Bringing a bit of this over from Orly's poopies:

Maybe because the SS-5 Form actually shows a revision in 1955. It took me 15 minutes to Google up another ~1958 application, where the scan is a little clearer.

And what are they doing FOIA-ing the same thing they already got? Do they expect it to be different?

Morons. MORONS.


http://acutemigraine.info/social-securi ... ation.html

OK, which of you evildoers is Kari Johnston? :

In addition -- In typical Orly fashion... what IS SHE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR?

• "disclosure of the following information in regards to a number of matters,"

Okay, what "following information"?

• "Official SS- 5 Social Security application for Stanley Ann Dunham, mother of Barack Obama,(Exhibit 1)..."

Exhibit 1? Okay, you already have this... that must not be what you are asking for.

• "A reasonable question arises 'How could Stanley Ann Dunham fill out in 1959 a form, that would not exist until 1965'"

1. This is a statement, not a request, nor a description of an item of information or of an item
2. Even the "reasonable question" that she puts in quotes, does not end with a question mark
3. She nowhere asserts anything like "Therefore I request that the following questions be answered... x...y...z...etc."

In addition: "...in regards to a number of matters..." -- WHAT MATTERS?

None are enumerated.

Lastly, "A copy of this letter is being forwarded to 36,000 outlets of U.S. and International media,..." -- anyone here in PR? What can this mean*? 36,000 emails? Where would the list come from? Wouldn't this be expensive, to go through a mass-mail PR service? With a pdf exhibit attachment? 36,000 snailmails? Wouldn't this be even more expensive? I call B.S.

And actually, this type of thing really pisses me off. Never mind the 1958 version SS-5 I found where the "55" is clear to see -- I would maintain that the "55" is pretty clear to see on Stanley Ann's. It certainly is not a "65."

The hate that drives these people is truly demented.

Yeah. What a bunch of caca.

The author carefully documents 5 archival forms (signed by the applicants in 1947, 1948, 1949, 1953, and 1959) all apparently using a version of the form with a 1946 revision date.

Then, because SAD's form:

• is UNLIKE those, but
• also signed in 1959

...it MUST be a forgery. The author calls it "obvious" that SAD's is a "fake," presumably because any other application made also in 1959 must resemble the one s/he cites that used the 1946 form revision.

No mention is made:

• of documented proof that must have been revealed through this research that there was also a 1955 revision that is identical to SAD's
• that it is certainly possible for application to be made NOT using the latest form (as apparently happened in the case of the other 1959 application, using the 1946 revision)
• of any effort to review other applications made after 1955, to see if they used the 1946 revision or a later one
• of any effort to determine through official inquiry whether there WAS a 1955 revision, which would support the (correct) interpretation of the illegible date on SAD's form
• of any effort to determine through official inquiry whether there was a 1965 revision, and if so, if it resembles the one supposedly used by this supremely incompetent and inconsistent forger, who could flawlessly imitate SAD's writing and signature, and brilliantly create a congruent SSN that would be perfectly reflected in all subsequent records between 1959 and 1965 (the earliest date the forgery could allegedly have occurred), but chose an anachronistic form to do it on.

I won't even go into the ridiculous wishful thinking that went into the photo manipulation of the various "55/65" close-ups, except to note that the author did not even start with the highest-resolution known version of the image. They can be discounted entirely.

The absence of ANY other examples subsequent to 1955, any number of which could be found by a competent investigator, and which would resemble SAD's application -- along with the absence of ANY consideration as to whether there actually was a 1965 revision and whether it looked like SAD's -- likewise discounts the entire argument.

NOT TO MENTION:
- When presented with a form signed 1959, and another hard-to-read date that sets a lower bound on the existence of the form, but which could be 55, 56, 65, or 66, which two dates are the 'possible' dates? If you get this wrong, you scored less than 400 on the SAT.
- The author even states: "In fact, it has the statement Revised 7/65 on the form. Short of using a time machine, there is no way she could have signed that in 1959." When your conclusions require the existence of either a time machine, or a master forger working with a network of criminals all across the country -- but who makes the most basic, obvious error along the way -- you have made a mistake.

So what's Orly trying to prove with this utter nonsense, that Stanley Ann is not eligible to be president?

I agree, Orly. Dead people are not eligible for president.

Okay... that's settled.

Okay, I did the research that this BIRFOON didn't (want to) do.

Here are examples of the distinct SS-5 forms I could find, in chronological order:


Form revised 1942 (?), processed 1945


Form revised 1946, processed 1947


Form revised 1955, processed 1958


Form revised 1955, processed 1959 (Stanley Ann Dunham)


Another form revised 1955, processed 1959


Form revised 1962, processed 1963


Form revised 1963, processed 1965 (Removed employment info)


Form revision date illegible, processed 1972


Form revised 1972, '73, or '74 (illegible), processed 1975

As you can see:

- No evidence found of any imagined 1965 revision

- SAD's form is exactly like other forms dated 1958-59, which are clearly 1955 revisions

- All the revisions from 1962 onwards use the black reverse numbered blocks for each field. This may or may not have been to facilitate computerization. It is unimaginable that a (missing) 1965 revision would have reverted to a style identical to that used in 1955, and reinstated the question about employment status removed in 1963.

CONCLUSION:

The SSAPPERS (for Social Security Application doubters) are full of shit.

Thanks Verbie! For the thorough debunking and for the thread we can use as reference.

Chalk up another win for PJ/TFB people!

That was the next question, but I didn't feel like addressing it until I had the Full Debunk Monte.

As long as it's just Orly, I think your snarky answer is sufficient.

For anyone else, it's worth trying to answer seriously.....

And I just don't see it. I don't see ANY "conspiratorial" aspect that could make ANY sense whatsoever, especially in a birther context.

I think they just want to demonize Barack's mom. She was a dishonest, n****r-loving, shiftless, liberal moron, who (for reasons unknown, and with resources unspecified) applied for her SSN at some time later than 1965, and arranged for records to be altered/inserted/forged/invented so that it would appear that she had applied for it in 1959 at the age of 16.

(Here are pictures depicting the actual physical records that would have been tampered with. Note in the bottom photo the clerk is entering or researching a 1955 SS-5! Just like Stanley Ann's! Maybe we have a live shot of the culprit!)

(Note also that if you look through these Candler Building archive photos and records kept by the Social Security Administration, the specific systems in use [quadruplicate microfiche, etc.] in 1955-1959 were very likely no longer in active use after 1965. The Administration was in a constant state of progress, and from 1956 on was an early and aggressive adopter of computer technology. The forgery/fraud theory is just so totally senseless AND very very fucking implausible.)

Miraculously and magically, the SSN that she was eventually issued (at some unknown point later that 1965) matched the SSN that she had supplied employers, banks, credit agencies, the State Department, immigration authorities, and the IRS between 1959 and 1965.

What this all proves is that Barack is 'bad seed,' and as we all know, every child of every SSN fraud artist also grows up to become a fraud artist.

The logic is impeccable. "I read that "55" as a "65", therefore President Obama should be impeached and face the penalty for high treason."

Oh ..... wait ...... birfer contradiction alert: Now the Western Center for "Journalism" wants Obama's DNA to ascertain if he is really Stanley Ann and Barack Sr's child! So THEY would be hoping for a NEGATIVE result (proving he is a usurper) but unfortunately removing the 'bad seed' theory.

I've lost too many brain cells over this today. LALALALALALALALALALALALA

Reposted in this thread at Verbie's request:




Well, having been pretty heavily involved in genealogy research for a number of years, I'd have to say that one of the fundmentals--really, one of the most basic things you learn early in the process--is the dates that the Social Security Admin revised the SS-5 forms, and what the variations of the revised SS-5 form look like (you get so you can date them at a glance). There was no revision in 1965, but there certainly was in 1955, and the SS-5 form completed by Stanley A. Dunham is the 1955 form.

