Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kleon

There’s nothing formal to indicate that the health department was the ONLY place from which announcements were generated in the newspapers.


36 posted on 03/09/2012 2:11:16 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

And it’s also not credible to believe that the HDOH submitted all the births to the newspapers either, given that there were far more August births listed in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report than were listed in the newspapers (and the people like Virginia Sunahara, whose birth was not listed in EITHER paper) AND the fact that some names made it into one paper but not the other (such as the Nordyke girls, whose announcement was in the Advertiser but not the Star-Bulletin, or the child of Robert Nordyke, whose birth was announced in the Star-Bulletin but not the Advertiser. Even the births that were announced in both papers were sometimes days or weeks apart.

These things all combine with what Zullo said about foreign-born and older children being listed in the papers as if they were newborns born in Hawaii.

Beyond all that, it’s highly unlikely that Obama’s name was even in those papers in 1961; if it had been there would have been no need to tamper with the microfilms or to come up with the documented false stories about how the images of the birth announcements were acquired and posted online.

I have already given the posse the name of 2 potential “persons of interest” in the forging of the microfilms. I doubt they will pursue it, though, because as Zullo has said they already know that the birth announcements don’t prove either age or place of birth - and I would add that the evidence they’ve got strongly suggests those announcements thus didn’t even necessarily come from the HDOH. The announcements serve no legal purpose.

And it’s actually doubtful that Obama was ever in the papers in 1961, given the orchestrated “unveiling” of the images being done through documentably false stories and the fact that the microfilms have supposedly LOST scratches over time, are obviously not microfilmed by the microfilming companies claimed on the microfilm boxes, and/or the microfilms cannot be the original microfilms even when the forgers tried to make it appear that they were.


71 posted on 03/09/2012 6:34:58 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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