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.

You don’t know what their system is. You do not need DBAs to access data from logs — that maybe in some places but not in all. And logs get lost, or the schemas in them can be reformatted so that current software has NO IDEA what is in them. I know, I’ve worked in systems with many tetrabytes of info, and various data bases from Codd and Date regularized ones to completely ad-hoc custom developments over decades.

I also have worked with systems — computerized and humanized — that evolved to PREVENT forensics and auditing. Yet that could meet the nominal requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, or other even fiercer regulatory agencies. Variants on messy-desk theory. The information that is needed operationally is always easy to get to. The trouble-some stuff gets buried. Why have such a mess, chaos and craziness by design? To obscure or make impossible to analyze what can be learned in legal discovery. Could Hawaii have such a system. Maybe.

[Side bar: Regulators and lawyers in discovery ask for way too much, it would kill a business in costs and wasted time in depositions, etc. Let bygones be bygones. I am highly philosophically opposed to long-deep archives. I encourage forgetfulness as a way to do business. Be honest in the present and near-present. Don’t bear grudges, let the long lost become unowned.]

So, all in all, you are making statements and inferences that are obfuscatory and wrong. Who knows what Hawaii has? Do you?

Some young woman needed a cover story in 1961.

Or there-abouts. What have we that confirms the date of birth?

Where that young woman gave birth and who the father was is unknown.

Exactly!

Whether Stanley Ann Dunham was that girl, or whether she covered for that girl, is a question without an answer.

And that's what 'Dreams' is really all about. If you read it from the point of view WHAT IS IT THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE...that's when the door begins to open.

Could you prove it on paper without compromising the security, or would it have to be where the AG (or whoever) saw it on paper but didn’t have anything the court could see?

I’m trying to deal with how you insure transparency and verifiability on what actually happened with the records without compromising the security. If an AG (or whoever) was legally permitted to subpoena “records and/or information including transaction logs and/or detailed vital records history, with redactions as necessary to protect database security”, would that give the AG (or whoever) the latitude to get what they needed to know what really happened and document that for a judge, as well as giving the DBA the latitude to give it in such a form that the security of the system would be protected?

I just want to come up with something effective that will keep the system secure and not be a nightmare for either the people needing the information or the DBA.

We already decided it would be better to not ask for this information for all candidates but only for those whose eligibility is challenged, in order to limit the hassle as much as possible. The goal is to be as reasonable as possible while still being effective. Do you think the above quote would accomplish that goal, or would you suggest something different?

And thanks for your input. I really do appreciate it more than you can know.

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?

That's usually how it works for audits.

Legal disputes are different. I'm usually stuck in the middle querying and producing documentation to satisfy a court order without an auditor being involved. I produce whatever the judge ordered by subpoena or direct court order. (Never had to give up my logs. Legal always has my back.) Now I have seen disputes where representatives from each side want to literally stand behind my freaking chair and watch every keystroke.

Are there laws at either state or federal level which require vital records to be audit-able records?

This actually goes WAY, WAY beyond just the presidential eligibility issue as well. It cuts to the very chase of government accountability. If there is no way to audit the records then they could be totally compromised. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What would you suggest as legal terminology that would allow an AG (or someone else) to find out the truth about the history of a vital record that’s been presented?

Nicely stated. Two nits:

“Stanley Ann Dunham, who by 1963 had a legal and possible personal relationship with Barak Hussein Obama, a student at the University of Hawaii.”

How are the divorce decree and its allusion to a Feb 1961 not part of what we “know”?

“it is an open question when Stanley Ann Dunham first held him”

More than 1 friend of Ann’s has reported seeing her with BHO in August or fall 1961. Any single account could be dismissed as bad memory or fabrication. But I have difficulty accounting for why a group would all provide roughly consistent (which not identical) narratives about this. That is, it does NOT support the Obama “narrative” as outlined in his books. Au contraire, one might argue they represent a challenge to that account that at least in some small way undercuts his credibility (even though many of these accounts are from people who purport to support him).
So if these stories are a fabrication and hence can’t be relied upon, I’m hard put to understand who would have done so and what their motive was. These accounts also appear to be supported by documentary evidence from UW.

So again, why can’t we accept that SAD had responsibility for this child within a relatively short period of time of being born? (I concede we cannot be certain this birth occurred in August or earlier.)

Perhaps all the lawsuits/state laws should be seeking DNA evidence rather than potentially-forgible birth documents. In this particular case, I’m not sure the “paper trail” even if entirely unearthed is necessarily going to resolve the mysteries you’ve nicely outlined. DNA evidence, on the other hand, could rule out a large number of alternative theories.

lol. I wouldn’t mind sitting behind your freaking chair and watching every keystroke. =)

When you work with a court do you end up giving the judge something written, with redactions in order to protect the system?

If you were the HDOH’s DBA in Hawaii would you be shaking in your boots if a law was passed that would eventually require you to disclose in court the history of Obama’s birth record there? If you were the DBA of the Passport Office would you be shaking in your boots?

The human side that I worry about is how the people in this kind of situation could be protected. It’s really sad that I even have to think in these terms, but is it crazy for me to think that these people would/could be put in a very dangerous situation, given what we know about the Soros machine? If so, is there any way to mitigate that?

B.S. I haven’t made a single statement that is “obfuscatory” or “wrong.” You want to make that claim, point out specifically what I sad that you believe is incorrect.

I never claimed to know what Hawaii has under the hood. Everything I have said has been generalized to fit a variety of system architectures. I’ve been in this business for over 20 years. I know what I’m talking about.

There are always exceptions in IT. There are always technical issues, software defects, data loss, corruption and other such things to throw a wrench into the works. Generally speaking, what I’ve said fits most situations. And I never stated or implied otherwise.

I never claimed one had to be a DBA to access all logs. Now you’re just making up sh*t.

A story that she went there for an extended period and without intending to deliver there is inherently more plausible than an account that has her taking an expensive RT plane flight.

I suggested to someone earlier that there was no evidence of her having sought emancipation, but it occurs to me that the Feb marriage in itself presumably automatically conferred such emancipation upon her. So I see I was in error in presuming the parents would have controlled the decision from a legal perspective.

I do still have concerns with expense. In theory, the trip could have been done by boat, but it takes 8-12 days to cross the Atlantic in a freighter http://wikitravel.org/en/Freighter_travel, so it would have been substantially longer from Hawaii even if they’d gone west rather than east. Hard to picture even an adventurous pregnant woman signing up for a trip of that extended duration. So if it was done at all, it presumably would have been by plane and I’ve already been through the evidence on what that would have cost.

“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.”

First, to the degree this story is true, it undercuts the narrative that she’d given up on living in Africa once she saw the situation. Remember too that the babysitter person also alluded to Ann expressing an interest in living in Kenya. As for the Harvard “discrepancy” we don’t know what Ann told this person. It’s easier to imagine Ann explaining her situation by saying her husband had gone off to Harvard to study (perhaps this is where the meme that his stipend wasn’t enough to support them arose) as opposed to her abandoning him in HI. The relationship appears to have gotten rocky by that point (else why not just stay in Honolulu and contact going to UH?), but surely it’s conceivable Ann either fantasized about a reconciliation and/or found it more socially acceptable to talk as if she had a workable long-distance marriage than to concede it had failed within months of inception. The point being that any deviation between this woman’s account and “reality” doesn’t necessarily mean the woman didn’t accurately report exactly what Ann told her.

When you work with a court do you end up giving the judge something written, with redactions in order to protect the system?

Yes, usually. I have produced documention that included very sensitive data and was therefore sealed under court order. In those cases, I don't have a choice. If you were the HDOH’s DBA in Hawaii would you be shaking in your boots if a law was passed that would eventually require you to disclose in court the history of Obama’s birth record there? If you were the DBA of the Passport Office would you be shaking in your boots?

If I knew they had been tampered with, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't care.

There really isn't a way to protect IT when they must disclose data.

I believe there is no question about the maternity and paternity of Obama’s half-sister through Lolo Soetoro.
I’m no DNA expert, but I think a comparison of Obama’s DNA with his half-sister’s could positively determine whether they shared a mother. I’m also reasonably certain DNA could distinguish between whether the shared DNA came directly from Ann or whether it was actually paternal DNA coming from her father (yes, ick, but that’s a prevailing theory).

Likewise, I believe a comparison of Obama’s DNA with his half-brothers fathered by Sr. could positively ascertain whether they shared fathers etc.

If I’m correct and either or both of these parental relationships were found to be biologically impossible, that would be explosive news. But whether one could then positively ID an alternative father or mother would depend on who the suspect real parent(s) were and what living progeny they’d left behind.

Yeah, there’s so much psychoanalysis that can be done on motives for doing and/or saying any particular thing. That’s why I try as much as possible to stick with the actual documentation, and why the genuineness of the actual documentation is so very important to me.

And I think it’s only fair to also note that some of the people who are speculating are doing everything in their power to find genuine documents to check their speculations against. It’s just a very difficult thing to do when there’s this much obfuscating and where records are manipulated and/or altered to the degree that they have been.

Maybe Issa will find out why the Passport Office won’t take 5 minutes to look at SAD’s passport index cards. (Not holding my breath, but I can always dream anyway.)

We all make up sh1t. It’s the one product that even the lamest human produces daily or so. And animals too.

Modesty and cleanliness are NOT about making less sh1t, they are about not mixing up sh1t with the few things we make or have that ain’t sh1t. And about not calling attention to sh1t for the sake of saying it stinks. Burying sh1t is a virtue, rather than having to have others step in it.

You say “most situations”? Oh yeah? Howsthat? How do you know? Twenty years? Double that, and then count those who trained me and quadruple it, IT wise. More than quadruple.

You say “most situations”? Oh yeah? Howsthat? How do you know? Twenty years? Double that, and then count those who trained me and quadruple it, IT wise. More than quadruple.

Okay, count those who trained me and we're even. What exactly is your point?

Twenty plus years of experience in a multitude of architectural environments gives me enough experience to speak in generalties with butterdezillion or to testify as an "expert" in a court of law. Obviously, you would also be qualfied. Rather than provide anything constructive for butter, you're picking nits and tossing in exceptions to rules.

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.