11/22/2010 Quick Note: I did a short summary of this post, combinbed with info from the most recent trip into HI at this link:http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/round-pegs-in-square-holes/
Additionally, I put up a You Tube vid showing a woman ordering her long form birth certificate in July 2010 ~ in Honolulu HI.:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth/
Hello Kittens.
I promise you that this piece has information not posted anywhere else before.
This research project focuses on recently discovered facts surrounding the Barack Obama newspaper birth announcements. I realized quite some time ago that no one out there had done a full-on comparison of copies covering a broad range of dates. Or, even more importantly to my mind, no one had done comparisons on copies from multiple libraries -personally collected- on a large scale. I set off to do so. My main goal originally was to look for any obvious anomalies. Obviously. Secondly, the frequency of the two papers posting the birth announcements in exact order within a day or two of publication.
Third, anything that jumped out as being out of place, or dissimilar between the copies from each location.
There is a surprisingly huge amount of information connected to these newspaper birth announcements, and I will do my best to put it in order. I will begin with a very abbreviated history on the discovery of the infamous obama newspaper birth announcements, followed by my own experiences and the materials that I’ve collected which are relevant to the research in this post. So, basically this is written somewhat like a a journal. There are a total of three different posts, and a “supporting” page of PDF’s (over in the right hand column). The links to the other two posts are below:
(7/27/10 update) New post on latest trip into Hawaii:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/ya-cant-always-get-what-ya-want/
:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/graphs-and-stats/
:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/wheres-sherlock-holmes-when-you-need-him/
First, the back story.
The History:
Shortly after obama’s “COLB” appeared on his campaign website, many people claimed that it was fraudulent, and demanded that he produce his original long form BC. That never happened. Instead, an intrepid PUMA doing research made the discovery of the now famous obama birth announcement that apparently appeared in the Aug. 13,1961 Honolulu Advertiser. This was “discovered” by Lori Starfelt, who made the claim that she was sent the copy by the Hawaii State Library.
This is what I was able to find on our friend Starfelt, written by a columnist :
“This announcement was not found by, as might be expected, the usual suspects (the “Obamania media” as they’re known by some),
but by one researcher trying to prove that Obama
wasn’t born in the U.S: Lori Starfelt, who’s part of a team creating an anti-Obama documentary for the pro-Clinton PUMAs. It was posted by “TexasDarlin,” another person researching this issue.
I’ve got to hand it to these people. Even if their effort is only to going to lead to the conclusion that he is a citizen (which, with this announcement, would seem to be closer and closer to the case), they’re pretty good researchers. I think rooting out possible corruption and deception is not a bad thing.
So, the announcement was published. To those who will question its authenticity, Lori (Starfelt), the researcher, explains:
“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.”
Or does it? One very notable thing going on in her “statement” is that she seems to have been able to easily get lots of answers that no one has been afforded since. If you try to get this info from the newspapers or the hospitals or from the Department of Health in HI itself, you will not get a straight answer. But Lori got one. And, she actually got an absolutely PRISTINE copy of the announcement. Now, aside from the fact that we don’t REALLY know where she obtained it from, it was mentioned that it was given to her by the Librarian at the State Library in Honolulu.
Now, after Lori’s discovery was published, along came another birth announcement, this one was supposedly discovered (by a “poster” named Koa), IN PERSON and also at the HI State Library. Below was from a poster at the FreeRepublic blog:
“Source of announcement: In posting that announcement, the user stated as follows:”
“Here’s a copy I made today of the August 14th (could have been the 15th or 16th), 1961 Star Bulletin newspaper showing Obama’s birth announcement stored on microfilm at the Hawaii State Library in Honolulu. I had to enlarge it to the point of losing the top of the page with the date and day in order to make it readable. The microfilm is stored in the basement of the library and was in the box marked Star Bulletin Aug 1, 1961-Aug 16, 1961. …”
This was the Aug. 14,1961 Honolulu Star Bulletin announcement-the one on the right below. Just click to enlarge.
Honolulu Advertiser, closeup of original announcement thats posted above left (I note the bottom of the letters in “Obama” are cut off):
Now, you will notice that in this next example (from a pro-obama google webcache) is the “same” ad as above, only it looks a bit different: No dotted lines, letters have been restored and do not appear “chopped off”, heavy line under Asing announcement missing, periods added to the “A M Hatchle” announcement”. Nice and shiny.
