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.

I’m a bit reluctant over the model bill you proposed, fwtw. The less specified the better, law wise. WE HAVE TO SOME REALIZED HIGH EXPECTATION OF MORAL AND HONEST BEHAVIOR AMONG OURSELVES — no complex of laws and regulation in ultra specific detail can make up for it.

In my opinion, all post-Obama fraud bill has to have is the ability of a citizen legal challenge to eligibility with compelled discovery. I do NOT want a good earnest challenge by a citizen to be blocked from having any standing. I do NOT want to ASSUME that the official is going to follow the law because its so specific. Cons LOVE detailed specifications.

You’d hope that if the records have been tampered with the person wouldn’t run for election.

But then, we already know that Obama’s passport file has been illegally accessed, and insiders say it was to sanitize the record. The DOS says they can’t know whether the records have been altered or not, which to me says that when they investigated they only looked at the access logs and not at the detailed record history (using the terminology you used).

Am I just nuts, or does that seem like wilfully closing your eyes - to say that a record has been illegally accessed but we aren’t going to bother to see if it has been illegally altered? What kind of investigation would just assume that it was harmless “idle curiosity” on a matter of that kind of significance, without even checking to see if anything had been altered?

You’ll like the Nebraska bill then, if we’re able to get the amendments we want. There’s the documentation that is required in order for the SOS to automatically put the name on the ballot, but any registered Nebraska voter or candidate can challenge the SOS’s determination in court and have power to subpoena whatever information is necessary to determine eligibility.

The ability to have standing and to subpoena information is the critical part. That gives room to address any situation - both on behalf of the candidate and against the candidate, since the candidate could subpoena information and the person challenging the candidate could subpoena information. It’s a level playing field.

Good points.

— “1963” was a reference to the divorce decree, and I was in error by a month. It was filed in Jan., 1964. It does allude to a Feb. 1961 marriage, but there is no evidence that such a ceremony took place.

By the time she filed for divorce, Obama was out of Stanley Ann’s life and apparently no longer needed, whether as a father or merely a cover story. However, in order to ensure full custody of the child, she would have had to have some kind of legal severance. The divorce decree, whether there was a legal marriage or one established in common law by word, accomplished that nicely.

— Oral histories by old friends are as reliable as “Dreams,” which is not at all. We’re dealing only in facts, remember?

As long as we’re speaking of old friends and acquaintances, how about a witness to the courtship, the wedding, the pregnancy, the birth, the happy little family with a newborn, etc. etc. Why does NOBODY remember a very dark African married to a very white girl and an out-of-wedlock pregnancy that defied every convention?

As far as I’m concerned, we can indeed consider “that SAD had responsibility for this child within a relatively short period of time of being born.” However, “accepting” requires a provable fact or two. I’m open to proof.

I’m all for DNA evidence. Go for it. Might tell us something, but NOT where he was born.

I think the mess with Abercrombie was a forced fumble. And I think a lot of people who thought “birthers” nuts have started to wonder exactly WTH is going on here, that even Obama’s FRIEND is admitting there’s no birth certificate.

I think it’s actually kind of funny sweet justice that the guy who has betrayed almost all of the US’s allies gets at least a little taste of his own medicine - even if Abercrombie probably didn’t mean to make such a mess.

I do expect the Soros machine to be out for blood in the states where eligibility bills are being considered. We should all keep both the legislators and the governors in our prayers and encourage and inform them as much as possible, because they are going to be the battle-ground.

Nebraska’s bill will be the toughest one out there, especially if we can get the amendments we want. Nebraska is small so Obama might just write us off and not even try to put his name on the ballot here. But if he does that I think people will know exactly why; it will be an admission that he knows he’s not eligible.

So everybody say your prayers. And those who live in Nebraska, contact the legislators and Gov Heinemann. Particularly in the more rural areas where there’s some decent press (the Norfolk Daily News has a conservative editor) and the lies of the Lincoln Journal-Star and Omaha World-Herald aren’t as likely to be effective, we can hopefully get the necessary votes from the good meat-and-potatoes, salt-of-the-earth folks who make America so strong.

The governor will probably get hit the hardest, since he’s one person. You know what they did with Jan Brewer in AZ. The Journal-Star and World-Herald will hit him hard, as will probably the Lincoln and Omaha talk radio hosts, if only because they are Fox stations and Fox has been threatened if they report decently on the eligibility issue. But the talk shows will take phone calls so people can call in with winsome points and still get some decent input in.

I looked at Fred Nerks’ material on African ex-pats. I’m not sure what conclusion you think I should draw from them. I don’t doubt Obama Sr’s radical roots. I don’t even doubt the claim that Obama views the world through the eyes of an African Colonialist—an argument that has been made most recently and quite cogently by Dinesh D’Souza, whom I regard as a first-rate scholar.

As for ships, your own source states: “He knew it would take a month travelling from New York, his U.S. residence, to Liberia, his Africa residence”
http://kpawo.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/travelling-africa-by-sea/
That distance is 4600 miles (calculated in Google Maps).
The distance from Kenya to Hawaii is 11,077 miles.
In short, even if there were freighters travelling that route/distance—a point you manifestly have not proven—the trip would have taken an absurdly long time for a pregnant woman. A credible theory needs hard proof, not “could have beens.” In this case “could” seems like a vanishingly small probability.

BTW, one of Fred Nerks’ post had some interesting info about Abercrombie:
“This writer won’t speculate on whether Abercrombie’s memory is faulty, or the Washington Post’s writers notes were in accuate, however, the historical facts are this ….. When Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii in June 1959, future President Kenyatta was in jail in Kenya. This was a matter of discusssion in local and Internation Press. The Bristish did not call and end to the “State of Emergency” in Kenya until November 1959. Kenyatta was not released from jail in Kenya until July 1961, after Obama Sr. had finished his second year of studies in Hawaii. In June 1962 Barack Obama Sr finisjed his studies at the University of Hawaii, with honors and according to a report in the Honolulu-Star-Bulletin, departed Hawaii for Harvard on June 22, 1962. It wasn’t until May 1963 before Jomo Kenyatta would be elected the first President of Kenya, 11 months after Obama Sr had left Hawaii. In December 1963 Kenya was granted independence. In the spring of 1964 Obama Sr completed his Masters degree at Harvard and returned home to Kenya. In December 1964 Kenya becomes a Republic. While Abercrobie and Obama may have discussed Kenya, the discussion as described, did not place in the time frame reported.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278969/posts?q=1&;page=51#86
In short, it seems like Abercrombie’s recent statements aren’t the first time his memory seems to have strayed far from reality.

As I stated in an earlier reply to Butterdezillion, my purpose isn’t to “disrespect” anyone in this conversation. I’d prefer the discussion be focused on evidence and trying to sift through that evidence honestly and carefully to find the truth, as opposed to prove someone’s pet theory. The fact that I don’t draw the same conclusions you or Fred Nerks does from a given body of evidence is not an indication of a lack of respect for either of you. If we all can disagree with Obama without that being proof of “racism” then it’s hard to understand why my disagreeing with any poster here should be interpreted as a sign of disrespect.

You’ve been very helpful, and I appreciate it immensely. The counsel you’ve given is not limiting in any way that I can see so I’m doubtful that it would be intended to trip up the intent of making sure that the truth is found.

You don’t have to actually think that Obama’s records are screwed up to recognize that we need a way to check the integrity of records and make sure that presidential eligibility is met by EVERY POTUS.

I think the state eligibility bills issue reveals the people who really ARE “Obots”. Those who aren’t Obots but just aren’t convinced (yet. lol) that Obama is ineligible will actually welcome measures that will get us the answers we need in order to carry out the Constitutional requirements. And for all the past history with “birthers” and the conflicts we’ve had between the two of us even, it seems like you do welcome lawful resolution of the issue, BT. I’ll just let that fact speak for itself.

The only people who could be against the very idea of a common-sense law to insure that presidents are eligible are those who know Obama isn’t eligible and are committed to hiding that fact. The details of a particular bill can be argued, but the basic wisdom of having such a law should be an absolute given for anybody who loves the US Constitution.

I’m really happy for a chance for honest people on both sides of the OBAMA eligibility issue to still stand together to protect the US Constitution. Because that’s what this is really about. It’s about the rule of law. We can agree on the need for that even if we disagree about a lot of other things.

“It does allude to a Feb. 1961 marriage, but there is no evidence that such a ceremony took place.”

Right, but I’m trying to understand what meets your standards of evidence. I assume you accept the divorce decree as a legitimate legal document, not something fabricated? The judge in this case apparently accepted the validity of the statements made about the marriage. But you seem to imply such statements cannot or should not be counted as evidence. I’m just trying to understand the logic for that position.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. But there’s a world a difference between a single account that may be mistaken or fabricated (e.g., Race Bannon’s account is a single eyewitness without any corroborating evidence from friends or contemporaneous documents) and a SET of eyewitness accounts that not only is mutually reinforcing but also appears corroborated by available university records.

If we’re literally limited to things of undisputed provenance that are written down (and perhaps signed and notarized?), the evidence we have and can ever have to work with is preciously thin. Imagine trying any criminal case according to these demanding standards of evidence. I doubt that even 1% of those in prison could remain if we adopted this stringent view of evidence.

Offhand, I can’t think of a single written document (unless someone’s diary has not yet come to light) that would prove to your satisfaction that Ann Obama was in Seattle with an infant named Barack during the fall of 1961 or spring of 1962. I don’t see how this gets us very far.

It makes more sense to me to consider all forms of evidence, but then mentally “weigh” them based on type/source etc. A single eyewitness account doesn’t count as heavily as a mutually consistent account provided by 3 different people (preferably 3 who didn’t know each other or have any plausible means of coordinating their accounts). Verbal accounts that don’t square with written evidence likewise have to be discounted etc.

What we end up with is the kind of evidence in a criminal trial. Juries obviously aren’t infallible, but by having a group of people try to figure out what happened, the odds are better of arriving at a reasonable approximation of the truth than if a single juror were given the task of deciding etc. One of the strengths of juries is the ability for everyone to lay their cards on the table and have others say “But what about this?” or “You haven’t accounted for that.” A judgment based on the thoroughly vetted ‘weight of the evidence’ is the best a jury can ever do and the best we’re ever going to be able to do in this case as well. But we’d do a hell of a lot better job if the legal authorities used every tool at their disposal to unearth the evidence needed to arrive at the truth. That clearly has not yet happened; but that is not tantamount to concluding that it can’t.

“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.””

Don’t put such limits in. It should be for ALL CANDIDATES, as would be the only truly fair thing to do.

To do otherwise gives support to the inevitable claims that obama is a sole target. It has to be inclusive of all those who would run...it’s the least they could do.
It’s outrageous that there were no checks in place all along, and now it is time to change that.
Everyone should have to meet the exact same requirements, even if they are running for a second term.
What does it take them to comply? Ten or fifteen dollars and a hour or so to fill out required paperwork?
If they are unwilling to do such a small action, then they should never be considered fit to run.

Doc, it’s impossible for you to draw the same conclusions that I have, because I’ve drawn no conclusions.

Which is precisely the point I’ve been trying to make.

Does it strike you as preposterous that what “evidence” we have as to the background of the current “leader of the free world” would not stand up in a court of law? His origins should be cut and dried fact, not something a jury needs to figure out.

The purpose of reading the African Colonel thread, as well as the two long threads (do you need links?), is to bring you up to snuff, so to speak. There’s a lot of questioning and posturing and arguing, all of it good for us, that you may have missed. The Dunhams, Papa Dunham and his associates in Hawaii, had ties with those discussed in the Colonel thread.

We’ve been digging and sifting through evidence, as you suggest, for years. We speculate out loud to each other, but please don’t mistake hypotheses for conclusions. I, for one, welcome your input. But most of us have, by this point, moved past your “I want to believe” mentality.

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.