We know there was a list that was posted at the HDOH office, and the newspapers could have sent somebody to take down that information. I don’t know if there were photocopiers back then. The papers must have gotten the lists for marriage license applications somehow, and presumably the information came from the HDOH.
But the discrepancies between the 2 papers make it clear to me that the HDOH did not put out a list of all the births that automatically went into the papers. Either there was a way to opt out of having the birth announced in one or the other of the papers, or else the births were put in voluntarily, or else the papers were flaky about which announcements they printed and when. But the story that it was all cut and dried and having an announcement in the paper automatically meant that the HDOH says you were born in Hawaii just doesn’t wash.
Somebody on my blog said he’s colleagues with somebody who says he has proof that some of the births announced in the Hawaii papers actually happened outside the US. He said he would try to get me information about that. If there is proof of that, it would be a slam dunk against O’Reilly’s claim that the announcements prove a Hawaii birth.
“We know there was a list that was posted at the HDOH office, and the newspapers could have sent somebody to take down that information. I don’t know if there were photocopiers back then. The papers must have gotten the lists for marriage license applications somehow, and presumably the information came from the HDOH.”
I remember mimeograph machines in the sixties. So yes, multiple copies could be made.
Why weren’t they all in both papers? Who knows. If it was only the parents supplying the info, why would the one paper print on one day, and the other paper printed days later? None of it is consistent. None of it.
If that is frustrating, it is. That is simply the truth of it.