David said only one document “looked” forged giving not in bit of actual evidence that could be supported for a document that is cross-corroborated by multiple other transcripts.
I am invested in finding out Barry's nativity truth to the greatest extent possible using well-established forensic and analytical methods. You have not provided any verifiable or even potentially verifiable evidence of an alternative mommy and/or daddy for Barry or any credible alternative narrative for the events surrounding his birth.
“And you think Maraniss is ‘an historian’!”
When I make a mistake or put a mistaken impression in FR comments I will retract it and I hearby retract my statement that Maraniss was an historian. After watching his painstakingly meticulous methodology on display in the 2.5 hour CSPAN BookTV showing him in Kansas, Hawaii and Kenya, I incorrectly assumed, bolstered by his Pulitzer Prize for his Clinton book, that he was a sincere historical biographer, a type of historian.
After reading his editorial in the WaPo abusing eligibility activists and calling us racists and also looking at the obviously photo-shopped picture of Barry and his alleged white girlfriend that he allowed into the book, I have returned his book for a refund in disgust.
I still regard lots if information in his book, the parts that are verifiable by others, to be claims that appear to be authentic, including his information from Ruth Ndesandjo and the birth-dates for David and Mark. None of Ruth's information has been refuted with any evidence that I have seen.
Fake "evidence" (people saying things, people that have a vested interest in mythology) that has not been refuted is not "evidence". You conveniently ignore the fact that many people have a vested interest in hiding 0kaka's background and have been actively doing so for many years. Oh, and what is this "us"?
After reading his editorial in the WaPo abusing eligibility activists and calling us racists...
I don't want to be mean but you thought someone who got a Pulitzer Prize for a fawning book about Clinton was therefore trustworthy? You really think people on FR are fools.
I see why you don't send me copies of stuff like this--that is just out and out not so. I told you then as I tell you again above--I have possession of actual 1961 transcripts including at least one certified; I also have first hand knowledge of how they were prepared, maintained, and authenticated and of the University's system for assuring validity.
On the face of it, the transcript the U furnished Corsi is fraudulent for the reasons specified.