Replies

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.