Attention Bill O’Reilly: The Rest of the Story

The Post & Email ^ | April 04, 2011 | Butterdezillion

[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

[Ladysforest]

Fred,

“WHOEVER ‘SHE’ WAS, WROTE:

“...What you know is that Texas Darlin’ has received an email forwarded from the Hawaii State Library that is a a clipping from the Honolulu Advertiser’s Sunday August 13th, 1961 edition that proves the Department of Vital Records provided a list of births for the previous week that included Barack Obama – that’s what you know.

AND I’M SAYING ... THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE! THERE WAS NO LIST!”

I’m not getting your rant at me in this comment. ??

[Ladysforest]

One thing that further supports these announcements, at least a significant number of them, as coming from a list put out by the Vital Stats office is when the *longer lists* are published in the papers.

Those have DOB’s weeks old and are from outlying areas/islands. All of those people didn’t wait three weeks or more and then all call the newspaper in a group to request their babies births be announced.

[Fred Nerks]

I’m not getting your rant at me in this comment. ??

It wasn't a 'rant' at YOU.

[Fred Nerks]

My belief, based on personal experience and the input of many women,is that the “lists” were put out by the Vital Stats Dept...

...AND a person could call in to have an announcement placed. As long as the announcement was just the little one, name/address/gender/DOB, there was no charge. They knew whomever called to place it was likely to be buying up several papers, so it was like a courtesy thing. Especially back when.

Sorry, but that is just confusing the issue more, IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER. Either the announcements were ALL PLACED FROM A LIST - 16,500 OF THEM FOR 1961 - OR PARENTS/RELATIVES PLACED THEM.

I am not doubting there WAS a LIST. It just wasn't USED to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers.

And now I am outa here...

[LucyT]

Yet what 'Lori Starfelt' posted on texasdarlin DID NOTHING toward the PUMA cause. - All THAT did was establish the MYTH that the announcements were published as a result of a LIST - which gave legitimacy to the announcements SENT TO HER BY E-MAIL from Hawaii.

SEEMS TO ESCAPE FREEPERS TOTALLY! THE MYTH SERVED TO ESTABLISH THE ANNOUNCEMENTS AS VALID!

And after that, the LIE went around the world, into the head of Bill O'Reilly and out his mouth!

There's this, too:

"The idea that someone calling themselves ‘Lori Starfelt’ might have signed up at texasdarlin TO START THE MYTH that birth announcements were published from a list - seems to have been overlooked."

. . . . Catching up again; begin reading at # 108 , don't miss # 110 , and read to end of page.

Thanks, Fred Nerks. Either it is posted on the board, - or someone frmail me that Lori Starfelt had died of cancer in March of this year. However, it was not documented information. We need verification.

[butterdezillion]

And one of the things my colleagues and I dealt with right away was what dates to ask for copies of, to look for the Nordyke announcement (among other things). Starfelt’s statements of what she said the HDOH said implied that announcements were only in the Sunday Advertiser. She went through this whole spiel about how she figured that it would have to be printed in the Sunday, Aug 13th Advertiser. Based on that, everybody was thinking there weren’t any announcements on other days in the Advertiser. How wrong that was!

Turns out, from what the librarian said in the e-mailed response, Starfelt called the librarian and asked her to find Obama’s announcement - and the librarian sent her a copy via e-mail the same day, saying this was the announcement she was asking for. Starfelt decided to call the HDOH the same day and talked to a real live person who answered questions (with inaccurate information that totally fit the narrative that Obama wanted). The announcement image was posted on Texas Darlin’ Blog by the next day, with the statement that it was definitely from a HDOH list and anybody in HI could go see this announcement because it was in the microfilm at the HSL.

Now doesn’t that make you feel peachy, ladysforest? You know what our colleague had to go through to get what she got. And it turns out that Infidel Granny claimed to do the same thing - called up the librarian the next day and voila! got the e-mailed copy that same day, with the librarian saying a lady had asked to see it a week earlier (more like 2 days earlier...)

These stories don’t match up with each other OR what’s in the papers, and they definitely don’t match the experiences we’ve had with the Hawaii people. Whether Starfelt and Infidel Granny were deceived or complicit, I don’t know. But I know that something doesn’t smell right.

Fred, the stuff you’ve been saying all along is what hit my colleagues and me immediately when we saw what was actually in the papers. This stuff doesn’t add up.

It’s been 3 weeks since Starfelt allegedly died, yet a search for “Lorenda Starfelt died” shows nothing in the entire web except references to her husband’s announcement in that blog and that comment that she had died on Sunday - the comment about her death being given before her husband even says she had died.

I hate this. I hate it that we have to wonder whether people are faking a death. I felt terrible when this happened with Obama’s grandma Dunham and I feel terrible about it now. It’s actually amazing how much those 2 situations parallel each other. Grandma Dunham was fine, had had a hip replacement - no word of cancer. And then the next thing we knew she was dead and had been dying of cancer for some time, and there wasn’t going to be a funeral and no death certificate is allowed to be seen.

