Posted on 04/04/2011 2:01:03 PM PDT by RobinMasters
WHAT WILL HE SAY NOW?
Last week in an on-air debate with Donald Trump, Bill O’Reilly based his entire case for Obama’s supposed Hawaii birth on newspaper birth announcements.
With new information emerging now, O’Reilly may be interested to learn that the announcement images that were posted online cannot be from the microfilms we were told they were from. This article documents that the stories we were told were a well-orchestrated lie, which raises serious questions about the microfilms O’Reilly says he has found, since those lies back in 2008 would not have been necessary if the microfilms O’Reilly relies on today had actually been in the libraries in 2008.
Who orchestrated those lies in July of 2008, and why? O’Reilly might want to send his investigators out to find the answers to those questions, since it is his credibility – not Trump’s – which is on the line now.
Sorry to make you click an extra time, but the only way I know to post the images effectively is in a PDF :
Attention Bill O’Reilly – The Rest of the Story
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Jedidah:
“I think it highly likely that a similar system was in place in Honolulu in 1961. It’s entirely possible that the family was offered the opportunity to purchase a birth ad for a small fee at the time of registration with Vital Statistics. Those who waived privacy and paid a fee were put on the list that went to the newspaper. Not all did. That would account for the discrepancy between number of babies born and number of birth notices in the paper.
In no way does this scenario suggest that the Obama ad is legit, but it does offer a reasonable explanation for how the system operated at the time.”
I agree. I gave permission for my children’s births to be announced, well over thirty years ago. They asked me at the hospital - and this is what “Fred Nerks” can’t hear me saying. I never had to pay though.
Fred Nerks:
You are an Australian? Why are you an expert on American birth announcements? You said : “Where I live, announcements are A MATTER OF CHOICE. “
Did you not notice that I said I was given a choice while I was at the hospital as to if I wanted it printed in the paper? That was MY CHOICE. See?
If they don’t want the announcement to appear.......they don’t give permission. See? It’s quite simple. Say a parent is given a little form to sign, those that sign the little form - their child’s birth is listed in the paper, those that refuse, their child’s birth is not listed in the paper. That is A CHOICE.
And no, they did not print every birth that occurred. That is another indication that some people made the choice not to give permission. Could someone call in a birth announcement? Yes. Oh, a paper may have had some requirement or another if you did, but you could.
Tell ya what. Why don’t we all try and call a few newspapers up tomorrow, and simply ask them their usual procedures for accepting the simple birth announcements? Or email - that way we have a record. Some little hometown ones, some mid-sized, and some “city” papers. Lets see what they have to say.
But lets check with the American newspapers, since WE ALREADY KNOW THE RULES IN AUSTRALIA !!!!!
thanks...because IF we go by the VITAL STATS RECORD LIST being the basis of birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961, as told to ‘Lori Starfelt’ by the HDOH on the telephone, a MYTH she then perpetuated by posting on the teaxasdarlin blog...
then we have to assume that the parents had NO choice in the matter of the placement of announcements...and we have to assume that ALL of the 16,500 children born in Hawaii in 1961 DESERVED to have their births announced! And those who didn’t deserve an announcement had to be ‘weeded out’ by some process.
How was that done, on what basis?
Now imagine YOU wanted to place a birth announcement in either or both of the Honolulu newspapers in 1961. Pretend you are Dr Nordyke. You go to the newspaper office, ask for a form to complete for an announcement...and THEY tell you, ‘IT’S ALREADY BEEN ANNOUNCED FROM THE VITAL STAT RECORD’
AND IT DOESN’T APPEAR FOR ELEVEN DAYS!
There was a LOT of disinformation planted in those early days. It was the Internet version of the wild west. No one really knew who or what to believe. That is partly why I jumped in with my own COLB. I knew shat I knew, and have access to HDOH that people not born there or have “records” (ummmmhumm) there can’t get access to. I wanted to help how ever i could to try and level the field. There was so much uncertainty. For damn sure crap like what appeared at Texas Darlin and other places (coughpolarikcoughcough) really seriously stirred up the muck so much..... Ugh. Thinking about it makes me wanna hurl like a greenhorn on the F/V Cornelia Marie.
Someday, we will look back and know we fought the good fight. Not all battles are fought or won with guns. But we still have to stick by em.
(tips hat) I am proud to be in the company of warriors!
JUST BECAUSE I AM AUSSIE DOESN’T MAKE ME AN IDIOT.
And I see no need to telephone newspapers for their CURRENT regulations, I already posted Hawaii RULES:
READER SERVICES
Submit a birth announcement
Aloha and congratulations on your new arrival!
The Honolulu Advertiser invites you to announce the birth of your new baby in the Island Life section of the Sunday newspaper and on our Web site.
