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.

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 .

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.

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.

This hardly fits the narrative of a family able/willing to shell out big bucks for Ann to travel to Africa to meet the folks, does it?

~~~~~

Do recall that the Dunhams were by then well ensconced in the commie (Little Red Church) movement and crowd, and benefactors for liberal folks/causes would’ve been quite available .. folks like the Nachmanoff’s .. (the senior member of that family, still alive today now in the DC area, who’s pictured in those 60’s photos with BHOSr in HI,
and who WOULD have pertinent info but is apparently so much an ‘untouchable’ as to be non-existent) and other wealthy libs, their orgs and anti-establishment types who promoted multi-culturism and lib causes.

That BHOSr and others from Africa even were able to come to HI for an education was obviously in part with the aid and great intent of well-heeled liberal folks who all networked for their common anti-American causes.

A DBA wouldn’t be required to pull a detailed history. Whatever software they use to access the database to pull up records, print them, etc. would necessarily have the ability to print a detailed history. (But to answer your qestion, yes, a DBA could query that information upon request.)

No one but the DBA will have access to the database-level transaction logs. Those are automatically generated by the software that runs the database itself (separate an apart from the operating system and the applications that access the DB) and require DBA login privileges to access them or even find out where they reside.

The application-level audit logs are also generated automatically by software. They’re likely simple records stored in the DB itself. If one knew the table structures, yes, one could theoretically alter them. However, if altered, those records would no longer match (correspond to) what’s in the database-level logs. That would create a discrepancy that only a DBA could untangle.

So are the audit records meant to be able to be compiled for somebody auditing them somewhere down the line without too much difficulty and without compromising the security of the system? Or does the DBA or somebody who already knows the system usually audit the records?

I apologize if my questions are stupid or bothersome. This is WAY out of my field of expertise so it’s sort of like playing “Clue” (which my kids want me to do this afternoon. lol): I take a guess, find out where I’m wrong, revise my thoughts, and guess again.

“Do recall that the Dunhams were by then well ensconced in the commie (Little Red Church) movement and crowd, and benefactors for liberal folks/causes would’ve been quite available”

Seriously? The Dunhams were going to put out a plea to these liberal folks to bankroll their daughter’s jetting back and forth to Africa for the privilege of delivering a baby conceived out of wedlock? Folks who had never even been invited to the wedding much less ever met the father? I agree that if Ann had been on a POLITICAL mission—however misguided—funds for such travel might have been available. You’re welcome to believe what you wish, but I and I believe most people without an axe to grind, would find you line of reasoning unpersuasive.

The same objection can be leveled at the notion that Sr. could have tapped into the same sources that bankrolled his coming to America. If anything, Sr’s behavior had to be deeply embarrassing to the program that sponsored him: here’s an already-married GRADUATE student knocking up an impressionable FRESHMAN within weeks of the semester beginning. Do you seriously think Sr. would have DARED to broach the possibility of getting a grant to fly his wife back to Africa to deliver his conceived-out-of-wedlock son? Every dollar used to finance such a boondoggle would have been seen as a dollar denied to another African for a legitimate purpose—namely getting a top-quality education in America. Again, believe what you wish, but don’t expect others to find this argument compelling.

The story that’s been presented is that Ann went there to meet the family and get acclimated to the situation, with the goal in mind that she would eventually settle down in Kenya with Barack. But when she saw how the family treated women, as well as the fact that she was going to have to share Barack with at least one other wife (with Muslims having the possibility of 4 wives at a time), she got cold feet, tried to leave but couldn’t because the delivery was too close, and then left as soon after the birth as she could.

I haven’t followed all the alternate theories closely because my main thing is with the official documents, but IIRC the friend who says she saw Ann with the baby in Seattle when Ann didn’t know how to change a diaper claimed that Ann had intended to settle down in Kenya. But then that person also claimed that Barack wasn’t with her because he was going to Harvard then, when Obama actually didn’t go to Harvard until a year later so the story is (again) full of discrepancies.

The seeming fact that Barack and Ann never lived together as husband and wife just makes the whole situation so tentative and unbelievable that a person doesn’t even have a solid enough basis to speculate. Just like everything with Obama - about as solid as jello pounded to the wall. lol.

The thing that WOULD shed some real, substantial light is the passport records, which I think rolling stone is right to focus on. It certainly doesn’t make sense for them to hide the index records for Stanley Ann’s issued passports, especially if her not having any passport until after 1961 would strongly suggest or prove that she had not even gone abroad. It would be such an easy way for the government to give some reassurances to those who have doubts. Those index records are microfilmed and stored in alphabetical order. Why have they refused several people for over a year on something that simple? They’ve had the time and taxpayer money to file multiple responses in lawsuits in order to keep any records from being seen but don’t have the time to do a 5-minute-max search?

