Round Pegs In Square Holes
This is a well intentioned attempt to abbreviate my post “Extra, Extra, Announcing Obama’s Birth”.
*After the first postings of the freshly discovered obama birth announcements, many noticed that the appearance of the obama announcements changed considerably over a short period of time. Much like the COLB did. The examples of this are in the original post,
*The microfilm box in the Library Of Congress, Star Bulletin Aug 1-15, 1961, had the original reference numbers scribbled out. If you were to look closely, you’d notice that it appears there was an attempt made to alter the original numbers…like when you got a D on a report card and tried to change it to a B. At some point the altered numbers were scribbled over and rewritten in black ink. Out of a total of roughly two dozen film boxes that I handled this was the only box that was so altered.
*The infamous “Lori Starfelt” obama birth announcement most closely matches the condition of the copy from the Library Of Congress rather than the Honolulu State library where it was said to have originated from. The copy that came from the Honolulu State Library in March of this year, shows the film to be in MUCH worse condition than it was back when Lori Starfelt was given a copy supposedly from the same film at the Honolulu State Library. The copy from the Advertiser this spring shows the film to be nearly unreadable, it is highly unlikely that the film would have degraded so after about 18 months. The Starfelt copy was virtually pristine.
LORI STARFELT COPY:
. THE PDF OF THE EARLY MARCH 2010 COPY FROM THE SAME FILM, SAME LIBRARY, partial image shown below
PS. Look closely at the “Andrew A M Hatchie” announcement. Notice that in Lori Starfelts copy there are no periods after the A & M? In the newer, considerably degraded copy made in early 2010, there are periods clearly visible.
*”KOA’s” claim that he personally located and imaged the Star Bulletin announcement is suspect (bullshit) for the following reasons. He made the following claim on FreeRepublic ;
“Here’s a copy I made today of the August 14th (could have been the 15th or 16th), 1961 Star Bulletin newspaper showing Obama’s birth announcement stored on microfilm at the Hawaii State Library in Honolulu. I had to enlarge it to the point of losing the top of the page with the date and day in order to make it readable. The microfilm is stored in the basement of the library and was in the box marked Star Bulletin Aug 1, 1961-Aug 16, 1961.
He said; “14th, but could have been the 15th or 16th”. Now I know right well that when you are in front of that machine, you have enough presence of mind to know what you are looking at. It is completely implausible that you would go to the library, take the time and make the effort to set up the machine and scroll through, FINDING YOUR NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK, and then not even bother to note the date of the paper wherein it appears. Then to claim that “You lost the top of the page” is ridiculous, as I know from my own experience making the same copy, that he could very easily have included the top, even keeping the same magnification, simply by losing the few names below obama. Additionally, the reels are dated from Aug 1, 1961 to Aug 15, 1961 and Aug 16, 1961 to Aug 31 1961, NOT “Aug 1, 1961-Aug 16, 1961.” A person who had NOT SEEN or handled the films would not know this. A person who had NOT SEEN or handled the films wouldn’t be able to state for certain if the date were the 14th, 15th, or 16th. They would not know. A person who had taken the trouble to actually collect the thing in person would absolutely know the date. Would know the date range of the reels. KOA did not collect (make) that copy in person.
We can be reasonably sure that Lori Starfelt’s copy of the announcement was NOT generated from the Honolulu State Library. So, someone fibbed there. On purpose. KOA, I’m willing to bet, never set foot in that library, but was given a copy to spread around. So, another deliberate lie. Both lies are connected to the very first “discoveries” of the obama birth announcements.
*The Aug. 1 -15 1961 Star Bulletin microfilm at the Library of Congress has a slice down the center of the film, it begins at the identifying “LC” punch outs on the end of the film. The slice down the center is actually very straight and deep. It ran beyond the three feet or so of film that I unrolled to have a look at it.
In the film at the Library Of Congress, the Star Bulletin was showing considerable damage up to the date that obama’s announcement appeared. But on that date there was little damage on the film.
*The page (number 23) before the obama announcement (on page 24) was imaged twice – not the same page – but from appearances it was a different page. So page 23 was laid out twice and the film was shot that way without it being noticed, OR, there was a splice and the splice was not done in the correct place on the film, leaving in place the original page 23 followed by the superfluous page 23.
*Master reels. The fact that the double page 23 appears in the Library Of Congress film and at least one HI Library, indicates that these came from a master film. There are enough inconsistencies to suggest they weren’t generated from a master, but the page 23 double (a clear mistake of some type, either an intended splice point, or for some reason the photographer did not notice that they were laying out the same exact page number end to end). ties
the films in the different locations together.
*While I was looking at my newest Library of Congress copy of the Aug. 16 1961 (the date the Nordyke twins announcement appears) I happened to notice that off to the side a few columns over was what looks to be a fingerprint. It’s in scale with the newspaper, not the viewer. It’s NOT in the copies from each location. The theory is that these came from a master reel-all of the microfilms. When a “fingerprint” is in one, it should be in all. Yes?
*The PDFs (mine) for copy of the Library of Congress-Honolulu Advertiser, shows no “periods” after the A M Hatchie announcement (two below obama’s). At 400% blown-up there are no “periods”. In the copy from the HI University Library they are crystal clear at the size the PDF opens in. In the HI State Library Honolulu Advertiser, the periods appears to be there as well, though harder to make out. Since that is the most “degraded” of the microfilms, if those are visible there, they should be on the Library of Congress copy also. AND: in the first ever posting of the obama announcement-the last name is spelled Hatchle, NOW in every copy I’ve seen it appears as Hatchie. So, again-clear differences between the copies at different locations. All aspects of the text should be the same in all papers/microfilms.
**The only time that I found the announcements to have been printed in the same order, from the first birth announcement through to the last, and printed only one day apart in the sister paper, was on the dates when obama was announced. Though one paper had a shorter list, the names listed matched in exact descending order in both papers. I later did a less meticulous check on the full two month period I had copies of, and that same pattern did not occur again within that two months.
and I did the same less meticulous check in the Jan 1961 and Feb 1961 copies that I have
(while looking for the obama parents marriage announcement), and never found this same pattern to have occurred in those date ranges.
*The Robert Asing announcement was a few days before obama’s in the one paper, but a month later in the other paper. His brother, Norman Asing, had the announcement below obama, in both papers. Probably no significance beyond demonstrating that the sister papers seemed to publish these announcements quite haphazardly on occasion…..just not on the occasion of obama’s announcement.
*I did not find obama’s parents marriage application announcement or the marriage announcement in the Jan. 15-31-61, Feb. 1961 microfilms in either the Star Bulletin or the Honolulu Advertiser. I did find several names in the Feb. 61 films that were listed in the birth announcements the same dates where obama was listed.
Below is an example of a stray page winding up in the wrong place. This is from the Star Bulletin, Sept. 15, 1961 to Sept. 30, 1961 microfilm reel, Library Of Congress (my most recent trip this spring). The page (dated September 30) was filmed, or otherwise inserted, just below a page dated Sept. 19th. You can tell this because of the identifying date to the right of the edge of the paper. The actual film showed signs of a rough splice, which left in place this partial page from Sept. 30. I just happened to catch it because I was looking for something on the date of Sept. 19th.
Here is another example of a splice gone wrong. I will have to check back through my notes to find out the date of this film. This was also found on my spring trip to the Library Of Congress. This was taken with my cell phone. I was at the fifth viewer by this time, each of the preceding viewers had developed printing problems after I had been at them for a short time. By the time I had found this example, the copier on the final machine had also ceased to function. Hence the cell phone pics-which leave a lot to be desired. The two “pages” in the middle of the pic are the same page.
I AM WONDERING…..OTHER THAN THE IMAGES OF THE COPIES FROM THE TWO HONOLULU LIBRARIES THAT I, LORI STARFELT, AND KOA HAVE CAUSED TO HAVE PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET……….HAS ANYONE ELSE PUBLISHED IMAGES ONLINE FROM THE HONOLULU LIBRARIES ?? THERE MUST HAVE BEEN OTHERS COLLECTED BEFORE FEBRUARY 2010. GIVE ME A SHOUT IF YOU KNOW OF ANY PLEASE.