In a Jan. 7, 2010 article in WorldNetDaily I found the following:
“The Advertiser and Star-Bulletin began collaborating on reporting birth announcements in 1961. On June 1, 1962, they signed a Formal Letter of Agreement to create the Hawaiian News Agency to jointly publish both papers, an agreement that remains in place even today.
A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.“
Birth announcements from the Star-Bulletin (left) and Honolulu Advertiser (right), with Barack Obama’s announcement marked
WHY DID I HIGHLIGHT THE STATEMENT IN THE WND ARTICLE?
One reason is that it has been advanced many, many times that there is more weight to this “proof” because the announcements appeared in both papers, presumably because both papers are thought to have always published the same birth announcements. So, if it is in one paper it is in the other.
That erroneous presumption was corrected early on by researchers who found that identical listing of these announcements was not typically the case.
Now for some more news,
I own a set of paper copies of both of these newspapers (copied from microfilm) that were personally collected for me by a close friend. The copies that I own are from both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, and were collected from BOTH Hawaii libraries that have the micro films, the State Library and the University Library. These were collected early March 2010. I also own a set of these paper copies from the Library of Congress in Washington DC, that I personally collected in 2010. The dates for each set are from July 23,1961 through September 8, 1961. I wish to make it clear that I am not claiming to have the microfilm rolls-I have the paper copies made while viewing the microfilms. The viewer has a printer that allows you to print the image on the screen.
LET ME MAKE A STATEMENT HERE. THE IMAGES OF THE ANNOUNCEMENTS FIRST POSTED (SHOWN ABOVE) DO NOT MATCH THE CONDITION OF THE COPIES THAT I OWN. IN FACT, THE COPIES THAT I HAVE FROM HAWAII ARE CLEARER AND HAVE LESS SIGNS OF WEAR IN THE STAR BULLETIN OF THE SAME DATE, SUPPOSEDLY FROM THE EXACT SAME LOCATION.
But the Advertiser is definitely in much worse shape. It has damage marks that run both diagonally and horizontally. The diagonal marks are odd, the film only slides between two glass plates and is otherwise stationary. I looked into the history of microfilms and found out that these are very tough films, meant to last “99 years”. Where you see the dotted line above obama’s announ. in the first ever online posted image, on my copy of the Advertiser from the same location there are significant lines obscuring that area. Additionally, the bottom of the letters in”obama” are not cut off as they appear to be in the original image. The “a” at the end of obama appears slightly tilted and lower than the rest of that letters in that line.
Clearly, one would NOT expect these microfilms to morph in precisely this way. I mean one gets better, one gets worse – by scratches appearing that cover an area that has repeatedly been pointed out as having a strange “dotted line” above the obama announ. The copies from the University Honolulu Advertiser are in excellent condition. Almost as clear as the Starfelt image.
Some other observations that I personally am in the unique position of being able to make:
The films are on reels dated from the first of the month to the 15th., then from the 16th. to the last day of the month.
The Honolulu Advertiser published both an am and pm edition each day.
The boxes in the Library of Congress were in very good condition. The boxes of the Honolulu Adver. in both HI locations were quite worn, while the boxes for the Star Bulletin in both HI locations were in very good condition.
The box containing the Aug. 1-15, 1961 Honolulu Star Bulletin in the Library of Congress in Washington DC. has the original reference numbers scribbled out and rewritten in black ink. (Taken with my cell phone) The Star Bulletin films were in boxes marked: Micro Photo Inc. 1700 Shaw Ave. Cleveland12, Ohio. The Honolulu Advertiser films were in a box marked: Recordak Corp. 444 Madison Ave. New York, NY.
The Aug. 1 -15 1961 Star Bulletin microfilm at the Library of Congress has a slice down the center of the film, it begins at the identifying “LC” punch outs on the end of the film. Sorry, my photo of this is not very clear. The slice down the center is actually very straight and deep. I ran my fingernail across lightly and it caught up in the slice. UPDATE: I neglected to mention before that when I examined this film on site I did unroll it over a yard to determine how long the slice was. It was on the entire portion that I unrolled, and did appear to continue-I didn’t want to be too obvious, so I didn’t unroll it further than that off of the spool.
6/19 UPDATE:
I was at the Library of Congress again collecting info for a fellow blogger and decided to look up a few things for myself. On thing we both wanted was to look at this particular film again because of the scratch. What I found is that in just the few months since I last looked at it another scratch has appeared that runs parallel to the first one I noted.
At the University Library in Honolulu the staff delivers the film and also replaces it. You are not under any observation while handling the film. No library card needed.
At the State Library in Honolulu you collect the film and return the film yourself. Other than some rude staff members making snide comments about my friend, and presumably to him, as he was able to hear said comments (having the leisure time to do so may be one reason that HI has the Library staff on furlough days) he was unsupervised while making copies. Copies at that library require inserting COINS into the viewer copy machine. No Library card needed.
At the Library of Congress you must pass through security upon entering the Library. You must obtain a Library card. You must fill out a request form and the films are delivered to a table which you indicate on the form. You return the films to a special area yourself. You are unsupervised while making copies. You must have any purse or bag/backpack glanced into upon leaving at he main entrance, otherwise you do not go through “security” again.
My friend felt it would be a very simple matter to make a switch of films in either HI Library. I can confirm the same would be the case even with the Library of Congress in spite of the “security” checks.
OK, so now that we have all of that out of the way I will put up the PDFs containing images of the copies for Aug. 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, and the Aug. 14, 1961 Star Bulletin that I have from the Library of Congress, both of the Hawaii Libraries. You can do the math yourself. These are kind of huge, so just adjust the size. Some are copied in sections so that the top of the page including date, page number, ect. are included.
(Sorry, didn’t get the CA copies up today-be a day or two longer) ADDITIONAL APOLOGIZES: I DON’T HAVE THESE IN THE FORMAT I WANT, I AM STILL WORKING THE BUGS OUT. SORRY THAT YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON PDFs!
Library of Congress, DC, Honolulu Advertiser0001
Library Of Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001
Library Of Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0003
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Advertiser0001
State Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001
State Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002
Honolulu State Library, Honolulu Advertiser -1 of 20001
Honolulu State Library, Honolulu Advertiser-2 of 20001
OBSERVATION: The PDFs for the Library of Congress-Honolulu Advertiser shows no “periods” after the A M Hatchie announcement (two below obama’s). At 400% blown-up there are no “periods”. In the copy from the HI University Library they are crystal clear at the size the PDF opens in. In the HI State Library Honolulu Advertiser, the periods appears to be there as well, though harder to make out. Since that is the most “degraded” of the microfilms, if those are visible there, they should be on the Library of Congress copy also. AND: in the first ever posting of the obama announcement-the last name is spelled Hatchle, NOW in every copy I’ve seen it appears as Hatchie. So, again-clear differences between the copies at different locations. All aspects of the text should be the same in all papers/microfilms.
Here’s where I throw a monkey wrench into the wheels turning in your mind. I will post PDFs of these next images. See how quickly you pick up what you are looking at. This is page 23 from the Star Bulletin on Aug. 14, 1961. Tip: obama’s birth announcement appears on page 24, Aug. 14, 1961 in the Star Bulletin.
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002
University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin 230001
Library Of Congress, DC Honolulu Star Bulletin-23-10001
Library OF Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin, 23-20001
YEP, you got it in one. The film shows that page 23 was imaged twice. What is most notable about this is that the same exact page was not imaged twice, but page 23 was laid out twice as you can clearly tell from the images in the copies. It is this way on the Library of Congress copy and the University Library in HI, I do not know if the film in the other HI library has the same occurrence because my friend did flub that copy….not sure he was looking at the instruction page that day. Sigh. Now, remember that this is the page that appears immediately before the page obama’s birth announcement is published on.
Remember back when I highlighted this statement in the article from WND: A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.” ???
OK Kittens, now I will explain why I highlighted that snippet.
It has been advanced that both papers printed identical lists as the general rule. As I mentioned before, this was pointed out to add more “weight” to the (ahem) proof these newspaper birth announcements lend to obama’s birth story. As it turns out it was done more or less sporadically. You see, when I decide to research something I don’t do a half- assed job of it. So I pulled a sample size of ten days from each paper. I began the splendidly tedious process of comparing the incidence of the same birth announcements being listed in both papers. Mainly with an eye towards how often they matched in exact order.The only time this occurred in that particular way within the ten days that I researched, was on the dates that had obama’s birth announcements.
And I even took the extra steps of comparing editions to a three day range (edition before, same date, edition after) of the sister publication. So, I tried to cover all the bases in a fair comparison.
OK. The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in order, was in the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared. This was indeed the only time that these announcements were printed this way, as the closest the papers came to doing this again never had all the same names listed in the exact same order. I figured the ten day sample would give conclusive data as to if this was uncommon.
7/7/10 I added a new post with the images of the copies that were used in this comparison process, there is also a “Page” in the column on the right with these same PDFs which will open to a much larger, easier to read size:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/the-wheat-and-the-chaff/
And I must mention, I didn’t forget the Nordyke twins birth announcement. Remember that it was given to this blog by a Citizen Investigator, and this is the first blog that published that image for public view. http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/01/07 While I was looking at my newest Library of Congress copy of the Aug. 16 1961 (the date the Nordyke twins announcement appears) I happened to notice that off to the side a few columns over was what looks to be a fingerprint. It’s in scale with the newspaper, not the viewer. It’s NOT in the copies from each location. The theory is that these came from a master reel-all of the microfilms. When a “fingerprint” is in one, it should be in all. Yes?
Aug. 16 19610001
Ponder this over: No one can access the Certification Of Live Birth (COLB) presented as proof of obama’s birth in HI. But they cannot restrict the public’s access to these microfilms.
It is truly remarkable how these are morphing since first being discovered, allegedly, at the State Library in Honolulu HI, is it not?
Special thanks to some wonderful and dedicated associates that have worked on this data as well. Big thanks to Redpill for spreading the word. The Network Of Knowledge. Dig it.
Extra giant thank you to TsunamiGeno for his hard work on behalf of his old friend…me. I know how difficult this had to have been, boy do I ever!
I WISH TO STATE THAT I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM THAT I HAVE FACTUAL PROOF THESE MICROFILMS CONTAINING BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR obama ARE TAMPERED WITH. I HAVE DISPLAYED ON THIS BLOG, OVER FOUR SEPARATE POSTS, A PORTION – THAT MOST DIRECTLY RELATING TO obama’s BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS – OF THE MATERIAL THAT I HAVE COLLECTED. I HAVE DIRECTLY SHARED COPIES AND PDF’S OF MY RESEARCH WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DOING THEIR OWN RESEARCH, THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND OR CLAIMS ARE HOWEVER, THEIR OWN.
I DO NOT ENDORSE ANY CLAIMS MADE BY ANY OTHER PERSON/PERSONS IF THOSE “CLAIMS” ARE NOT INCLUDED IN MY OWN RESEARCH WORK PRESENTED IN THIS BLOG.
Here is a link to a fairly recent article about the archives housed by the newspapers.
http://thinktech.honadvblogs.com/2010/03/09/where-will-all-the-archives-go/
~ by ladysforest originally published on May 28, 2010.
f a friend or acquaintance posed the question: "Who uses someone else's Social Security number?" how would you answer them? (I was going to say who uses a phony Social Security number, but since Uncle Sam is now recycling Social Security numbers because they are close to running out of them, just about any combination of numbers you put together today will be someone's Social Security number.) Most likely the first thought that would come to your mind when asked that question would be: "An illegal alien."
But, not in the US government—one in the Senate and one in the White House. If there was, everyone in the country would know that. But I guess it would be possible to have "name coincidence" in the District. But, how about 27 of them all named Barack Hussein Obama? That's not like being named John Smith where you have a couple dozen in every phone book in America.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
“After all, what could be worse for anyone who has dedicated a lifetime to public service, than having one’s legacy in the end be likened to that of, say, Clark Clifford, eternally remembered for his involvement in the international banking scandal known as BCCI?”
“do the right thing” funny this thought was on my mind all day and you reminded me of it.
I agree, if a person was a sincere public servant why would they want their legacy to be besmirched in any way shape or form nor be associated with those who would tarnish their own or anyone else’s good reputation?
Michelle: Thank you. I wrote this article in part so as to demonstrate, I am as entitled to frame the ‘argument’ as the person who brought up the subject. I have been writing for more than 2 (two) years now that no documentation available in the public record establishes Obama is a C, let alone Natural Born. Abercrombie merely concedes my point. Now, we need to get the state A’sG to ask those D’s who swore he was eligible so as to get the state to print his name on the ballot, given this lack of evidence on the record, how on earth did you know?
And please, pass on this article to those sites who have perhaps ‘misconstrued’ Abercrombie’s admissions. ADMINISTRATOR
I don’t agree. The damage Abercrombie, the Democratic Party, the state of Hawaii is too big to fathom. The gamble has been enormous, and the continued bluffs and distractions to prevent the facts from exposure will only grow. Abercrombie will play ball with the progressives and media to protect himself, because he (or family members) will end up with an unfortunate ‘accident’. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any of the progressives and liberals of this country having a conscience, and ‘doing the right thing’. Would we really be having this discussion if they did? Truly, how does one openly claim to be a British Subject at birth, after 1790, and become POTUS? Abercrombie’s antics are just another example of a liberal/progressive coward selling out their fellow citizens by blinding themselves with some grand future goal, while trying to find a personal ‘get out of jail card’ if it all goes wrong.
Pete
Pete: I chose to interpret Gov. Abercrombie’s statements in a light most positive to my understanding of the facts, notwithstanding several of my contemporaries in the blogosphere chose, instead, to contest those statements. For example, addressing his statements that he intends to meet with the AG so as to determine whether he can get Obama’s records released, several writers have generally opined, ‘If you want to get the records released, you could just ask your friend, Obama, to release them!’ Of course, they are correct; but offering up this kind of rebuttal lends unearned credibility to the false implication of his statement, which is, that he genuinely wants those records released in the first place! Since imbuing this meaning into his statement gives it more due than it deserves, instead, I took him at his word, literally. That is, since he said he would inquire with his (acting) AG as to the possibility of the release of records and, again, in light of the fact Obama could release those records at any time, and that he – the Governor – has no such authority; I opted to take his statement to mean, ‘I am not responsible for the withholding of such records.’
I cannot believe that after 2+ years of this drivel, people are still trying to combat the lies of the wrongdoers. Instead, compel them, through such mechanisms as collective action, or prosecution for criminal election fraud, to ‘tell’ the truth.
In short, I am trying to get people to shift the burden of proof and production.
Neil Abercrombie is now Governor of HI. Citizens of HI have filed written complaints asked the office of AG to investigate charges that his Lt. Gov., Brian Schatz, committed criminal election fraud. As of this date, Mr. Schatz has refused to disclose the basis for his Obama Certification; and the AG has failed to compel him to answer. Interpret these facts so as to make them a millstone around Abercrombie’s neck.
In other words, stop parsing his words but demand to know, instead, when his AG will address citizen complaints of election fraud against Brian Schatz! ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. Your voices would sound louder if those blogs with much higher readership numbers than mine, including one whose owner has direct ties to HI, would join in promoting a large scale citizen action campaign aimed to compel the AG to investigate the citizen complaints. (Indeed, many more complaints would be filed if doing so was promoted on those other blogs.)
Can I help? I don’t know how high my blog numbers are in comparison–but if there are any posts that I might cross post with attribution–I will be happy to.
misstickly: Thanks for the offer. Let me figure out a strategy that makes sense… ADMINISTRATOR
Excellent observation.
misstickly: Thank you. I am only taking the Governor, at his word. ADMINISTRATOR
this is a great read, and I found your writing to be amusing. I enjoy your take, here. all facts.
I hope this article gets lots of attention, jbjd.
Papoose: Thank you very much. I agree; I hope everyone shifts focus to Brian Schatz. After all, he is the person accused of committing criminal election fraud. Peripherally, the only attention I want focused directly on Abercrombie is this: ‘When you appoint a permanent AG, will you insist s/he pursues the charges lodged by several citizens of HI against your Lt. Gov. for swearing to state election officials Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS, as required under HRS, without first ascertaining whether he is a NBC?’ ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. As for getting a lot of attention, well, even FreeRepublic stopped posting my articles, when I wrote an article about then Congressional candidate Alan West which they determined was not sufficiently right of center (read, starry-eyed) for that site. So, I will have to count on readers like you, who ‘get it,’ to spread the word!
P.P.S. HillBuzz stopped posting me when I pointed out, caucus fraud in TX (and elsewhere) was not illegal; and that people soliciting money for a movie about caucus fraud would have done better to put their money where their mouths are by working to end the unfair caucus system rather than just complain. Instead, these movie makers ignored the convention of the TDP in the summer of 2010, at which time D’s voted to continue the caucus process in 2012! TX newspapers called this a victory for Obama!