You can mail your announcement to The Advertiser via one of the addresses below or fax it to 535-8170. Feel free to attach additional pages or a copy of an invitation. No street addresses or telephone numbers will be published or given out; they are requested for verification purposes only.
IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby’s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.
You can also submit your celebration announcement using our online form.
The Advertiser publishes announcements up to six months after the baby’s birth. Only parents named on the birth certificate can be mentioned. At least one parent must be a current or former Hawai’i resident or Hawai’i-stationed military member.
Here’s the legal stuff: All submissions may be edited for length, accuracy and clarity. By submitting a photograph and/or announcement information, you grant The Honolulu Advertiser the right to publish, distribute, archive and otherwise use the photograph and information, in whole or in part, in print, electronic or any other media and for promotional purposes related to The Advertiser’s products and services. In addition, you represent that you have the right to authorize The Advertiser to use the photograph and information submitted.
DID 'LORI STARFELT' MAKE THAT CLEAR IN HER COMMENT? SHE DID NOT! THE ENTIRE EXCERCISE WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT ALL ANNOUNCEMENTS WERE THE RESULT OF A LIST FROM VITAL STAT RECORDS.
And THAT is what Bill O'Reilly is STILL basing his statements upon. THAT is the crutch that has to pulled out from under him.
just a note, I was watching an old TV rerun of the 1960’s Palladin western and they used the phrase Fair Dinkum....there are a lot of good side quotes and statements in the show from time to time..
I miss Captain Phil like crazy! I can’t even watch the show anymore, so sad.
Nerks, listen - I’m not saying you are crazy because you are Australian, I’m saying we don’t do it the same way here. See?
I know damn good and well what Starfelt did, and it got to you because you cannot seem to be objective about this. It is not just about this ONE person’s announcement being placed, and there is likely not a one size fits all answer.
You have no proof that it was done the way you want to INSIST it was done. If you have, trot it on out because I’ve spent a lot of time and money on this “little project” and anyone that has some more real proof to bring to the table should just put their money where their mouth is.
Seriously, a lot of people spend a lot of time “wondering” or insisting or arguing or what have you. Fricken DO something for a change. I did. If I hadn’t gone after all the copies of those newspapers we might not know Starfelt lied about a ton of sh*t to this day. We might not know that “all” births were not announced in the papers.
Step up and do something instead of just insisting you know how something worked in America back in the fricken ‘60’s.
*******
Are you saying above that the two Honolulu newspapers back in 1961 often published births that occurred and were registered on other Hawaii islands other than Oahu, the island where Honolulu is located?
I ask that question for this reason: Poster "curiosity" in another thread claims that the two Honolulu, Oahu newspapers where Obama's birth is supposedly listed, only published births that occurred on Oahu; that is, he claims that they did NOT publish births that occurred on other Hawaiian islands.
So could you tell me if poster "curiosity" is correct or not correct according to your research? Thanks.
TRUE OR FALSE? YES OR NO?
The only part of that statement that is really problematic is whether Obama’s name was on a list from the health department. The rest seems pretty probable. The health department compiles lists of births. We know this because that’s their job ... they provide vital statistics such as the ones in the natality report. The header in the newspaper for births indicates that the information comes from the “Health Bureau” not from individuals, although it doesn’t rule out that individual announcements could be phoned in and added to the lists they publish. The number of names and order of names may not be consistent from day to day or week to week, depending on the space available and who did the typesetting. Whether the Honolulu papers published the names of all births is probably no. They probably left out births outside of Honolulu when there wasn’t space available.
There are still problems with Starfelt’s story. You can’t rule out that individual births were phoned in. She said, “They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records.” This may be true for the health department, but it’s not necessarily true for the newspapers. Without having someone who worked there at the time to say, we just don’t know. They may have added extra birth announcements for free, or maybe they did charge. Whoever she talked to at the DOH wouldn’t know what the newspapers’ practices were.
Another problem: Births were obviously published more than once a week as she says.
Another problem: A list from the DOH did not guarantee that these children were only born in Hawaii. Since no place of birth is listed, these children, including Obama could be born anywhere. As long as the family has a Hawaiian address, they could register the birth in Hawaii.
Another problem: She claims: “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth. That suggests the hospital.” None of this precludes an unattended birth from being reported within the same week the birth occurred and there’s no indication that the DOH would have withheld a birth announcement from the list while waiting on statements or health records. They may have withheld from issuing a birth certificate, but they may not have withheld from listing the birth and providing it to the newspapers.
On a personal note, I take a little credit for the birth announcement being found because I had suggested at the time on TD’s blog that someone should go to the Honolulu library to look through the old newspaper microfilms. I assumed if there was a birth announcement, it would have listed the hospital, which turned out not to be the case. For some reason, maybe because TD’s folks were Hillary supporters, nobody seemed to have this idea at the time to look at the library. Newspapers often have “morgues” too, where they keep bound hardcopies of each issue. Seems like one or both Honolulu papers should have their hard copies to inspect so that one wouldn’t have to rely only on microfilm. Of course, given the way they’ve rallied behind Obama, a person probably wouldn’t be let near their morgue.
From a newspaper kid, the announcements were used as fillers. If there was a big story taking up page space, then the announcement list that day would be smaller. If it was a slow news day, then the list would be long enough to fill in the page. You have your ads that brought in $ so those would be placed first here and there according to space allotment and then related news would surround them. Obviously, one paper would have more or less room than the other so the announcement lists would rarely match.
Has anyone searched the Washington papers for either a marriage or birth announcement? News of a hometown girl and recent high school graduate from far away exotic Hawaii would have been interesting in those days.
GGMac: “I’ve not ever seen the name “Lori Starfelt” before today... I remember there was a Texas Darlin’ blog that just disappeared quite some time ago; I had visited there occasionally, and printed out some articles by a commentor named Dr. Kate... Do you suppose Lori Starfelt IS Bill O’Reilly?”
Ladysforest: “Dr. Kate is still blogging. She’s very active and well respected.”
I asked upthread if Starfelt was real or ficticious. Was the “death” staged because things are heating up? Not to be rude if she is/was real but with what we’ve all learned is unless you know the person in real life, then you have no idea what their agenda might be. Here’s the August 2009 link I posted earlier from someone who suspects she posts under different names and one of those is Dr. Kate. It’s a bit difficult to be dead and continue to post.
http://top10badguys.blogspot.com/2009/08/bunnytoes-drkate-and-texasdarlin-update.html
Even if it is proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, BOR will never admit it. That would make all his previous pronouncements on this issue to be pure BS. He has a vested interest in defending the eligibility of BHO.
Thats true as far as we know. It does not mean Obama was born there. It means at least he was REGISTERED there.
You have the papers????? The actual papers with the announcements in them??
Can you scan them and post them?
WOW.
I miss him too. I took my kids to meet him in 2010, April 4th in Albany. He died two months before my Dad did.
I watch for Josh and Jake, and for all the other guys.
I still dig the crabbies LOL
No I don’t have the actual old newspapers. I have the paper copies made from the microfilms. Sorry for any confusion, but that’s what I meant when I say paper copies.
And I just dug up my pdf’s and in looking through just a few pages with good sized lists, I may be wrong about the outlying island announcements getting printed - the names of some of these towns are so close to the names of a couple of the islands. All these double i’s and l’s, not to mention w’s !! I’ll look through more carefully with just that focus. It’ll take some time.
No worries!!
A lot of the names might have an apostrohy in them. For example Kauai is actually Kauai’i. Hawaii is really Hawai’i. The language if hard to follow that way.
I don’t know how anyone could authenticate that list. They didn’t post the IP addresses, and so they could have just written any old thing they felt like writing.
I know that some conservative bloggers’ share a list - but we include IP’s, etc. The lists I’ve seen from conservatives are very detailed. That looks to be a obot blog.
I don’t know what to make of it.
I do not know if Starfelt is real or fictitious. I always felt she was a mole. “Her” contribution and her story about the whole birth announcement issue was fictitious.
It has come to my attention lately though that when someone is rattled by a bloggers position on obama’s lack of documentation, the blogger is denigrated as “some nameless person whom no one knows anything about!” This is true to a certain extent. However, it is now being used to discount actual genuine material.
For example, the Index Data book images that are up on my blog. Those are as real as it gets. Anyone can walk into the Dept. of Health, Honolulu, and look at the books to confirm it. Same with the microfilm stuff.
Instead, to attempt to dismiss the work as being nothing more than an attempt to smear obama, people might claim that the images are worthless simply because I am not a well known individual. I am just an “anonymous enigma typing away in a dark room somewhere, and so the material is probably fake!” Or, at best, it doesn’t have the same value as if a person who is well known to the public were to have gone public with it.
Would the images taken directly of the pages in the Index Data book be more “real” if people knew my name, address, age, and saw a picture of me? No, they would be exactly the same as they are now.
The difference between myself and some is that I post actual material that was collected in person.
Stuff that any individual can go and verify.
While I do sometimes point out anomalies, I try to avoid drawing conclusions. But, if something is right there staring you in the face, like the date range missing on the pages of the 1960-1964 Index Data book for births - I don’t need to draw conclusions!
If someone says that the missing date range is unimportant because I am an “unknown”, then they are desperate. And yet it has happened - it is the new trend.
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.