Posted on 08/23/2010 12:58:00 PM PDT by Corazon
Right. That’s why there’s something wrong if a librarian gives you a copy of the zoom-in and it’s different than what was on the view of the whole page. Especially if the differences can’t be explained as residue from the viewer or copier.
The same phenomenon was observed in the copies that library gave out to 2 different requesters, and it doesn’t make sense if the librarian truly snapped a copy of a full-page view and then a close-up of the same page.
Similar anomalies occur with every library we have copies from, and there’s only one library (or maybe 2, though I thought those 2 were connected to each other) with the Obama announcements that we weren’t able to check.
No, I’m saying that I have evidence that the microfilms have been altered. The “new copies” of the microfilms were obviously not made by professionals but by somebody not very good at making copies (lots of streaks, splotches, and fingerprints). And they weren’t made from clean master microfilm as libraries would get from a legitimate change-out of old microfilms, but apparently from used microfilms and/or microfiche in order to make it appear that they were old microfilms that had never been changed out.
One library gave out copies where what showed in the whole-page view wasn’t the same as what showed in a close-up of the same area. Really interesting stuff to try to sort out.
But until I can show the actual proof I suppose I should probably just keep quiet. lol
(Dec. 11, 2009) — The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.
The source of the electronic images is a patriot who collaborated with the now famous, Miss Tickly (TerriK), in the investigation of the responses of the Hawaii Department of Health, in regard to requests for information on Obama’s original vital records.
This citizen-investigator wrote the University library which held the mircofiche on Dec. 5th, and received a response, yesterday, Dec. 10th.
The citizen-investigator’s letter, to the Post & Email, read as follows:
I know your have embarked on your own quest for the truth given your involvement with UIPA requests and requests for assistance from the OIP.
I wanted to test the veracity of the Advertiser and Star Bulletin birth annoucements so I went on my own quest for the microfiche that might be located outside of HI. I located the microfiche at UC Berkeley (I know, the most liberal bastion in the world) for the Star Bulletin. The CA State Library has the Advertiser microfiche for August 1961 which I am still working on obtaining images from.
The pdf I have attached is from UCB hard copies that I received in the mail today. Unless the conspiracy extends to recalling all microfiche around the globe, I believe there was an announcement of Barry’s birth in the 8/14/61 HSB. See the attached file. I agree that this proves nothing other than in all likelyhood there was an annoucement.
You are free to use this however you want (personal info already redacted) but I believe in large part it debunks the notion that the announcements were somehow forged. To be honest, I was somewhat crestfallen that Barry’s birth appeared. I was looking for the smoking gun…
Also, I feel I have enough information to conclude the OIP and DoH is challenging concerned citizens such as myself to file a lawsuit to obtain information we have a legal right to. I would like to write an article to that effect but only if there is a chance you will publish it on your website.
Regards,
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/11/obamas-birth-announcement-in-1961-confirmed/
Journalists certainly promise confidentiality to encourage a source to provide information, but in stories, the person is almost always described according to where they work so as to help establish credibility. For example, they might say ‘an unidentified source close to the White House’ or ‘a former employee who chooses to remain anonymous.’ If you’re working with another researcher or a journalist, and that person is preparing a story, then it still wouldn’t hurt to say as much. If you promised not to spoil that person’s scoop, then explaining this wouldn’t compromise any promise you made.
All I will say is that the images are different in the close-up view than in the whole-page view. The marks would not be explained by smudges on the viewer or photocopier, nor would they be made by simply touching the microfilm.
People can make their own conclusions I guess.
This doesn’t mean a whole lot. After all, the official spokesbabe in the HI DOH once came to the conclusion that Obama’s COLB must be real because it looked like her own. Some folks just aren’t trained well enough to recognize potential fraud and forgery.
Weren't you able to get onto a machine that actually had a printer attached? I've never been to a microfilm library that didn't have them. How did it work that you asked for this copy? Did you have to go look at the reel on a printer-less viewer, then take the reel up to the librarian, give him or her the page number and area you wanted printed, and then wait around for them to go to some other machine, find the page and print it out?
Reading your post again, I'm wondering if you ever handled the microfilm at all. Is that correct?
This doesn’t mean a whole lot. After all, the official spokesbabe in the HI DOH once came to the conclusion that Obama’s COLB must be real because it looked like her own. Some folks just aren’t trained well enough to recognize potential fraud and forgery.
No one has been interested in the criminal justice approach however. Challengers to Obama’s eligibility have preferred to file lawsuits which all get summarily dismissed for lack of standing, failure to state a claim, political question or on justiciability grounds.
Yesterday “Hollister v Soetoro” was denied a rehearing by the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That makes 73 rejections. And so it goes.
I’ve handled microfilms.
These were not my requests, which is why I’m limited in what I can say and show. They were requests by someone not at the library who ordered the records from the library. So the librarian made the copies and sent them. But the whole-page view and the close-ups were different from each other, in ways that wouldn’t be explained by smudges on the viewer or copier, or from simply touching the microfilm itself.
That’s about all I’ll say right now. People can reach different conclusions. Both of the people who requested the information saw no problem with what was on their pages. I did a detailed analysis and some checking on how fingerprints would end up showing on a copy and concluded that the copies didn’t pass the smell test. Especially since I already had evidence from other libraries which showed that the microfilms had been changed out - in one case at least twice.
I won’t say that all the librarians were in on the plot, but it seems clear that at least one librarian was aware that what she was sending out under the claim that it came from their microfilms was actually not from their microfilms but a paper photocopy given by (most probably) somebody at The Honolulu Advertiser.
That part of it I was able to see just from my own observation and my own communications so maybe I could eventually post the evidence, but I should touch bases with my colleague.
I better not say anything else. I don’t know what’s mine to say and what isn’t. It’ll have to wait until it can all be revealed.
I’ve handled microfilms.
These were not my requests, which is why I’m limited in what I can say and show. They were requests by someone not at the library who ordered the records from the library. So the librarian made the copies and sent them. But the whole-page view and the close-ups were different from each other, in ways that wouldn’t be explained by smudges on the viewer or copier, or from simply touching the microfilm itself.
That’s about all I’ll say right now. People can reach different conclusions. Both of the people who requested the information saw no problem with what was on their pages. I did a detailed analysis and some checking on how fingerprints would end up showing on a copy and concluded that the copies didn’t pass the smell test. Especially since I already had evidence from other libraries which showed that the microfilms had been changed out - in one case at least twice.
I won’t say that all the librarians were in on the plot, but it seems clear that at least one librarian was aware that what she was sending out under the claim that it came from their microfilms was actually not from their microfilms but a paper photocopy given by (most probably) somebody at The Honolulu Advertiser.
That part of it I was able to see just from my own observation and my own communications so maybe I could eventually post the evidence, but I should touch bases with my colleague.
I better not say anything else. I don’t know what’s mine to say and what isn’t. It’ll have to wait until it can all be revealed.
Butter you’re a patriot.
The Honolulu Advertiser is not to be trusted.
They don’t. Neither does the Hawaii Archives or Historical Society, IIRC.
For all my many faults, that’s one thing I can say. I am a patriot. And a lot of people who don’t agree with me are too. I just wish our longings could be fulfilled and we could all get our country back. It’s what we’re working for. If the Lord wills, we’ll succeed.
The Honolulu Advertiser is not to be trusted.
They don’t. Neither does the Hawaii Archives or Historical Society, IIRC.
So they recently merged on June 7th, 2010. I'll rephrase. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser is not be trusted.
I do however see that the Honolulu Advertiser.com is still published on the Web.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2010/Feb/26/ln/hawaii2260397.html
In an honest system, there would be Grand Jury investigations. In real life, we have a DOH that whines to Democrat legislators who change disclosure laws to excuse the DOH from doing its job and allow the DOH to ignore its statutory responsibilities. Second, we have an active disinformation campaign (of which you seem to be a willing participant) that seeks to demonize anyone who questions Obama’s credentials or suggests he might have committed forgery, so let’s drop the corny Grand Jury canard. There have been attempts to get the legal system to look at this and no one is honest or brave enough to do what should be done. So it goes.
I second, then you also have the Pinheads and hungry SPs asking for food!!!
In an honest system, there would be Grand Jury investigations. In real life, we have a DOH that whines to Democrat legislators who change disclosure laws to excuse the DOH from doing its job and allow the DOH to ignore its statutory responsibilities. Second, we have an active disinformation campaign (of which you seem to be a willing participant) that seeks to demonize anyone who questions Obama’s credentials or suggests he might have committed forgery, so let’s drop the corny Grand Jury canard. There have been attempts to get the legal system to look at this and no one is honest or brave enough to do what should be done. So it goes.
So they recently merged on June 7th, 2010. I’ll rephrase. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser is not be trusted.
I do however see that the Honolulu Advertiser.com is still published on the Web.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/
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.