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.



scan Honol. Advertiser Aug 13 Honol. State Library0001

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.

Stats research for the original ten day sample is in the post “What Happens When The Planets Align”,

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.


~ by ladysforest on September 18, 2010.

25 Responses to “Round Pegs In Square Holes”

  1. hi lf, thanks for the summary. I read thru it a couple of times and I think I see your point. In general the microfilm was not generated from a single source which is what one would have expected. Also, those films inspected awhile back have changed in condition. Why? I am way out on a limb here but why would someone alter a piece of “evidence” that has already been posted? If these are to be used for any reason as an explanation or “proof” of anything then it can easily be shown they were tampered with….hmm.

    • At least two of the microfilms have indications that they came from a master reel, the identical page 23 for example. However, there are inconsistencies which seem very unusual if these did indeed come from a master film. Many inconsistencies.
      I do not have proof that these were altered. They present some questions. And some answers. 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.
      Check out the new stuff I added to the bottom of the post today.

  2. ladysforest,

    You certainly have done excellent research. I can’t wait for more. To me, in my honest opinion, somebody has definitely been tampering with those films.

    • Thanks kittykat. I’m still poking around in that stuff to see if there is anything new. I have soooo much of it though, LOL.
      One thing that is a smidge odd. Why would the birth address be listed as the Dunhams? Even though we now know that the “obama’s” never lived together as man and wife, it seems a strange move for people back then to make public that their “married” daughter lived separately from her husband at the time she gave birth. Generally speaking, appearances were VERY important back then. We all tend to forget the social climate of those times.
      When these announcements first came to light, it was “supposed” that the obama’s lived out back in the little cottage. Then it was revealed that obama Sr. never had any address together with Stanley Ann.
      And, as the main home at that birth address was so expensive, it was then put forth that the Dunham’s lived in the cottage with the pregnant Stanley Ann, sans obama Sr.
      It is extremely odd that they would not consider appearances though, and list their supposedly married daughter’s address as their own, and not that of her husband. I mean, even if she never lived with him, keeping the appearance would have been a consideration back then. I’m sure that they had friends, a social circle of some sort. Why proudly ADVERTISE that your teenage daughter got a quicky sham marriage? It was a much different time back then, people tend to forget this.

  3. Oh, I remember those times very well. I’m not sure how it was in Hawaii, but I know in the states that blacks and whites rarely married. When they did, they were really shunned. And I don’t remember where I read this either, but it’s my understanding that even Hawaii didn’t have a lot of blacks back then. You’re making a good point about the Dunhams’ address. That’s interesting.

    • But was the house really that expensive back then? I had heard this also so I googled it and did a street view. The house is really a nothing house, it does not appear to be in an exclusive area, it is on a major highway. The “cottage” is behind the garage or carport, cant remember, and very small. What I find really odd is the neighbor’s house which was the one that claimed she had lived there for years. Well I may be wrong but the house looks really new, as if it was a knock down and rebuilt. It does not look original like the Dunham house. Once again another oddity.

      • Back then the home was new, and in a desirable location. That would indicate that it would be an expensive rental for a furniture store manager, and bank employee. There was supposed to have been an address they lived in before this, then this one, then the next year into yet a different address. Going out on a limb here, but any new home in a good location in Honolulu would have rented high even back then. Especially if there was an additional cottage out back. I’ll google more info on the home tomorrow, some of the past stuff has been scrubbed.

  4. While splicing of film would seem like an exotic skill it looks like it is not difficult. And some devices are small and very portable.

  5. Please email me. I have print out from Sacramento State Library if you want to see it.

    • Thank you for the offer. I have access to o’s announcement in that paper from an acquaintance. But do you have any other dates? And what date did you collect that, and was it collected in person?

  6. I also did an investigation into the announcements posted in both the Star and Advertiser.

    Here is a link to the story and the images I have posted:

    • The thing that interests me is:

      “I mentioned here,, that I discovered the second half of these birth listings were put in chronological order, from Aug 4 to Aug 7.

