[David]

"This is to confirm that when Ms. Obama’s record was entered into the Student Data Base, an error had been made and the month was entered as August (8) and not September (9). The staff person made an honest mistake since on the original record the 9 is typed on the line which makes the 9 look like an 8. Our office investigated this, found that the class did not begin until September so corrected the on-line transcript changing the month from August to September." -----------------------------

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.

[Fantasywriter]

Or it could have been a simple clerical error. Not every typo is a vast conspiracy. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.

[David]

"This is to confirm that when Ms. Obama’s record was entered into the Student Data Base, an error had been made and the month was entered as August (8) and not September (9). The staff person made an honest mistake since on the original record the 9 is typed on the line which makes the 9 look like an 8. Our office investigated this, found that the class did not begin until September so corrected the on-line transcript changing the month from August to September."

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[Brown Deer]

...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.

[LucyT]

Check out # 434 , # 436 , and other comments on this and next page.

Thanks David and Brown Deer.