. . 
. . 
. Is this what you wanted Fred Nerks?
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 ...
But we don’t know that, because - first off, we have no idea what was actually in the 1961 papers because the provenance of these images has been lied about and that wouldn’t be necessary if what we were shown was actually on the microfilm at the time.
And second, we don’t know which announcements came from the HDOH and which came from people self-reporting the births. In 1993 the Star-Bulletin had a statement under their “Vital Records” heading, clarifying that information from the HDOH would be in a certain format. If a person reported a birth in such a way that it was clearly an illegitimate birth the HDOH wouldn’t be accused of breaking the rules about not publishing information about illegitimate births. The only announcements that could definitely be known as being self-reported were the ones that didn’t follow the HDOH format, and those were sprinkled in among the others. So if somebody had a baby in China and then moved to Hawaii and reported the birth in the paper it would still appear as if it was an HDOH-reported birth as long as they gave the father’s name and the mother’s maiden name, just like the HDOH announcements. There would be no way to know the announcement hadn’t gone through the HDOH at all.
The “stragglers” in among the blocks of announcements that appear in the same order in both papers suggest that people were able to self-report, and that there is no way to know which are self-reported, since they all use the same Mr & Mrs format and nobody in 1961 would purposely report an illegitimate birth. So it seems like the same situation existed then as exists today - where it isn’t clear which announcements were from the HDOH and which weren’t.
So even if the announcements were in the original papers in 1961, it wouldn’t necessarily tell us anything. But the discrepancies in the stories regarding where the images containing Obama’s birth announcement actually came from raise serious questions about why the “researchers” didn’t just tell the truth. Or even better yet, just go to the HSL microfilms and actually make a real copy like they said they had done.
So really, all the newspaper announcements mean, is that somewhere, a child was born to such and such. It doesn’t mean that the child was born in Hawaii, just that the child was born.
That’s what I would conclude, based on what I’ve seen from the newspapers and the discrepancies in what various sources have said.
For instance, Starfelt says the HDOH told her that they printed their lists at the end of the week. But Will Hoover says he spoke to a “copy boy” who worked at the Advertiser in the early 60’s and went to the HDOH Office EVERY DAY and picked up a sealed envelope for the Advertiser with a list of the births. In legal terms that could be called a double-blind cross-examination, and the testimony of the two sources contradict each other. That calls into question whether any of them really know what they’re talking about.
Somebody has said that they have proof that some of the births announced in the Hawaii papers were actually for children born abroad. Someone who posted on my blog said he would see if he can get information on that to me. If there is proof of that it blows away the argument that the birth announcements - even if genuine - reveal anything about where a child was born. We’ll see what develops on that, I guess.
In the meantime, though, it is clear that the online images that were posted didn’t come from where they were said to be from. Provenance is so critical for historic records, and if provenance is lied about it is a huge red flag.
all said, that statement is FALSE - I see nothing 'PROVEN' - do you?
I agree complerely.
The pictures should NOT be the same, even off the same microfiche.
complerely = completely
I just LOVE my typing some days.
Since the blogger from the dark side had questions about her from two years ago then something definitely smells. Does anyone know where she lived and is there an obit in the newspaper there? Unless, from under my tin foil hat, that’s a set up as well. See, obits, just like births, are called into the paper by a friend or family member so anyone can say anything and the paper will print it.
Yes, indeed, the missing dates from the Index is a huge thing. Not putting a date on a page is just not done and especially when it just coinky-dinkily happens on Hussein’s page. I harp on this, but someone in HI needs to get to those original handwritten index books. Sure, they’re easy to forge, but it’s one step closer to the real time and event. I don’t trust anything computer generated these days.
Tell me what is true about the following statement made by 'Lori Starfelt':
......that proves the Department of Vital Records provided a list of births for the previous week that included Barack Obama –
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date/
The index details are shown on this website. The index of births showing the Obama name HAS NO DATE.
. . . . . Is this what you wanted Fred Nerks?
It would be interesting to see if the original handwritten index had more information such as a cross reference to the mother’s and father’s entries and the actual volume and page number of the bc. The computer generated index is yet another short form at best.
To see more, and to be able to enlarge these for a much clearer image,
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date
Meant to add that that extra information would help in narrowing down filing and registering dates.
Thanks, I wanted Freepers to be able to see what you were saying about the BIRTH INDEX BEING THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS UNDATED.
The missing dates indicate to me that there might have been a birth - OBAMA BARACK HUSSEIN - in that DATE RANGE, but it wasn’t AUGUST 1961.
Sometimes things jump out after giving something another look. Am I correct to say that both Starfelt and Infidel Granny CALLED the State Library instead of emailing? Who would make a long-distance call instead of emailing? Like other libraries, doesn’t the Hawaiian State Library have an online procedure for requesting lookup services and paying for the copies? My point is, it occurs to me, suddenly, that while there are documents (email) proving that the librarian SENT something; there’re no documents (email) proving what, if anything, was requested and by whom. No paper trail. Convenient.
You are welcome. I had posted a couple images on a different thread. People don’t seem to realize that this particular “anomaly” is very important.
The missing date range lets someone, somewhere off the hook.
EXACTLY! And there has to be a very good reason for that! It suggests to me that the NAME may have been entered as the result of a birth...BUT THE DATE is not the same as we are led to believe is the 'birthdate'.
You got that right...it was a set-up right from the start. They desperately NEEDED something, anything, to give credibility to the announcements, after the COLB was questioned.
The HDOH claims that the indices were just index cards saying where the records were kept and that they were destroyed without changing the retention schedule. And the ombudsman says it wasn’t an illegal destruction; they just didn’t bother to get permission first.
Nothing in Hawaii is the way the rules and laws say it is supposed to be.
Rush is right-— O’Reilly has become Ted Baxter. I’m done with him.
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.