      I remember a posting on the TexasDarlin blog where someone proficient in typesetting said that he believes that the type used for the Obama announcement, and the ones above and below, were recently set and that part was reprinted. I have to go back and look.

      But, here’s the deal: maybe the forger reset the entire 2nd half of listings and put them in chronological order.

      Someone needs to get a copy of the birth announcements for the week before (Aug 6) and the week after (Aug 20) to see if there is any chronological ordering.

      If not, then we have proof that the Aug 13 listing was altered.

      250 posted on Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:31:23 PM by Polarik

      As I mentioned in the first post on this topic, “Extra, Extra”, I collected copies from the end of July through mid Sept. 1961. Mainly because I didn’t want to rely on the images that had been posted online supposedly by Lori Starfelt, and KOA, and I wanted to know the actual condition of the films. There are copies in the “pages” titled Larger PDF’s of The Wheat and the Chaff, that range from 8/8 through 8/18, which was the sample size that I chose to use to determine the frequency of the two papers publishing the same names in the same order.
      I also have copies of the Polks and some 1961 Honolulu phone books that have yet to be put up. Just keep forgetting. 🙂

      Did you ever follow up on your idea to check for the chronological order of the announcements?

      • Ladysforest:

        No, I figured that the other people who were working on the same thing would take it from there. I was busy investigating the creation of the bogus COLB and the involvement of Hawaai, St Pete Times (Politifact) and the Obama Campaign.

        If you have the times, watch the video presentations I created that expose their fraud:

  7. Check the date of my post: July 25, 2008.

    Darn, I wish you had picked up on it sooner.

    • came up with two different avatars, that’s weird. Anyway, I will responded to both of your comments here. I had read about the announcement thing, but wasn’t very active in this whole topic back then. Then the more I read and learned about it, the more intrigued I became. Just like so many others.
      As time went by, and nothing much happened with those investigations, I put it to the side. When an acquaintance, “Citizen Investigator”, was sent the Nordyke Twins birth announcements…I revisited the whole issue.
      The thing that stood out most to me was that everyone was relying on the copies that were already posted online, and few, if any, had gone to collect their own copies. I thought it might be important to do that, and so I took that step.
      I mean, how can a topic be researched with little or suspect material?
      Can not.

  8. ladysforest,

    This needs to definitely go mainstream, meaning into the conservative news area and be talked out. It’s just too important. Sounds like to me that someone’s been up to no good, which I think that I figured out a long time ago.

    • Without absolute proof they will not pay attention. It’s just a fact right now. I mean, they KNOW obama is a dual citizen, hence NOT natural born, and they ignore that.
      Maybe something will change after Nov. 2. 🙂

  9. Well, I can’t figure out some of the goofy things that go on with the Internet. I don’t think it’s my computer. I came on to your blog site and there was gigantic print. Like if I had hit zoom a hundred times, then I finally got it to normal. Places that I’ve been to are working okay. It’s just strange. Maybe you’re making some people nervous, you think?

    • Hard to say what is going on. I don’t know if the other WordPress bloggers are having problems. I’m sending a ticket in about the YouTube problem, hopefully they can get back to me soon.

  10. […] 11/22/2010 Quick Note:  I did a short summary of this post, combinbed with info from the most recent trip into HI at this link: […]

  11. Has there been any effort to contact others on the newspaper, to see if perhaps someone has kept a piece of the paper as a scrapbook entry?

    Maybe a relative of a birth, or death on the same day? Or, what is on the opposite side of the paper?

    If an actual piece of an original paper could be found, that would be game over.

    • Only if it was the entire paper. And it would have to be tested I’m afraid.

      Until 2007 or so, the original microfilm archives for the Star Bulletin (I think it was that one) was open to the public for use to research past publications. I have written to the paper several times to ask why it is no longer “public”, and if a person could make an appointment/pay a fee to search the original archives. They never responded to any of my inquires.

  12. […] […]

  13. […] Sigh.  I suppose we shall have to continue to rely for secondary proof of obama’s birth on those microfilmed “birth announcements”, which have more anomalies than Chaz Bono. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: 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: