Posted on 12/15/2016 11:14:42 AM PST by GonzoII
Brought to you by Desert Diamond: http://ddcaz.com Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference on Obama Birth Certificate to be streamed LIVE this afternoon.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Obama is in Venezuela partying with his commie pals and the tumbling EMP bomb hits tomorrow, cancelling the election.
Doesn’t it?
You have that on good authority? It’s news to me. I’ll wait until tomorrow.
We better fill the Rio Grande with ninja frogmen to protect that southern border.
Perhaps that contact is the reason, in the following quote, Corsi says “most researchers,” instead of simply, ‘researchers,’:
“the Seattle Polk Directory listing is for a “Mrs. Anna Obama,” a variant of her name that most researchers have considered to be Ann Dunham.”
No one has ever explained why UoW would engage in criminal academic fraud for the pupose of discrediting Obama’s signature work, Dreams From my Father, while at the same time destroying the foundation upon which Obama based his national political career.
Why don’t you give Jerry a phone call and ask him, instead of just guessing?
Because there is no indication in anything Corsi wrote that he took the ‘Anna Obama is not Ann Obama,’ theory seriously. Thus I have nothing to inquire of him about.
The only items that you have referenced are over six years old. The fact is, you don’t know the facts about any of this, whatsoever.
Corsi hasn’t written anything more recent that contradicts what he said in the past.
So? Maybe it’s not for you to see.
Bol.
Those guys are deadly.
That particular error has some nuances.
If the purported transcript was real, it would have been typed at a time the typist knew that classes and registration started in September and could not have started in August.
Great care was taken with that document because it was intended as a perpetual student record--it was incorporated in a pin binder from which it was not intended to be removed. Typist error? Sure. It might have happened but under the circumstances it would have been proofed at least twice and would have been very unlikely to have been perpetuated all the way into the binder.
The original number (9) would have been seen in the ring binder close to the fold in a stack of pinned documents three or four inches thick. So it would have been difficult to see. Enhancing the probability that the mistake occurred when someone was attempting to reproduce the original by looking at the original in the binder.
So if what you think is that the document was a fraud, you would see the preparer looking at the original document on the fold showing a 9; but by the 1990's when the fraudulent document was prepared, the preparer was a person who did not understand how the scheduling, enrollment, and class commencement periods worked in the 1960's and could thus think the 9 was an 8.
Misuse of the original document would have been more likely to have occurred than a typographical error would have been perpetuated in an original document.
Coupled with the story about how the original was converted to a computer form later (very unlikely) and the fact that the purported original document (with the 8 instead of the 9) was on the wrong form for 1961, there just isn't much room to see that document as anything but an intentional fraud created to support the fairy tale.
And yes, Jerry and Mike Zullo are both perfectly aware of this analysis and I believe think it is sound.
Or it could have been a simple clerical error. Not every typo is a vast conspiracy. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.
Just to beat this dead horse a little further.
What she wants you to believe is that the on-line computer transcript is an original record--it wasn't.
The two column form is presented as the original entry document. A form like this (but somewhat different--three columns instead of two) was the original entry document for all students in the 60's and it was maintained permanently and for every student from that period of which I am aware and I am aware of several of them, that document still exists, and is still in the original pin binder.
The University says earlier students were converted from the original to the computer at a later date. That might have happened on a case by case basis although again, I am not aware of any single example of a student whose records were so converted.
But also, having seen and worked only from a photocopy of the original two column form, the original isn't typed as a 9 either--it is an 8. That is a close enough call that if you were working with an original, you might have a different view--but in the photocopy I have looked at, the original is an 8.
And although not conclusive, I see that as supporting the thesis that what really happened is that what is presented now in the two column form was really a fraudulent record prepared to support the fairy tale.
However the conclusive evidence is that although a two column form like the one presented may have been used in later periods, in 1961 the only form in use of which I am aware had three columns, not two. The form is not a 1961 form.
‘a fraudulent record prepared to support the fairy tale.’
The fairytale is that Stanley Ann was living in HI as Obama Sr’s wife. This transcript destroys the fairytale.
Thanks for all the details. I remember reading a lot or all of this a few years ago, and it’s good to have it presented again.
Just like the fake birth certificate was designed to show zero was born in Hawaii, the fabricated transcript was designed to confirm that the woman Mary babysat for was Stanley Ann Dunham, not Anna Obama.
They failed on both counts.
The woman Mary babysat for was Anna Obama, and just as Mary said, it was when her own daughter, who was born in July 1959, was 18 months of age.
Anna, as the Kenyan student called her, approached the Salvation Army about an adoption in April 1961. If that approach had been made by Stanley Ann Dunham, the event itself on one INS document, and the mother’s name in another, would not have needed to be deleted or truncated.
Anna wasn’t meant to be found. Charlette really upset the apple-cart, she understood that later, when several months after her story appeared on her The Museum of the Mysteries website, she edited the mistake she had made by repeating Mary’s statement.
Anna may have been trying to carry on with her studies like she promised her parents, as she told Mary, she certainly seems to have believed she would go to Kenya with the father of her child...where, by tribal custom, he would have to also marry a tribal wife.
Which, once you understand the blending of the two women, is the story Stanley Ann Dunham told Susan Blake when she showed her little zero, and told Susan she was married to a Kenyan native and madly in love and going to Boston.
Years later, Susan, after admitting she never saw Stanley Ann Dunham again, suggests she was going to Boston to meet up with her husband at Harvard. Susan didn’t realise the kenyan wouldn’t be there for another year.
And that is as much as is possible to follow, without the name of the mother on the INS docs, or a genuine sworn copy of the university enrolments...
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.