Pinging a bunch of people to this because it includes an update I still need to make on my blog.
First off, the newspaper announcement microfilms have been manipulated. Scratches that were present in earlier copies were missing when copies were later taken from the same microfilms - in multiple libraries. At the Library of Cognress, the microfilm box had its call number changed to something else and then changed back - apparently so that the particular microfilm roll (Aug 1-15, 1961) could be lost for a while and then found again. And that particular roll of film had a thick scratch that ended on the page right before Obama’s birth announcement page. I believe that’s also one of the microfilms where there were 2 copies of that page (the page right before the page with Obama’s birth announcement) - like whoever inserted the faked 2nd half of the microfilm put the splice AFTER that page rather than before it.
And I’ve documented on my blog that the stories we were told (about where the announcement images that were posted online came from) are absolutely false. The Star-Bulletin images were not independently copied from the microfilms at the Hawaii State Library by 2 different individuals, as claimed. They are identical SCANS (right down to the waviness of the scan edges) of the same image (right down to the same hair in the microfilm reader) as was given by somebody at the Advertiser office to Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com. I documented this at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/attention-bill-oreilly-the-rest-of-the-story/
I had to do some digging to find out what really happened with the Advertiser announcement, after having it pointed out that I misread the year that the full-page image I referenced was actually posted. It was posted a year later than I thought. So I need to update that part of that blog post to insert what happened in the year before that full-page image actually got posted:
Turns out that what Lori Starfelt (and “Infidel Granny” received from the HSL librarian was a deliberately cropped, deliberately blurred (actually unreadable) microfilm-copy clipping that violated the library’s copyright protocols, plus a “close-up” of just the 3-4 announcements including Obama’s that were actually readable. So there was nothing shown that couldn’t have been EASILY photoshopped.
According to the e-mail from the librarian, Starfelt received those images after she specifically asked the librarian to find Obama’s birth announcement, contrary to the story she told publicly. We can’t ask her about it now, because she suddenly died of what was claimed to be ovarian cancer, right around the time I was bringing up the microfilm anomalies in preparation for posting the post linked to above. Her husband was Brad Mays, a photographer for her documentary about the 2008 democratic primary - who became gun-shy of criticizing the Obama people after his equipment was stolen right before a critical shoot. That theft was right around the same time as the deaths of Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs - which Starfelt’s colleagues have said were assassinations to scare Bill Clinton away from revealing Obama’s known ineligibility.
The image that finally emerged of a whole page was originally posted by Jeena paradies at wikileaks. It was posted in an optical-recognition format, since I was able to find it by Googling for “Norman Asing”. IOW, it was not a jpg; it was a pdf with optical character recognition - which is a forgery method that is used to alter text within a document.
Shortly after that was posted by Wikileaks it was taken down because the same image - which still had C&P lines under Obama’s announcement - was given to Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened by somebody at the Advertiser office, supposedly taken from the microfilm at the Advertiser office.
Later, days after the 2008 election, the Advertiser published an on-line article about Obama’s boyhood homes which contained what they claimed to be an image of the birth announcement from the Advertiser office’s microfilm. Trouble is, the C&P lines were missing. The context of the whole page could not be seen because all but a small “magnified” section was deliberately blurred. I know it was deliberately blurred because 2 other publications later used that image (complete with the “magnified” section) with the permission of the Advertiser, and the whole page was NOT blurred.
IOW, the full-page image from Jeena paradies was in the format necessary to insert different words that show up in the same font as was used in the original document (much like how the Cold Case Posse was able to change Obama’s OCR-enabled BC on the video they presented at the presser). That document was first posted on Wikileaks and very shortly thereafter passed off to Michael Rivero as if it came from the Advertiser office’s microfilm, and the Wikileaks version was scrubbed from the web. Later, after people had expressed suspicion about the C&P lines under Obama’s announcement, the Advertiser published a blurred version of the whole page, with a “magnified” version that lacked the C&P lines from the copy they had given Michael Rivero. IOW, the Advertiser office claimed that their microfilm had the “scratch lines” under Obama’s announcement when they made the copy for Michael Rivero but no longer had those “scratch lines” when they copied it for their own article several weeks later.
There’s more that could be said too, but this is enough for now.
I will add, though, that Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse mentioned during follow-up questions at the presser that the birth announcements included foreign births and births for children who were already several years old by the time of the birthdate the announcements claimed. So even if there had been announcements for Obama, it wouldn’t have to mean anything.
But given the manipulation of the microfilms and the lies about where images came from, I don’t believe Obama’s birth was ever announced in those papers.
In addition to that, you need to read the monkey business by the HDOH regarding Virginia Sunahara’s records, their altering the birth index to include legally non-valid records, and their alteration of the BC#’s for at least Virginia Sunahara and Stig Waidelich. A good start for you to understand the basic picture of that is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2885601/posts?page=72#72
And the reason for HDOH’s obfuscation rather than simply verifying Obama’s birth facts for AZ SOS Ken Bennett (documented at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2885697/posts?page=56#56 ) is explained at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2885697/posts?page=77#77 .
Thank you for all the details! Much, much appreciated. I remember most of the above but did not know it all by any means. Did not know (or remember?) Starfelt’s death.
The only thing that really boggles my mind is how bad the BC was that Obama released.
If I was running an operation like this, I would have found some really good forgers, sequestered them in a secluded place where they couldn't make extra copies of their work and then had them make a really good BC forgery. I would have also put one or two little embarrassing "facts" on the BC to justify having stalled on releasing it (list Obama as white at birth, or father as Muslim, or no father, or even list Obama as a girl or hermaphrodite).
Not having anything at all embarrassing on that document Obama released, makes me mad and suspicious. Why put the country through so much, if there was no reason for it? Why allow LTC. Lakin's career to be ruined and have him jailed? IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!
Sorry, my conspiracy gene just doesn’t go that far. First its “a birth announcement in a paper doesn’t mean anything!! Anyone could have put it in!”. Then its “its been manipulated!! The Russians (or whoever) doctored the microfilm!”. Which is it? Does it matter or not? I think this skullduggery and analysis of a fifty year old birth record in a newspaper (which wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other) is just silly.
I believe Obama is a liar. I believe he manipulated his background to make for a more favorable story, and I think there is a whole lot about his background that is shady and suspect. But when it comes to the birth announcement, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And I believe he was born in Hawaii.
Yo, bdz...
From a blog post at PJM:
“14. eon
Who is Obama?
He is Ultimate Totality God of Everything. (For the Rest of Eternity.)
Just ask Him. He’ll tell you.
In all seriousness, Obama has all the attributes of a cult leader;
1. He is charismatic; how else could he have gotten this far?
2. He has a consistently high level of self-admiration; I believer only Nero and Mussolini had higher opinions of themselves. And I doubt that The One knows it, due to His apparent ignorance of history and the fact that He also apparently doesn’t speak, or read, Latin (classic or vulgate) or even modern Italian.
3. He is utterly convinced of His own righteousness, and more importantly of His own rightness; two different but related factors.
4. He is also certain He is incapable of error; when mistakes happen, He throws somebody else under the bus. (It must be getting crowded under there by now.)
5. He is ruthless in pursuit of His goals, which He keeps to Himself. He will discard a “friend” as readily as He will eliminate an enemy. (He doesn’t really have “friends”; just useful acolytes, who are only kept around as long as they remain useful.)
6. His entire life has been driven by a dream of power, the more raw and unbridled the better. But when He finally achieves it, it still is not enough to sate His appetites; He constantly demands more.
7. He is also driven by an incoherent, but bottomless rage against the way things are. Put simply, they aren’t to His satisfaction because people are not behaving as He thinks they should. Mohammed had the same problem, as did Pope Innocent III (the latter had it in for the Cathars, the result being the Albigensian Crusade).
8. He demands constant and unlimited worship and adulation. And when He doesn’t get it, He gets mighty peevish.
And finally, His most dangerous attribute;
9. When He realizes He is going down to defeat, His message, His dogma, and His demands rejected, He will not accept it. To do so would be to negate His self-image and identity. As He accused the American people of after the the 2010 election, He will “lash out inchoately” to punish those He sees as having betrayed Him.
He will seek His (self-)righteous vengeance. On all of us.
clear ether
eon”
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/05/19/who-is-barack-obama/3/
” - - - legally non-valid records - - - “
Need a tad more explanation to understand this phrase. Maybe an example or two?
BTW, GREAT JOB on documenting the truth!
You are such a hero to me. Thank you for this long, well-explained explanation and for all you have done.