HERE'S THE PHOTOGRAPH ONE MORE TIME:
Hasn't it struck anyone yet that if zero and that dark boy were together, it was the older boy who was the son of the kenyan, and that it was his mother who ended up 'the wife from whom he was separated, living in the Philippines' according to the INS documents?
Now watch the smart-a$$es come out of the woodwork. The usual explanation I get is the reason the boy on the left is the spitting image of zero is because his father was the same man. But one of those boys ended up in Kenya, around 1965 or 1966, because that's Ruth there holding Mark, who was born the year after she went to Kenya, in late 1964.
The result is simply that you do not know who zero's parents were or where he was born or when his birthdate is.
The first time you see zero (aside from a baby photo on his own) is in the two little boys image, and then shortly afterwards, Stanley Ann is shown holding him sitting on the fence...and that's why we laughingly call her The Nanny. If they had a photograph of SAD with zero as a baby, we would have seen it by now. She simply wasn't there until the kid was two or three years old, around the same time as the dark boy shows up in Kenya.
Btw, the original of the two little boys was posted by Mark Ndesandjo on his own website and the image, after a short period of showing a similar image that was untinted, (not mauve, but black and white) which made the two boys appear to be the same skin colour, the image of the two little boys has been removed from the website.
Now watch the nay-sayers appear like flies to compost. Their devotion to 'David' is as strong as it is to the Stanley Ann Dunham mother-myth.
It's well past time for an epiphany.