritten and some were typed in 1962 depending on the person preparing the transcript or the state of the file.

I refuted your claim in #190 that the image in #188 was from 1962. The #188 is almost certainly NOT an image of a 1962 computer printout and it does NOT need to be to be genuine. I explained that the computer printout could have been produced from anytime between when the records were automated (likely long after 1962) and the most recent hand typed addition to the image which was receipt of a 1982 transcript from UH. My transcript from an Ivy League university was automated as early as 1972, BTW.
You have no personal knowledge of all 1962 UW transcript office policies and possible alternative methods of recording and communicating transcript information by your own admission. You are speculating. Perhaps some were handwritten and some were typed in 1962 depending on the person preparing the transcript or the state of the file.

Nonsense. The University delivered the #188 document as the original entry record and subsequently sent a letter to WND saying so.

That document is subject to all of the objections set out above. It is just another fraudulent document presented in support of the legend.

No, I am not speculating; Yes, in fact I have absolute first hand knowledge of all the facts I set out above.

Now as to "all policies"? The Liberal Politicians who run the University might well in fact have a policy of approving use of University records and procedures to create fraudulent documents in support of the Obama fairy tale--that wouldn't surprise me.

But on the current record, #188 is the historical document and on its face it is clearly a fake.

So he threw as much tripe at you as he could and none of it stuck? Poor baby. He won’t come back, when he’s outed, he gets a headache and disappears.