So your desire to see concrete evidence regarding SAD’s travels or potential to travel is shared by all of us. It’s just that “the most transparent administration ever” would rather fight lawsuits than take 5 minutes to just give us what the law says we are entitled to receive.

“This is possibilities not probabilities.”

My attitude exactly. I don’t deny the possibility of various alternative theories of BHO’s birth, but please don’t pass these off as probabilities UNTIL/UNLESS there is more compelling evidence available to support these.

“Is it a dead end because something is not probable but possible”

I haven’t declare anything a “dead end”—including any of Fred Nerks’ various theories. I have simply asserted that in light of the evidence I’m aware of, they are not AT THIS POINT IN TIME persuasive to me. That’s a neutral position. It doesn’t mean I’m not open to new evidence or even old evidence of which I was unaware.

Let me be clear: I think the burden of proof regarding his birth lies with BHO. I don’t think he has met that burden of proof. But neither do I think there is sufficient evidence on the table to point to any particular alternative theory BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Some theories I find more persuasive than others given both the evidence and what I know about human nature. So it’s all a continuum, if you will, and I don’t pretend to have a monopoly on truth—especially since in this instance I have no idea what exactly Obama is hiding or why. All I “know” is that his behavior seems mighty suspicious, as does that of many of his defenders and operatives etc.

No problem.

If auditing is required by law, then the regulations dictate what is contained in the audit records. If auditing is a business requirement, then the software designers dictate what is in the audit records. Likewise the type of requirement (law vs. Business) dictates who does the auditing and what level of knowledge is required to perform the audit.

In my personal experiences, auditors are generally given access to whatever the heck they want. That usually includes working with a DBA and/or systems administrator who is at their beck and call.

I’m not sure if I answered your question about compromising system security. Auditors usually aren’t a security risk because their function is to prove or disprove. So they can see whatever they need to perform an audit. They may use both application- and database-level /transaction/audit logs.

If HDoH employees altered records, they wouldn’t be able to hide it from an auditor.

There are also techno-studs here on FR who could easily call you out if you said something inaccurate, so if anybody sees something that seems amiss I would hope they’d say something.

Maybe I’ll just ask you this: If you wanted to make sure that any foul play with vital records was detected, what records would you allow to be subpoenaed, and how would you accommodate the need to keep the system secure?

We could have Alaska crooks going in and changing Sarah Palin’s records to say she was born in China, or we could have crooks going in to change Schwartzneggar’s records to say he was born in California. Either way, the actual record of who did what with the record and on the basis of what documentation would vindicate the innocent and make a heckuva lot of trouble for the guilty, and that’s exactly what we want, because ultimately we need a secure system over the long haul. This is about much, much more than just Obama but about the ability to find out the truth when the truth is critical to national security.

What records could be subpoenaed in those situations, for instance, to insure that the truth was found out?

Makes sense. So if an AG or whoever had legal permission to audit the records they could hire an auditor who would then work with the DBA to do the job?

Would that be the most reasonable way to handle something like that? If a person was allowed to subpoena “all relevant records including transaction logs and/or detailed vital records history”, would that give both the access and the security protection needed to insure that the truth ultimately was known without compromising the system’s security? Should an auditor specifically be mentioned as the means for such information to be transferred, or would that basically be the only way a person would know how to get the records anyway?

Hey guys —

Take a deep breath and consider ONLY what we KNOW, not what we’ve been told.

A male child of mixed race was born some place, at some time around 1961, and at some point (birth to early childhood), he became the responsibility of Stanley Ann Dunham, who by 1963 had a legal and possible personal relationship with Barak Hussein Obama, a student at the University of Hawaii.

Since there is neither legal nor medical documentation of that child’s birth, it is an open question when Stanley Ann Dunham first held him. Or where.

At best, his origins were out of step with social mores of the time. I suspect many here were not old enough to know that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, especially a black/white one, is something that would have been kept hidden in 1961. I was of legal age in the 1960s. Believe me.

Unwed pregnant women were sent away to give birth, under any number of cover stories.

Some young woman needed a cover story in 1961. Where that young woman gave birth and who the father was is unknown. Whether Stanley Ann Dunham was that girl, or whether she covered for that girl, is a question without an answer.

There’s a fog of misinformation. Accept only provable facts.

You don’t have much to work with.

If I were an attorney, I would subpoena information and not records because information encompasses records, logs, histories, audit trails, backups, paperwork, images, etc.

As a DBA, I’d fight the release and publication in court documents of my transaction logs. I’d offer human “eyes only” access to see the data being requested but refuse to provide an electronic copy or printout. Usually, the legal team agrees with my assessment and tries to accommodate requests for information without giving up my logs.

Let’s say I was tasked with proving that someone altered Sarah’s records. I could prove who did it, when, and how and still redact most of the technical details that would compromise my DB.

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.