Posted on 02/03/2011 4:21:18 PM PST by butterdezillion
The Problem with the Announcement Stories
Two items have been offered as evidence of Barack Obama being born in Hawaii: an online COLB image which the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways as a forgery, and online images of birth announcements in the Hawaii papers shortly after Obama’s birth. This post will explain why I believe we’ve been fed – and swallowed – a lie about where those images came from. Later posts will give a glimpse of just how far it seems somebody was willing to go in order to have something – anything – that would suggest Obama was born in Hawaii, a critical need since Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie told Mike Evans (transcript and audio link) he had gone into both hospitals (Kapiolani and Queens) with a search warrant but found no birth certificate for Obama.
First the claims:
Shortly after Barack Obama’s campaign website posted what they said was Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and questions arose regarding its authenticity, Lori Starfelt decided to see if there was a newspaper birth announcement for Obama in Hawaii. She contacted the HDOH and was told that on Fridays they printed out a list of the week’s births; “The Honolulu Advertiser” used that list to print birth announcements in their Sunday paper. So Starfelt calculated that if Obama was born on Friday, Aug 4, 1961, his birth would have been on the list the following Friday, Aug 11th, and should appear in that Sunday’s paper – Aug 13th. She contacted the Hawaii State Library (hereafter HSL), asking for a copy from the microfilm of the Advertiser’s birth announcements on Aug 13, 1961, and was sent an e-mail with an image that had Obama’s announcement on it. She posted that image, along with her story, at Texas Darlin’ Blog around July 21, 2008. (See Post 7679 )
Several days later “Infidel Granny”, posting at Atlas Shrugs Blog, said she had asked a woman at the Advertiser office about birth announcements and was told to check the HSL. She asked the HSL for a copy of the Aug 13, 1961 “Advertiser” birth announcements and the librarian sent an e-mail with the image, saying she had it handy since somebody had just asked for it a week earlier.
On Aug 13th “Koa” at Texas Darlin’ Blog posted an image for the Aug 14th Star-Bulletin announcements, which he/she had copied directly from the HSL archives.
Around Oct 21 a poster at Prius Chat also posted an image of the SB announcement, saying, “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. ..."
On Oct 29th Whatreallyhappened.com posted images of both the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin images, which were said to be directly from the Star-Bulletin and Advertiser – which both had their microfilms stored at the Advertiser building. Note that he was not told to contact the HSL, as “Infidel Granny” says she was told.
Texas Darlin’ Blog archives, Atlas Shrugs Blog archives, the original article on Whatreallyhappened, and the Wikileaks page which also posted a copy which was a text-searchable file, have all been removed from the web, and the page at Prius Chat requires registration first; neither I nor several others who tried to register were allowed to do so. So the whole story of these claims and the images themselves have been scrubbed, except for fragments (such as the ones I link to) where others discussed and/or copied material, some of which have now been scrubbed from the web also.
I got Starfelt’s Advertiser image from a link referenced elsewhere as being Starfelt’s image, when the image was still available (“Infidel Granny” was given the same image). Whatreallyhappened still has their images posted. The Prius Chat Forum still has the link to their Star-Bulletin image. I copied Koa’s image from Photobucket when it was still available as linked to from the original post atTD Blog. (In my analysis links below I cite where each image came from.) So the images I have used come directly from the original sources.
To verify that I have not altered the images, here are some other places that still have images (as of today), although not necessarily saying the source: Both, Advertiser, Advertiser, Star-Bulletin .
And next the documents themselves:
When a person looks at the documents and claims about the documents, and compares them to what is actually in the Hawaii State Library microfilms, it is obvious why somebody would want these claims buried – although I am not making any specific allegations about who has done what. That should be investigated by someone with subpoena power. Here is a concise summary of what we have:
The Advertiser image that Starfelt and “Infidel Granny” supposedly got from the HSL is pristine. But in reality the HSL microfilms are so scratched up they are nearly unreadable. When a colleague asked the HSL librarian in late April, 2010, for a copy of the Aug 13, 1961 Advertiser birth announcements – the exact image that Starfelt and “Infidel Granny” supposedly got from there - this is what she was told about the condition of the microfilm (emphasis mine):
"As for your request for the Aug. 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement page, I looked it up, but unfortunately, the microfilm is so worn down on top of being poorly microfilmed, that it is hardly legible. You might be better off asking another library that has a better, less used copy than ours. Or does it have to be the Advertiser? I checked the Star-Bulletin and that date and that film is fine. Let me know."
The Starfelt and “Infidel Granny” images are pristine, with no sign of being “poorly microfilmed”, which would be a constant state for the microfilms, not affected by usage. Those images are clearly not from the HSL microfilms as claimed. However, they match perfectly the images WRH got from somebody at the Advertiser office (with the exception of one C&P line in the left margin below the Asing announcement, which disappeared by the time WRH got a copy). A comparison of the images is here.
Conversely, the Star-Bulletin image – which is the exact same image for WRH, Koa, and the Prius Chat poster (right down to the same piece of hair caught in the viewer when the copy was made and the same waviness in the page being scanned), even though they each claim to have acquired their copy independently, and WRH even claims a different source - has a large scratch down the column of text. But the HSL’s Star-Bulletin microfilms are pristine, including the copy from Aug 14th, where there are no extra marks or scratches anywhere. A comparison of the images is here. To believe the stories of Koa and the Prius Chat poster, you’d have to believe that scratches disappear over time.
Summary:
It is clear that what we were told about where these images came from is not true.
It appears that somebody at the Advertiser office gave out images to select people with the instruction that they were to peddle them off as genuine – the Advertiser image to the librarian at the Hawaii State Library, the Star-Bulletin image to “Koa” and the Prius Chat poster (who may have been the same person), and both images to Whatreallyhappened.com.
This is according to the statements already made and images already made public, which show glaring discrepancies in the stories. There are other discrepancies in the claims which stand out to those who have researched the microfilms as well, and those will be addressed later.
But for now the question is this: Why would somebody at the Advertiser office deceive the public into thinking their birth announcement images were actually copies made directly from the Hawaii State Library microfilms by individuals acting on their own? Why intervene at all, rather than letting these individuals get what really IS in the HSL microfilms? And who was in on this deception?
Those are questions that deserve an answer. Those like Bill O’Reilly and certain “news sources” who cite these images as their reason to ridicule “birthers” would do well to find out exactly why somebody worked so hard to deceive them on where those images actually came from.
Is Strunk the only one they used it for?
thanks, I neglected to include it in my comment. Long Thread 2008...boy that brings back memories...and here we are, being lectured to by freepers who never took part, trying to explain all over again.
Tiresome. And the world goes to h*ll in a handbasket...
first long thread - 9156 comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts
second long thread - 10724 comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=1
Thank heavens for freepers like butterdezillion and Ladysforest, they continue to fight the lies. I’m an old hand at it and am beginning to wear out...
Yes, you have the general concept mostly correct. Just because something is stored in a database doesn’t mean it’s readily available in a “record.” And if it isn’t, they aren’t required to create a record to satisfy a UIPA request.
However, the term “transaction logs” has a special meaning to database adminstrators.
When you (butter) refer to transaction logs, I think you’re referring to any meaningful data that is stored in the database regarding a particular resident’s vital record: original records, amendments, certified copy requests and receipts, court orders, index data, etc.
When I (DBA) refer to transaction logs, I mean any electronic access executed against a particular database record by a database user. So for example, when an employee logs into my database and runs a query to look up records that meet his selection criteria, the database registers (in a log file) who made the query, when, what time, etc. (Like the employees who looked at Obama’s passport records ... the DBA caught them by examining the transaction logs of user access to Obama’s records.)
PLacemark.
Seems like Barry Dunham was born in Canada to Stanley Dunham. He’s not a Natural Born Citizen. Pathetic that he refused to be authentic....should have just ran as a Canadian for a Canadian position.
You said that “what should be a very simple question apparently is ridiculously complicated to answer.”
I agree.
So let’s go back to Occam’s Razor.
The simplest answer is, in all likelihood, the correct one. That would suggest, of course, that whatever Obama is hiding is disqualifying and must not be revealed.
Which would further suggest that, regardless of who his biological father is, his birth was on foreign soil.
Fits, and leaves the razor with nothing to pare.
Completely aside from any narrative in recent years, using only original documents, what evidence exists that proves when Stanley Ann Dunham dropped “Stanley” and started using “Ann” as her given name?
“”When I (DBA) refer to transaction logs, I mean any electronic access executed against a particular database record by a database user. So for example, when an employee logs into my database and runs a query to look up records that meet his selection criteria, the database registers (in a log file) who made the query, when, what time, etc.””
That’s the ticket! At least that’s what I think of when anyone refers to transaction logs.
Excellent question...
scroll down to her image:
http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/AlienObama1.htm
and see how she signed her name.
THE PASSPORT DOCS:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/strunk-foia-results-for-obamas-mother/
Yes, I know. The question was largely rhetorical, but perhaps it would be good to look at it with new eyes.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that she was referred to as “Ann” by anyone in the 1960s?
Or is that just another of those slick rewrites that “Dreams” accomplished, when Barry0 began setting himself up for a political career?
No. At an interview on video, Susan Blake clearly said that SAD would introduce herself as Stanley...there is still a small snip of that video on Youtube, again, at the end, Susan Blake refers to her as 'Stanley':
Or is that just another of those slick rewrites that “Dreams” accomplished...
It seems obvious to me that the myth of Stanley Ann Dunham being the mother, is the result of the blending of two women in 'Dreams' - and they had to confabulate the Kenya family story that would have been common knowledge; the son of a Kenyan goat herder left Kenya shortly after he finished school at Maseno in Kenya, married a white woman named Anna Toot and worked for an oil company...and as his teacher said, he went to the US after leaving school.
Someone had to become ANNA. And someone had to become TOOT. So 'Dreams' hung the names on Stanley Ann Dunham and her mother.
He called her ANNA! I posted the excerpt from 'Dreams' - that's when ANNA makes her appearance in the book.
The book never mentions the University of Washington. I think all h*ll must have broken out when the real ANNA OBAMA was discovered listed in the Polk in Seattle.
So looking at the passport records the first time she signed S. Ann is Jan. 4, 1972.
OK.
Well, as a DBA, I’d tell anyone requesting database transaction logs to “get bet.”
Those logs contain structural information about the database that no one except a DBA responsible for said database should see. It’s a security issue. The DBA can’t maintain the integrity of the database if others can harvest account (user) names, table names and structures, file locations and sizes and much more from transaction logs.
Thank you for the ping.
Hope all is well with you.
That’s a great question. My impression is that Abercrombie was having trouble locating a long form BC. That’s consistent with what Tim Adams has been saying all along. However, Abercrombie’s fully acknowledged Hawaii holds “a record” of Obama’s birth. Even WND is willing to concede the possibility that this “record” is a form filed by grandma that permitted creation of a COLB for him http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833 (which does not necessarily refer to “the” COLBs posted on-line).
No matter what really happened, I think Obama did secure a Hawaiian birth certificate and has in fact used that throughout his life for passports etc. One potential clue that the on-line COLBs were fake is that his name is listed as Barack Hussein Obama II, whereas his passport doesn’t include the II. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/17/2010-08-17_white_house_offers_glimpse_of_president_obamas_passport_document_shows_birthplac.html
My understanding is that passports always use the identical name as it appears on the birth record used to verify an individual’s identity.
However, that raises a further question of why clever forgers would introduce II into a fake document. It doesn’t make sense to me that they would. So I infer that II may be on the hidden birth record in Hawaii and that the passport images we’ve seen are from Obama’s Senate passport rather than one obtained earlier. My understanding is that members of Congress are not required to provide birth records to obtain their passports. OTOH, if DoS already had a prior passport record for Obama, I would have thought they’d update that rather than issue a brand new one. Once again, something that should be simple turns out to be complicated when it comes to Obama.
“Dunham/Obama always seemed to have the money.”
By the time it came to put Obama in an elite private HS, I agree. But not in the 1961 time frame. Stanley Dunham had only just relocated to Honolulu to start a new business. His wife had taken what amounts to a demotion to secure a new job. Ann couldn’t follow Sr. to Harvard because his stipend was too small to support a family, etc. All of these point to a situation where money mattered a lot, especially in the context of suddenly having a new baby to feed, clothe and shelter.
“I’ve seen listing the flight cost enormously less than silly Obot websites that would like you to believe otherwise.” Just point to one. The average trans-atlantic fare was $204 in 1970. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Jet_Era/Tran7.htm. It almost surely was higher in 1961, but let’s assume it was the same. Flying from Hawaii to Hawaii essentially was the equivalent of 2 trans-atlantic flights, if not 3 (Hawaii to NYC=more than 1; NYC to London=1; London to Nairobi=1, etc.). So let’s conservatively assume the fare was only $400 in 1961.
$400 in 1961 = $2,917 in today’s dollars http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=400&year1=1961&year2=2010. Thus, a round trip ticket would have been today’s equivalent of $5,800. For 2 to make this trip (surely you can’t believe Sr. would send his wife alone on this dangerous journey?) would be $11,600 in today’s terms. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what precisely in these calculations is flawed.
“they could taken a ship or a charter flight for Kenyan students”
This doesn’t fit their timing “needs” at all. A ship would have taken VASTLY longer than even the most convoluted series of air connections. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test that a pregnant women and then a newborn with mom could have or would have taken such a journey. Were such student flights available, they would be at the beginning or end of summer—not smack in the middle. Barack Sr. was the first African student EVER at UH. You can’t seriously argue there was enough “demand” for such flights from Hawaii to make these a routine/easily available form of travel.
Yes, SAD was adventurous, but that doesn’t mean she’d casually subject her newborn to quintupling the risk of death. And since only mommy and daddy conceivably could have bankrolled this trip, it would have been THEIR preferences for safety that would have driven the decision. Their daughter had reached the age of majority less than a year earlier. She’d gotten herself knocked up at age 17 and had married a man who already had a wife in Africa. In short, she wasn’t making particularly good choices at that stage in her life: it’s very hard to imagine a no-nonsense bank executive facilitating her making yet another bad choice—especially one that could easily have resulted in a dead grand-child.
“The simplest answer is, in all likelihood, the correct one. That would suggest, of course, that whatever Obama is hiding is disqualifying and must not be revealed.”
I think that early on, fear of embarrassment or something viewed as politically inconvenient was a plausible explanation. I concur that with each passing day and each additional dollar spent on legal defenses, the hypothesis that what he is hiding is disqualifying increases.
What amazes me, if this is true, is that the vast Clinton machinery wasn’t able to unearth this in time to side-track Obama permanently as the Democrat’s standard-bearer. This was a crew not exactly shy about resorting to dirty tricks, they were OUTRAGED how Obama had treated Hillary during the primaries and they had many months to make it happen. They had means, motive and opportunity, yet they didn’t pull it off. How does Occam’s Razor explain that?
“How does Occam’s Razor explain that?”
Again, the obvious: they unearthed the evidence but couldn’t use it. Why? Timing, too late to keep him off the ballot, and fear of blood in the streets. The steamroller couldn’t be stopped. He claimed to be black. Anyone opposing him was a racist.
You saw it. The Messiah imagery, girls fainting. He was magic.
Look at how his bused-in SEIU thugs physically commandeered the caucuses. And that was when he was winning. Hillary’s folks knew first-hand what chaos he could create. What would have happened if he were crossed?
Many of us find constitutional ineligibility to be critical, but, face it, much of the electorate in 2008 not only didn’t understand the “natural born” clause but simply didn’t care where he was born. It was not a matter that would have resonated with voters, and mounting a valid legal challenge against Biden’s “clean black man” could have caused chaos and ruined Hillary’s career. She could never get the black vote if she ruined him.
A nation who would listen to Spiritual Mentor Wright’s “God damn America” speil and still elect his protege was too much even for the Clinton machine.
Don’t rule out the possibility that the Clintons are behind some of the latest chatter. They could get payback in 2012.
I’m old enough to remember race riots, cities burning. No decent American wants that again.
But to make any changes to a record it had to be accessed, right? And to be created it had to be accessed? For Fukino and Onaka to verify that they have a record for Obama it had to be accessed, right? So those records of access would tell when something has been done with/to the record, as I understand it.
Are there other transaction records, or is there another way of referring to the records which would show WHAT actions were taken on a record, such as if a record changed names so that a fake was created from somebody else’s record, or if the record was created 45 years after the person was supposedly born, if BC#’s were switched around between people, if names were added to or deleted from a particular index book printing, etc?
IOW, is there a term that a DBA would use for “meaningful data that is stored in the database regarding a particular resident’s vital record”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.