And--certainly!--there are many examples of SS-5 with an older revision date being used even years after a newer revision had come out, especially in the 1950s and 1960s--it was a different time, philosophically, and the old forms were not trashed simply because a revision had been made--they were used up, even if that took several more years. The "revised" form wasn't automatically sent out to the offices, either--when the local office which processed social security applications ran out of forms, they simply re-ordered from the SSA, and got whatever the latest form might be.

Of course, any fool--including Oily--with an internet connection could have found all that out pretty simply, and with no more than a dozen clicks of the mouse, through the Social Security Admin website.

On the other hand, I absolutely LOVE it when one of Oily's "supporters" (like this "Jim") makes posts like that, which she goes for every single time, like a largemouth bass suckin' on a shiner. It's always best when it's Oily's "supporters" who make an ass out of her (like she isn't already completely adept at that), as well as themselves.

If you have a link to a genealogy primer on fundamentals that includes information about what is important to know about SS-5 forms, I think it would be an excellent addition to this debunk. It would show birtherdom has not "discovered" something new.

My aging memory tells me it was Eppy who some time ago posted this information regarding the relation of the numbering system for SS#s and the address/residence of the person the number was assigned to as the system changed over time. It's good info to have handy.

Orly could have simply used this page to confirm the application date of Stanley Ann's SSN:

http://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html

Thanks for that -- I suspected it existed, and provided an even more direct path to the truth than the SS-5 forms themselves, but had not found it yet.

That's a one-stop debunk. I read that in 2011, new issue numbers will not have the link to geographical location.

Is it just me .... but the



form isn't an SS-5 :

It's either an MM-5 (something to do with mining rights!)


or maybe an NN-5 (something to do with telecommunications)

Young Barack was mined from the earth...

Saruman: Do you know how the Obama first came into being? He was elvish once, taken by the dark powers, tortured and mutilated. A ruined and terrible form of life. Now... perfected. My fighting Uruk-Hai.

I guess that proves it's a fake.

Old microfiche copies can do some strange things to letters. Note that the printers code on the far right bottom (10-5528-9) of Dunham's form agrees exactly with Form SS-5 (Revised 7-55) from other samples.

I guess I don't understand. If it's a joke I didn't get it. The form says "Application for Social Security Account Number". It doesn't have anything to do with mining rights or telecommunications. Even today, the SS website calls the Application for an account number an SS5 even though it isn't printed on the form anymore.
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

Here's a link to a genealogical site pointing out the importance of the SS5 for a deceased person. Primarily, it was probably filled out by the person requesting the number and might contain previously unknown information.

http://www.rootdig.com/ss5/

I think tjh was dramatizing the question -- why pick on one particular bit of illegibility on the facsimile (i.e., the form revision date)? There's other data on there that can be mistaken for other forms. For Jim Of The Birthers to assert some forger used a (nonexistent) 1965 revision to forge a 1959 application by SAD, makes as much sense as asserting that said forger used a Mineral & Mining form for the same purpose.

*** threadjack warning***



Some years ago I walked into a DU group and asked for some help regarding geneology. OMFG. In TWENTY minutes I was told exactly where to look for what I sought. Three responses within an hour and a half.

My dad is in his 80s and I knew the name of the ship his family came on from Europe in 1916 (his grandmother who raised him) . That's all I knew.

From thatI got a pitcha of the ship and a copy of THE SHIP'S MANIFEST with their names.

I just got it as a present for my dad. But then...

My daughter is just 30+, but my older long lost adopted birth daughter is with us now too! Them girlie pals have hooked up with one another and have taken a big interest in this stuff.

I never dreamed that daughter would care about the old history, let alone that the adopted daughter would come find us and that they would be such beloved girlie pals!

So them girls are asking more questions about the family. And history.

I might not be so grumpy as I put on sometimes.

I am so very grateful to those who work and share geneology. It is history.

This isn't really a threadjack... lol

I work on the family tree when I have the time and have found the SS apps to be invaluable. Without the one for my Maternal Great Grandmother I would never have know her mother's or father's names, which actually just increased the mystery... how many Ukranians have a last name of Hee?