The Marriage of Obama's Parents: 'In Name Only'?

American Thinker ^ | March 8, 2014 | Shawn Glasco

[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.

[Fred Nerks]

That Central Park image was weird enough before someone enlarged the hands, which were normal size in the original fake. Why anyone would bother to alter a photoshop beats me.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3130965/posts?page=938#938

Did you see that?

Right down to the little kick at the end of the final ‘m’

[JoeProBono]

Beats me;-{)

[chicken head]

I emailed the lady at the link, to get the cost of examining the BC and the SS5 to see if they are legit documents. I WANT TO KNOW FOR SURE..shes also a handwriting expert..something stinks

http://www.document-examiner.com/linda_james.htm

[Fred Nerks]

He wasn't there.

[JoeProBono]

I was there and I know what I saw.

[Fred Nerks]

And I took the original photograph of the Dunhams sitting on the bench before zero was added.

[Fred Nerks]

Why don’t you ask Seizethecarp, he’s our resident fraud examiner, he’ll do it for free.

[JoeProBono]

Are you Phil Dragoo?

[Fred Nerks]

No, I’m Fred Nerks. I told Phil he wasn’t there, so Phil took him out.
Are you JoeProBono?

[Fred Nerks]

Who-ever put him there had to destroy the wall to fit him in:

But you didn't notice that...

[chicken head]

Because we need FACTS, something that can be used in a court of law, and from a certified PROFESSIONAL. people can talk but that dont make it fact.. if a certified expert says its good then i will believe it. if she says its not good i will believe that- i’m tired of the back and forth of whats good and not good— lets start with SOLID evidence with a backbone to it.I’m sure she is gonna want to see the orginals, so i have no idea who has that — do you?— if i dont get email back today i will call her in the morning.

[Fred Nerks]

While you were there, did you also notice that the top of the wall is a straight line, and has no dip in it, as it does behind the fake image of the threesome?

[JoeProBono]

Is that a trick question?

[Fred Nerks]

Good heavens, I didn’t know you could write! Can you see what I am trying to show you?
Why are you distracting from the evidence that the threesome is a fake, with silly tamperings?

[JoeProBono]

Reductio ad absurdum

[Fred Nerks]

You did it, you named it.

[PhilDragoo]

The threesome is an alteration of a missing original of the couple. The third person was inserted between the original couple. To recreate a replica original requires addition of removed material. The couple are consistent with each other and show no acknowledgement of the interloper, who in turn has zero interaction with the couple.

[Fred Nerks]

Thanks, Phil. I've never understood why anyone would further tamper with the photoshopped image, which was created to give the impression the Dunhams sat with zero on a park bench in Central Park, when it's obvious they didn't.

I've often wondered to what lengths the faker went, to create that hand for Stanley Armour on zero's shoulder, it looks like the left hand is an inversion of the right; the fingers are in the same positions.

There's a missing year sometime between 1982-1983 when he was supposed to be in New York. That's when there are several reports he was in Kenya. Maybe he fell off a motor-cycle...he was wearing the same jacket.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm. He has scars on his head, pretty significant scars. I wonder what caused them.