As all can see, there is a pile of verifiable evidence (evidence that could be subjected to court-ordered discovery if necessary)
Except all Courts evade discovery
supporting only Stanley Ann
Stop. Stanley is not a girls name, it's silly, it's ridiculous, it's insulting to the USA
as Barry's mom and ZERO evidence of any kind available to support the Mal-Val narrative.
How about their faces?
Per Greenperson: “Not a university in WA. Washington State University. But she didn’t go there; she went to the University of Washington. Two different schools. If we’re going to hew to the accuracy of these INS documents, then either they are true or they are not.”
She never went anywhere near a WA University.
A serious forensic investigator is concerned with whether a contemporaneous document is authentic, not whether all of the in formation in it is accurate. The person who prepared the document could be reporting incorrect information for any number of reasons.
Any authentic document would be nice.
It is entirely reasonable for getting the particular WA university wrong to have been an honest mistake or it is possible that at the time she WAS intending to attend WA State, not U of WA. People get the “U. of (fill in the state)” vs. “(fill in the state U.” wrong all of the time in the numerous states where such confusion can arise. I went to one such university myself.
Mistakes by the boatload
Per Greenperson: “SAD’s passport files are contradictory, missing, or locked away.”
IMO, SAD’s passport file is complete except for the “missing” pre-1966 record of either a renewal and/or initial application. Yes there are wrong dates and the mystery Soebarkah cross-out, but absolutely nothing that indicates ANY forgery of the FIOA passport records which are verifiable and available to anyone...except the “destroyed” ones, of course.
All of the information in the “non-destroyed” passport records confirms that Stanley Ann IS Barry's mom.
Ha Ha, the information they left supports their lie? How stupid you are.
So welcome to the club, now you see what we have been up against. Someone who tells you that the birth announcements are proof that Stanley Ann Dunham had a baby, although the announcement doesn’t name the mother or the child, and the daughter of the Pratt family with whom the Dunhams shared the house doesn’t remember her nor a child. She went to the U of WA, althought the directory listing is for Anna Obama, for whom the baby-sitter said she baby-sat when her own daughter, who was born in July 1959, was eighteen months of age...and Susan Blake, whom Stanley Ann Dunham visited with a newborn (in early August, she so carefully says) describes a newborn that SAD didn’t know how to care for.
So if you do the math, he’s a baby In January 1961 and again in August 1961. (Does that give you a hint this is not the same child?)
I would love to have been a fly on the wall on that day. Tell me Susan, did Stanley Ann Dunham breast feed the child while she was there for the afternnon, as you say she was? I bet she didn’t, I bet she fed it out of a bottle. Spontaneous lactation is a rarity...more common amongst dogs and cats than human beings...
But what would be the use asking her anything? She would only answer to a script according to what serves the CAUSE.
SAD probably did visit Susan with a child, it wasn’t hers. Someone maybe attended the U of WA, but it wasn’t Stanley Ann Dunham. And the person who attended the U of HI would have been the ANN S OBAMA (student) shown in the Polk. And she wasn’t Stanley Ann Dunham either.
But I repeat myself again and again...