Forget the names, the children have deliberately been misnamed to confuse. The two boys above are the same, one image is tinted, the other black and white, the b&w was substituted for the tinted image on the same webpage, but both were ultimately removed. Their age difference would appear to be within the range of one year, tops, probably less.
The above image of the family group is a photograph originally copyrighted by Mark Ndesandjo, the photograph shows the kenyan and Ruth, the older, darker child appears to reach to Ruth's waist, and must be in the range of six year of age or there-abouts.
Ruth is shown with her son, call him what you like, call him 'David' and call the standing boy 'Mark' that doesn't change the fact that now there is an age difference of several years between the two children.
And now that we have the very first image of what we assume is Mark as a child, we can see that the dark boy in the family group WAS SOMEONE ELSE, born in the same year as zero, living somewhere in the US when their photographs were taken together.
It really is a lot easier to follow if you don't accept the way the names have been used and changed and the way the children have been deliberately misidentified.
A ROSE IS A ROSE BY WHAT EVER NAME. The children don't change just because they call them Mark and David in one shot, and David and Mark in another.
There were always THREE BOYS - ZERO and the dark boy and the child Ruth had with the kenyan in 1965 up until she divorced him.
It seems the 'David' in the latest image of two boys is actually zero once again, compare to the photo of him taken in Hawaii...it's a REAL FAKE.
The uncropped imageBrown deer’s question:
“So, who is that darker boy with the tilted head?”
Answer per marks old website:
Mark.