It is too eerily similar.

And what is freaky to me is that one week before Starfelt allegedly died, somebody on my blog who was very familiar with microfilming told me that the COLB is a moot point as long as there are the birth announcements - to which I responded that we were lied to about where the birth announcements came from. We had a conversation about it for a few days. And then one week after that conversation had started somebody posted that Starfelt had died 2 days earlier.

It’s bizarre.

There’s other stuff I’ve learned today too, and I’m sort of reeling from it all. Nothing is ever the way it appears when you’re dealing with the Soros thugs.

The only way we will ever know anything for sure is when a thorough criminal investigation is done.

[American Constitutionalist]

Yes, they knew what was the right thing to do ( unheard of in the history of the world ) and had the courage and perseverance to press on no matter how great the forces that were against them.
They swore their sacred honor, their lives, their properties, and put their trust in the full reliance in divine Providence.

[American Constitutionalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs4ZFkZdNXY

[butterdezillion]

We know there was a list that was posted at the HDOH office, and the newspapers could have sent somebody to take down that information. I don’t know if there were photocopiers back then. The papers must have gotten the lists for marriage license applications somehow, and presumably the information came from the HDOH.

But the discrepancies between the 2 papers make it clear to me that the HDOH did not put out a list of all the births that automatically went into the papers. Either there was a way to opt out of having the birth announced in one or the other of the papers, or else the births were put in voluntarily, or else the papers were flaky about which announcements they printed and when. But the story that it was all cut and dried and having an announcement in the paper automatically meant that the HDOH says you were born in Hawaii just doesn’t wash.

Somebody on my blog said he’s colleagues with somebody who says he has proof that some of the births announced in the Hawaii papers actually happened outside the US. He said he would try to get me information about that. If there is proof of that, it would be a slam dunk against O’Reilly’s claim that the announcements prove a Hawaii birth.

[butterdezillion]

Thank you to both of you for listening to that recording. I hadn’t realized how much I was asking. Yaelle, I am so sorry you had to be exposed to that.

Let me say right here and now that if I had cancer or some other life-threatening illness everybody in my world would know it. If you hear of me dying of cancer and I hadn’t said anything about it to anybody, you can know something is amiss. I’m also not suicidal; I very much want to be here for my kids and husband. We’ve poured over $10,000 into repairing our vehicles in the last year; we keep our vehicles in safe condition.

If my blog ever goes down it won’t be my doing.

Just so you know.

[Fred Nerks]

Oh boy...I have been posting comments to another thread...thinking it was the same as THIS one!

CROSSPOSTING:

Second thoughts about that birth certificate
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:12:42 PM · 281 of 281
Fred Nerks to Danae

Someone was deliberately causing confusion...
You can say that again! ‘Lori Starfelt’ who-ever she might have been, was fed a line by the person who supplied her with the e-mailed scan of the announcement...AND THAT MYTH HAS BEEN ALIVE EVER SINCE.

Notice, who did it serve? Who benefitted from the original misinformation? AND IT’S STILL BEING USED!

If it were known right from the beginning, that parents or relatives could place birth announcements...THAT NO VITAL RECORDS LIST was involved...the announcements COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED by idiots like O’Reilley to make it LOOK LIKE zero was born in Hawaii.

---

BUTTER YOU WROTE:

Turns out, from what the librarian said in the e-mailed response, Starfelt called the librarian and asked her to find Obama’s announcement - and the librarian sent her a copy via e-mail the same day, saying this was the announcement she was asking for. Starfelt decided to call the HDOH the same day and talked to a real live person who answered questions (with inaccurate information that totally fit the narrative that Obama wanted). The announcement image was posted on Texas Darlin’ Blog by the next day, with the statement that it was definitely from a HDOH list and anybody in HI could go see this announcement because it was in the microfilm at the HSL.

AND I JUST KNEW IT WAS A SET-UP RIGHT THEN AND THERE! CLEVER - TO INFILTRATE TEXADARLIN WITH MISINFORMATION THAT SUITED THE OBAMA CAMP!

Now you understand why I have been arguing against that entire sequence, since I first saw it, and why I kept the comments ‘for later’ BECAUSE IT STANK!

[American Constitutionalist]

[Ladysforest]

I think to expect every new parent to call up the newspaper a week after they have a baby, and request the ad to be put in is not realistic.

As I have personally had the experience of having a child and having his announcement printed in the paper without having called up the paper - well, it seems I may know a little about how it can work. Three children, all three in the newspaper and I never called the paper once. The hospital included my permission along with my other records to the Vital Stats people.
Not to say that a grandparent couldn’t have called it in. Or a parent who had a home birth. How is there being TWO ways for the announcements to be published so very complicated?
Good grief, things don’t come wrapped up in nice little packages. Sometimes there really is more than one answer.
And neither of these, nor both of them together, make it complicated.
It’s only complicated if you insist it must be one way or the other. The pattern of announcements supports that these can indeed have come from a list compiled by, and made available to the papers by, the Vital Stats office.
There is nothing that supports the theory that they are only submitted by the parents after they have taken baby home.

Now, did I think the whole original story by Starfelt was bull? Yes. I have always felt it was suspect. But, for more than the simple reason that “she” put forth the notion that these could only be supplied by the DOH. That was weak on the face, and clearly supplied as a talking point for the obots to dismiss that the grandparents could have requested the announcements. She claimed a lot of other false things to.

Here is what she said to a person who supposedly interviewed her. I didn’t screenshot or archive the link, because back when I began working on this I simply didn’t know how to do those things. This is what I copied and pasted from an interview someone had with Starfelt:

“”Lori (Starfelt), the researcher, explains:
“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. 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.””

But notice she uses the word “suggests”. That reminds me of the evasive way the Hawaiian officials spoke on the topic. She also went into way more detail about birth outside a hospital than makes sense for a “PUMA” who made an offhand request for a birth announcement, and was given said announcement. It isn’t “natural”. Something about her whole speech seems very contrived. Lot of double speak too.

[Fred Nerks]

...And what is freaky to me is that one week before Starfelt allegedly died, somebody on my blog who was very familiar with microfilming told me that the COLB is a moot point as long as there are the birth announcements - to which I responded that we were lied to about where the birth announcements came from. We had a conversation about it for a few days. And then one week after that conversation had started somebody posted that Starfelt had died 2 days earlier.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it...'Lori Starfelt' is just a name someone used on the texasdarlin blog after all...and THE HEAT IS ON...false names, fake deaths...Bill O'Reilly is probably the only one left who clings to the 'birth announcements prove he was born in Hawaii' MYTH...therefor it makes sense that the ONE who perpetuated the lie to start with might choose to 'die' LOL!

[Ladysforest]

“We know there was a list that was posted at the HDOH office, and the newspapers could have sent somebody to take down that information. I don’t know if there were photocopiers back then. The papers must have gotten the lists for marriage license applications somehow, and presumably the information came from the HDOH.”

I remember mimeograph machines in the sixties. So yes, multiple copies could be made.

Why weren’t they all in both papers? Who knows. If it was only the parents supplying the info, why would the one paper print on one day, and the other paper printed days later? None of it is consistent. None of it.

If that is frustrating, it is. That is simply the truth of it.

[Jedidah]

If a child were born outside the hospital, whether locally or abroad, the family would need to register the birth with Vital Statistics in order to establish citizenship.

In the case of my three babies some 30+ years ago, when filling out birth papers at the hospital, there was an option whether or not to make the information publicly accessible.

If made public, not only did the info go into the local newspaper, but also to vendors and merchants who could peddle their goods to the new family.

In other words, good reason to opt out if you didn’t want the world to know your business or try to sell you something.

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.

Methods used to publish births in Honolulu today are irrelevant. Everything, from society to technology, was different in 1961 — no comparison is valid.

[Fred Nerks]

...If it was only the parents supplying the info, why would the one paper print on one day, and the other paper printed days later?

Perhaps because the person lodging the announcement was given the choice as to which paper they wanted the announcement to appear in? 'Tick This Box' FOR ONE OR BOTH.

And the announcements were printed according to how much space was available on a certain day?

Now I want to ask something...there are seven Hawaii Islands, correct? Are they all inhabited? Did some islands perhaps have their own local newspapers? And if YOU lived on one of the other islands, would YOU not chose to have YOUR birth announcements printed in the LOCAL newspaper?

What about an out-of-wedlock birth? A birth the mother may NOT wish to announce? What does she do? Notify the newspapers and DEMAND THEY DO NOT PRINT AN ANNOUNCEMENT?

Which-ever way you look at it, ANNOUNCEMENTS PLACED AS THE RESULT OF A LIST FROM VITAL RECORDS IN TWO HONOLULU PAPERS MAKE NO SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER.

BECAUSE THAT SUGGESTS THE PARENTS HAD NO CHOICE!

[Fred Nerks]

...I think to expect every new parent to call up the newspaper a week after they have a baby, and request the ad to be put in is not realistic.

I am an Australian. Where I live, announcements are A MATTER OF CHOICE.

BIRTH. MARRIAGE. DEATH. They do NOT appear UNLESS SOMEONE ACTUALLY LODGES THEM!

Tell me, what does a parent have to do, if there is a LIST FROM VITAL RECORDS at the foundation of ALL birth announcements, IF THEY DO NOT WISH THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO APPEAR?

And last but NOT least, DID the two Honolulu newspapers PRINT 16,500 BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS IN 1961?

[Fred Nerks]

...There is nothing that supports the theory that they are only submitted by the parents after they have taken baby home.

Both parents are not in hospital, the FATHER COULD LODGE THE ANNOUNCEMENT. A relative could lodge the announcement. It took the Nordykes ELEVEN DAYS!

[rolling_stone]

...And last but NOT least, DID the two Honolulu newspapers PRINT 16,500 BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS IN 1961?....

Methinks not, and this point needs to be researched and go viral.