Attention Bill O’Reilly: The Rest of the Story

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

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. John Adams
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 3:25 am | Permalink | Reply

    A slight aside from the basic point of this story.
    I have been following this blog and every other I can find on the Obama birth story since before the 2008 election.
    I have looked at all the birth notices in both the Sunday advertiser and the Star Bulletin and cannot find any notice of the Nordyke twins born on the 5th. Either I’m blind, or something is a bit weird about the birth notices.

    • Posted April 5, 2011 at 4:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      You’re not blind. The Nordyke announcement didn’t appear until the 16th in the Advertiser. It never appeared in the Star-Bulletin. But then, marks on the microfilm for the 16th were gone when copies were taken from that microfilm 6 months later also….

      The stories we were told about how the announcements were all supposed to line up neatly between the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin because they all came from a single list put out by the HDOH don’t ring true to what is actually seen in the newspapers. Sometimes a birth that is announced in one paper isn’t announced in the other until anywhere from a day or two later to 3 weeks later, or sometimes not at all.

      The people who told us that the birth announcements proved Obama’s Hawaii birth also told us that the lists were exactly the same and that proved that the lists were from the HDOH and announcements came only from the HDOH, but Ladysforest has documented that of the 2 weeks’ worth of announcements she analyzed closely, Aug 13th was the only day when the list that was in the Advertiser was exactly what was in the Star-Bulletin (except for the fact that the Star-Bulletin had 26 more announcements that the Advertiser didn’t have that day).

      So no, you’re not blind. The stories we were told don’t match what is actually in the newspapers. Everyone was hoping that nobody would actually check that out. And in spite of the people in the media who said they had checked it out, nobody seemed to notice the extra 26 announcements in the Star-Bulletin…

  2. Posted April 5, 2011 at 7:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    (except for the fact that the Star-Bulletin had 26 more announcements that the Advertiser didn’t have that day).

    So you are saying that the cropped section, your red box, is specifically showing what was also printed, or shown, in the Advertiser? If true then sis those extra 26 show up in the Advertiser at all?

    • Posted April 6, 2011 at 2:53 am | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know that off-hand but I will try to look that up tomorrow. I might have to consult a colleague to be totally sure; if so it might take me a couple days.

  3. Mike
    Posted April 14, 2011 at 2:17 am | Permalink | Reply

    BOR lied about Obama Senior living in Connecticut tonight to explain an email on the CT SS number in the Email part of the show at the end.

    BOR is done. He seems to have gone over to the dark side of the force. He is no Jedi. He is just another talking head on cable and could be on CNN or MSNBC. Just leave Dennis Miller!

    • Posted April 14, 2011 at 3:05 am | Permalink | Reply

      One lie is never enough. It takes a big man to turn around; O’Reilly never will. My guess is that he sacrificed his honesty in order to get that Super Bowl interview with Obama.

    • WoodchuckRN
      Posted August 28, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Obama’s Hawaii residential ZIP code at the time a SSN was applied for on his behalf was
      96814. The SSN issued to him is consistent with the Connecticut ZIP code 06814. Seems like a pretty understandable pre-computerization age clerical error could explain that one. Heck, my niece’s birth certificate misspelled my sister’s 1st name & mixed up the AM/PM time of birth, and that was via computer in 2002; she never even noticed until until the secretary at my niece’s pre-school did, LOL!!!

      • Posted September 3, 2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink

        Well, if that were the only anomaly he (and you) might get a pass. You should read my latest book, Oh Really, O’Reilly! It is 460 pages of hard exculpatory evidence (177,555 words), and another 160 pages of documents, etc. – 620 pages in all. I compare the “supporting data” or evidence of his eligibility with the data indicating otherwise, and it is laughable. Bill O’Reilly’s “investigation” consisted of the single County Registrar-generated birth announcement in the two Honolulu papers. That was it. BTW, if Mr. Obama weren’t also shown to have used multiple SSN’s (along with his erudite mom), we might once more be a little more lenient, but then there’s the Selective Service Registration issue, the missing passenger lists from the time surrounding his alleged birth (see Arpaio Investigation report from March 1, 2012), his mother’s (and his own) sealed Passport Records, and, oh yes, the refusal of the Social Security Administration (and the Selective Service) to release his applications to law enforcement officials), and on and on.
        Tom Ballantyne – Author of Oh Really, O’Reilly! an expose of the Establishment Media (Left and “Right”) on this issue.

  4. Posted July 22, 2011 at 10:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    ButterDZ,
    Hi. I assumed O’Reilly had fallen in line in order to avoid Sorros resurrecting his sexual harassment suit, on some newly contived premise. It makes no difference whether there was ever anything to the suit, or not. As is often the case, the alleger ended up doing quite well, buying a posh place in Manhattan as I recall. You can Google the whole affair, or matter. Anyway, you may be onto something here, with the Big Interview. We could probably compare dates, but whether it was pre-arranged or not, O’Reilly could easily have pointed to his rabid dismissal of the whole thing as proof that he could be “fair and balanced” when he was fishing for the interview. Good work! I may use this in the book – with your permission. Almost done!
    Tom

  5. Posted July 22, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I hate typos! Make that “contrived.” Where’s SpellCheck when we need it!

  6. Posted July 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Yes, that should have been a question mark!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: