The Problem With the Announcement Stories

Announcement Stories Not True


  1. charlene
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 2:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butter. Sorry but what announcement? Birth?

  2. SapphireSunday
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 10:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The problem with you, girl, is that you’re just too damn smart! 🙂

    Great post. You have them by the b a double l . . .

    Waiting for installment 2.

    • Posted February 5, 2011 at 3:30 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the vote of confidence. Somebody suggested that I revise the format of this content to make it easier to follow and try to get Drudge or somebody else to pick it up. I’d love to do that. I’m not very technologically savvy so it would be great if I could hand the information off to somebody with connections who could develop it.

  3. thinkwell
    Posted February 5, 2011 at 7:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Bdz,

    I really don’t yet clearly see where all this is leading. I suspect you may be suggesting that the various inconsistencies, cut-and-paste marks, etc. supports the possibility that the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements for Obama are contemporary fabrications that never existed at all in the original records.

    I always thought that the records reported by the newspapers legitimately came from the HDOH, but were based on the lie of a Hawaiian birth that Obama’s grandmother had filed with the HDOH at the time.

    Are you suggesting that Obama’s grandmother (or some other relative) may have never actually filled the fraudulent birth report until a later time (too late for the newspaper announcements to have appeared with the correct historical timing – or at all, since the actual birth event was long past)?

    Or are you suggesting that the questionable nature of the incomplete and unsubstantiated birth report that was filled may have kept the HDOH from releasing the data to the newspapers?

    I suppose either of these two reasons could be the motivation to produce a forged announcement. Perhaps other scenarios are possible. Whatever the case, I have been following this unfolding saga with sad and angry, but rapt fascination. I do hope you eventually do share your best suppositions of what this all means.

    PS: Never heard back from my brother about the eligibility bill questions. I will try calling him this weekend, but I see you didn’t miss the window of opportunity in your home state after all (yea!). I hope you don’t mind, but I have posted your suggested bill (link included) in the reader forums of the most rabidly Obama supporting of the regime-stream media news outlets in my city. Take care and thanks for all you do.

    • Posted February 6, 2011 at 1:33 am | Permalink | Reply

      We were told the announcements had to come from the Vital Records Office because the lists in the 2 papers were identical, because the people interviewed claimed that was how it was, because the HDOH told Starfelt they gave lists to the newspapers on Fridays for the births to be listed in the Sunday papers, etc.

      Everything we were told was a deception. The papers were not identical. The people who were interviewed contradicted each other’s stories. The HDOH lists for the newspapers weren’t even authorized until 1976, births were announced in the papers before the Friday after the birth when the list supposedly would have been made, and the Sunday papers are no different than any other paper. Etc. On and on. Everything we were told is demonstrably false.

      As were the stories of where the online announcement images came from and how they were discovered.

      Later on, it will be revealed that every library that has these microfilms shows different signs of tampering.

      IOW, it’s all a big fat lie. There was no announcement of Obama’s birth; somebody forged microfilms in order to manufacture ANYTHING contemporaneous that would suggest a Hawaii birth – because there was nothing that would do that. Not a completed birth certificate and not a birth announcement in Hawaii.

      If there had been birth announcements in the paper it wouldn’t mean anything because – contrary to what we were told – the birth announcements did not necessarily come from the Vital Records Office. There are too many discrepancies between the lists and when births were reported in one or the other, or both, or neither newspaper. He could have been born in Hawaii and not had a Hawaii birth announcement, and he could have been born somewhere else and still had a Hawaii birth announcement. So the presence or absence of a birth announcement really doesn’t tell us anything about where he was born.

      But the fact that they altered historic government records (microfilms) at 5 libraries all over the country in order to manufacture a birth announcement when there wasn’t one speaks volumes. It says to me that they were absolutely desperate to come up with anything credible because there isn’t anything that was completed for him in 1961.

      There may or may not have been a birth claim that originated in 1961. What suggested that there was is the “date filed” on the COLB – but we already know that is a forgery so nothing on it necessarily means anything. HDOH responses to me indicated that he doesn’t have a delayed birth certificate, but the terminology between “late” and “delayed” changed a couple times between 1961 and now so they could be using a different terminology, or they could be outright lying as they’ve done before.

      But I would bet money that there was nothing COMPLETE for him in 1961. If there had been there would be no need for them to go to all this trouble to splice and re-duplicate microfilm rolls in 5 different libraries all over the country.

      At the very least it tells us that somebody felt a need to deceive the entire nation, destroying historic records in the process, and it deserves a full legal investigation.

  4. HistorianDude
    Posted February 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So… have you been able to locate a copy of either of these papers that do not have the announcements on that date?

    Have you even tried?

    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I have tried and can’t find any paper copies at all – none that have Obama, and none that don’t.

  5. Jonah
    Posted February 10, 2011 at 3:58 am | Permalink | Reply

    “But the fact that they altered historic government records (microfilms) at 5 libraries all over the country in order to manufacture a birth announcement when there wasn’t one”

    I’m into genealogy and have seen many newspaper microfilms. How do you that the microfilms were altered and where are the 5 libraries? I know Honolulu is one and another one was a university in CA.

    • Posted February 10, 2011 at 4:48 am | Permalink | Reply

      Based on evidence like “scratches” disappearing over time, full page views showing different marks than the supposed “close-ups”, microfilm roll box altered, very substandard (non-professional) microfilming, duplicate pages accidentally being spliced in, bizarre pages like shipping schedules showing heavy diagonal wear on microfilm (more indicative of microfiche), etc, I believe they changed out the microfilm reels at the Hawaii State Library, at the University of Hawaii-Manoa Library, University of CA – Berkeley, CA State Library in Sacramento, and the Library of Congress.

      I hope to be able to concisely show the evidence without confusing things too much, but I have a few things I need to do before I can focus on that part.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: