If there was any kind of birth certificate with SAD’s name on it, they would not have had to do the chop job. It’s quite simple. They could have just lifted the whole name if they needed to forge it for some reason other than the wrong parent/s.
I’m under the impression that’s why there were a number of layers. The end result is an amalgamation of a number of items that came before it.
Like a birth record for the child that Mary baby-sat in January, 1961.
And nowhere was there a complete signature of Stanley Ann Dunham or Stanley Ann Dunham Obama.
Thus, it could be interpreted, as Onaka may have done (on an unsigned, though initialled ‘verification’) that certain items ‘match’. They ‘match’ something on file for the birth of a child to Ann S Obama, who was listed in the Polk in 1961, and who wasn’t the Dunham daughter.
A student renting a room, while the kenyan lived in his little dump elsewhere, that fits.
And somewhere there’s a document on file that does have Stanley Ann Dunham’s signature on it. The lodgement of the application for divorce document might be the one. That would be the only thing she ever signed as Stanley Ann Dunham Obama.
The missing page 11 possibly showed the attachment of TWO items of evidence:
1. A fake marriage licence
2. A fake birth certificate.
Well, that’s IF it was Stanley Ann Dunham who actually divorced the father of the child we know as BHO2. It might have been the mother, and the document we see has been suitably doctored. It’s an Alice-Through-The-Looking-Glass-World, after all.
The more we see, the less we can believe.
thats what i was thinking to fred-
Perplexing.
ANN OBAMA might just be the only constant. Ann S Obama was the name of the student listed in the Polk.
How is that possible?