Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Danae
I have been looking at the pdf copy of the birth announcements posted by Butterdezillion yesterday. She has done brilliant work - and it's clear that there are a number of discrepancies here: 1) The online images of the Honolulu Advertiser posted in 2008 by two individuals seem to be identical, even though they claim two different sources (Hawaii State Library, and Honolulu Advertiser). More telling, the actual microfilm of that day's birth announcements at the Hawaii State Library itself is old and lined, unlike the almost pristine copy of the online images. Question - Where did these online images come from, if not from the Hawaii State Library ?

2) Also in 2008, virtually identical images of the announcements in the Star Bulletin were posted online, with the source again claimed to be the Hawaii State Library. These Star Bulletin images listed identical births to the Honolulu Advertiser. The actual Star Bulletin microfilm at the Hawaii State Library for that day's birth announcements is longer with 26 additional birth announcements. Clearly, the online Star Bulletin images were cropped/fixed to appear identical with those of the Advertiser. Question - Why would the Star Bulletin have 26 more birth announcements than the Advertiser if the source is the Vital Records Office ? Suppose the source of the birth announcements also include mere phone calls by relatives to the Hawaii newspapers ?

It gets very interesting. Clearly, there are several discrepancies with these announcements which would rule them out as a source of primary evidence for Obama's birth. Only a fool like O'Reilly would rely on these announcements.

Thanks to ButterD for good work done.

62 posted on 04/05/2011 7:32:49 AM PDT by Sloane_Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: Sloane_Ranger; butterdezillion

Butterdezillion’s work is absolutely BRILLIANT.

She deserves a great deal of thanks!

Butter! YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Butterdezillion. Now THAT is WINNING!


63 posted on 04/05/2011 7:53:06 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: Sloane_Ranger; butterdezillion
I have been looking at the pdf copy of the birth announcements posted by Butterdezillion yesterday. She has done brilliant work.

Butterdezillion is one of my greatest Heroes / Heroines on Freerepublic. I thank her too for diligently continuing her quest for the truth.

67 posted on 04/05/2011 10:33:19 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: Sloane_Ranger

Brilliant snapshot of butterdezillion’s tireless, genius work! Excellent post.

Those announcements were tampered with, without one shadow of a doubt.


72 posted on 04/05/2011 11:15:06 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: Sloane_Ranger

At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, parents could rather easily get a Hawaiian birth certificate for a baby who wasn’t born in Hawaii.

1. Aug. 4, 1961 — Obama supposedly born in Hawaii in Kapiolani hospital.
2. Aug. 5, 1961 — Nordyke twins born in Hawaii in same Kapiolani hospital. Copies of long form birth certificates are on internet.
3. Aug. 8, 1961 — Obama’s birth certificate is filed with Hawaii vital statistics, if we are to believe what we see on Obama’s short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
4. Aug. 11, 1961 — Nordyke twins birth certificate filed with Hawaii vital statistics.
5. 10641 — Obama number on short form birth certificate that we see all over the internet.
6. 10638 — Nordyke twin number on top of long form birth certificate.
7. 10637 — Nordyke twin number on top of long form birth certificate we see on internet.
8. Huh? What is going here that does NOT smell right? Why does Obama’s certificate have a HIGHER number than the Nordyke twins’ certificates, when the Obama certificate was filed 3 days EARLIER: Aug. 8 vs. Aug. 11.
9. So, if Obama’s birth certificate was filed on Aug. 8, then it should have a LOWER filing number than the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates that were filed on Aug. 11.
12. But as we can see above, Obama’s birth certificate received a HIGHER number-—10641-—than the Nordyke twins-—10637 and 10638.
13. Something does not smell right concerning why Obama’s number is greater than the Nordyke twins.
14. I wish that the Nordyke twins would demand that Hawaii officials explain why they received LOWER numbers than Obama. They obviously have so-called “standing” to ask questions about their own Hawaii birth certificates.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/CertificateNumbers.htm


75 posted on 04/05/2011 11:35:05 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson