Obama’s Hawaii Birth Announcement A Fraud?

First, the back story.

The History:

Shortly after obama’s “COLB” appeared on his campaign website, many people claimed that it was fraudulent, and demanded that he produce his original long form BC.  That never happened.  Instead, an intrepid PUMA doing research made the discovery of the now famous obama birth announcement that apparently appeared in the Aug. 13,1961 Honolulu Advertiser.  This was “discovered” by Lori Starfelt, who made the claim that she was sent the copy by the Hawaii State Library.

This is what I was able to find on our friend Starfelt, written by a columnist  :


“This announcement was not found by, as might be expected, the usual suspects (the “Obamania media” as they’re known by some), but by one researcher trying to prove that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S: Lori Starfelt, who’s part of a team creating an anti-Obama documentary for the pro-Clinton PUMAs.  It was posted by “TexasDarlin,” another person researching this issue.
I’ve got to hand it to these people.  Even if their effort is only to going to lead to the conclusion that he is a citizen (which, with this announcement, would seem to be closer and closer to the case), they’re pretty good researchers.  I think rooting out possible corruption and deception is not a bad thing.
So, the announcement was published.  To those who will question its authenticity, Lori (Starfelt), the researcher, explains:
“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.”

Or does it?  One very notable thing going on in her “statement” is that she seems to have been able to effortlessly get answers that no one has been able to get since.  If you try to get this info from the newspapers, the hospitals or from the Department of Health in HI, you will not get a straight answer.  But Lori Starfelt got one.  And, she actually got an almost PRISTINE copy of the announcement.  Now,  we don’t REALLY know where she obtained it from, she claimed that it was given to her by the Librarian at the State Library in Honolulu.

Just a day or so after Lori’s discovery was published, along came the second birth announcement, this one was supposedly discovered by someone with the online nic- name Koa,  IN PERSON and also at the HI State Library.  Below was from a poster at the FreeRepublic blog who copied and pasted Koa’s account of the discovery:

Source of announcement: In posting that announcement, the user stated as follows:”

“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. …”

This was the Aug. 14,1961 Honolulu Star Bulletin announcement-the one on the right above.  Just click to enlarge.


Honolulu Advertiser, closeup of original announcement thats posted above left (I note the bottom of the letters in “Obama” are cut off):


Now, you will notice that in this example (from a pro-obama google webcache) is the “same” ad as above, only it looks a bit different: No dotted lines, letters have been restored and do not appear “chopped off”, heavy line under Asing announcement missing, periods added to the “A M  Hatchle” announcement”. Nice and shiny.

A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail,

“The Advertiser and Star-Bulletin began collaborating on reporting birth announcements in 1961. On June 1, 1962, they signed a Formal Letter of Agreement to create the Hawaiian News Agency to jointly publish both papers, an agreement that remains in place even today.

A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail,

 including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.“

Birth announcements from the Star-Bulletin (left) and Honolulu Advertiser (right), with Barack Obama’s announcement marked


It has been advanced many, times that there is more weight to this “proof” because the announcements appeared in both papers one day apart, presumably because both papers are thought to have always published the same birth announcements.  So, if it is in one paper it is in the other.

That erroneous presumption was corrected early on by other researchers who found that identical listing of these announcements was not typically the case.

Now for some more news,

I own a set of paper copies of both of these newspapers (copied from microfilm) that were personally collected for me by a close friend.  The copies that I own are from both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, and were collected from BOTH Hawaii libraries that have the micro films, the State Library and the University Library.  These were collected early March 2010. I also own a set of these paper copies from the Library of Congress in Washington DC, that I personally collected in 2010.  The dates for each set are from July 23,1961  through September 8, 1961.  I wish to make it clear that I am not claiming to have the microfilm rolls-I have the paper copies made while viewing the microfilms.  The viewer has a printer that allows you to print the image on the screen.


But the Advertiser is definitely in much worse shape.  It has damage marks that run both diagonally and horizontally.  The diagonal marks are odd, the film only slides between two glass plates and is otherwise stationary.  I looked into the history of microfilms and found out that these are very tough films, meant to last “99 years”. Where you see the dotted line above obama’s announ. in the first ever online posted image, on my copy of the Advertiser from the same location there are significant lines obscuring that area. Additionally, the bottom of the letters in”obama” are not cut off as they appear to be in the original image.  The “a” at the end of obama appears slightly tilted and lower than the rest of that letters in that line.

Clearly, one would NOT expect these microfilms to morph in precisely this way.  I mean one gets better, one gets worse – by scratches appearing that cover an area that has repeatedly been pointedout as having a strange “dotted line” above the obama announ.  The copies from the University Honolulu Advertiser are in excellent condition.  Almost as clear as the Starfelt image.

I will say straight out that the stories from both “Lori Starfelt” and “Koa” are misleading and in the case of “Koa” a complete lie.  So, the stories of the first “discoveries” are actually complete fabrications.  I do not know if Starfelt intentionally lied, but that copy she emailed to TexasDarlin could absolutely not have come from the source she claimed to have been told it had.  And Koa outright made that story of his/her discovery up.  The images from the copies we collected prove this beyond doubt.  Additionally, Koa seemed to know nothing of the process of viewing the film on the reader-in fact had no idea about the dates on the film he/she supposedly handled in person.

Some other observations that I personally am in the unique position of being able to make:

The films are on reels dated from the first of the month to the 15th., then from the 16th. to the last day of the month.

The Honolulu Advertiser published both an am and pm edition each day.

The boxes in the Library of Congress were in very good condition.  The boxes of the Honolulu Adver. in both HI locations were quite worn, while the boxes for the Star Bulletin in both HI locations were in very good condition.

The box containing the Aug. 1-15, 1961 Honolulu Star Bulletin in the Library of Congress in Washington DC. has the original reference numbers scribbled out and rewritten in black ink. (Taken with my cell phone)  The Star Bulletin films were in boxes marked: Micro Photo Inc. 1700 Shaw Ave. Cleveland12, Ohio.  The Honolulu Advertiser films were in a box marked: Recordak Corp. 444 Madison Ave. New York, NY.

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.  Sorry, my photo of this is not very clear.  The slice down the center is actually very straight and deep.  I ran my fingernail across lightly and it caught up in the slice.  UPDATE: I neglected to mention before that when I examined this film on site I did unroll it over a yard to determine how long the slice was.  It was on the entire portion that I unrolled, and did appear to continue-I didn’t want to be too obvious, so I didn’t unroll it further than that off of the spool.


At the University Library in Honolulu the staff delivers the film and also replaces it.  You are not under any observation while handling the film. No library card needed.

At the State Library in Honolulu you collect the film and return the film yourself.  Other than some rude staff members making snide comments about my friend, and presumably to him, as he was able to hear said comments (having the leisure time to do so may be one reason that HI has the Library staff on furlough days) he was unsupervised while making copies.  Copies at that library require inserting COINS into the viewer copy machine.  No Library card needed.

At the Library of Congress you must pass through security upon entering the Library.  You must obtain a Library card.  You must fill out a request form and the films are delivered to a table which you indicate on the form.  You return the films to a special area yourself.  You are unsupervised while making copies.  You must have any purse or bag/backpack glanced into upon leaving at he main entrance, otherwise you do not go through “security” again.

My friend felt it would be a very simple matter to make a switch of films in either HI Library.  I can confirm the same would be the case even with the Library of Congress in spite of the “security” checks.

OK, so now that we have all of that out of the way I will put up the PDFs containing  images of the copies for Aug. 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, and the Aug. 14, 1961 Star Bulletin that I have from the Library of Congress, both of the Hawaii Libraries.  You can do the math yourself.  These are kind of huge, so just adjust the size.  Some are copied in sections so that the top of the page including date, page number, ect. are included.


Library of Congress, DC, Honolulu Advertiser0001

Library Of Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001

Library Of Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002

University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0003

University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001

University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Advertiser0001

State Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0001

State Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002

Honolulu State Library, Honolulu Advertiser -1 of 20001

Honolulu State Library, Honolulu Advertiser-2 of 20001

OBSERVATION:  The PDFs for 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.

Here’s where I throw a monkey wrench into the wheels turning in your mind.  I will post PDFs of these next images.  See how quickly you pick up what you are looking at.  This is page 23 from the Star Bulletin on Aug. 14, 1961.  Tip: obama’s birth announcement appears on page 24,  Aug. 14, 1961 in the Star Bulletin.

University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin0002

University Library, Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin 230001

Library Of Congress, DC Honolulu Star Bulletin-23-10001

Library OF Congress, DC, Honolulu Star Bulletin, 23-20001

YEP, you got it in one.  The film shows that page 23 was imaged twice.  What is most notable about this is that the same exact page was not imaged twice, but page 23 was laid out twice as you can clearly tell from the images in the copies.  It is this way on the Library of Congress copy and the University Library in HI, I do not know if the film in the other HI library has the same occurrence because my friend did flub that copy….not sure he was looking at the instruction page that day.  Sigh.  Now, remember that this is the page that appears immediately before the page obama’s birth announcement is published on.

Remember back when I highlighted this statement in the article from WND: A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.“ ???

I will explain why I highlighted that snippet.

It has been advanced that both papers printed identical lists as the general rule.  As I mentioned before, this was pointed out to add more “weight” to the “proof ” these newspaper birth announcements lend to obama’s birth story.  As it turns out it was done more or less sporadically.  I pulled a sample size of ten days from each paper.  I began the splendidly tedious process of comparing the incidence of the same birth announcements being listed in both papers.  Mainly with an eye towards how often they matched in exact order.The only time this occurred in that particular way within the ten days that I researched, was on the dates that had obama’s birth announcements.

And I even took the extra steps of comparing editions to a three day range (edition before, same date, edition after) of the sister publication.  So, I tried to cover all the bases in a fair comparison.

So.  The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in exact descending order, was the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared in.  This was indeed the only time that these announcements were printed this way, as the closest the papers came to doing this again never had all the same names listed in the exact same order.  I figured the ten day sample would give conclusive data as to if this was uncommon.

This also shows that the story Starfelt gave about how these announcements got to the newspapers was false.

I eventually finished comparing the two month range of birth announcements that I have – nowhere did ALL of the announcements match the next days announcements in the sister paper as they did on the days where obama’s announcements are listed.    I also checked the copies for Jan. 15 1961 – all of Feb. ’61, and the phenomenon did not occur during that time frame either.

7/7/10  I added a new post with the images of the copies that were used in this comparison process, there is also a “Page” in the column on the right with these same PDFs which will open to a much larger, easier to read size:



And I must mention, I didn’t forget the Nordyke twins birth announcement.  Remember that it was given to this blog by a Citizen Investigator, and this is the first blog that published that image for public view. myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/01/07 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?

Aug. 16 19610001   Ponder this over:  No one can access the Certification Of Live Birth (COLB) presented as proof of obama’s birth in HI.  But they cannot restrict the public’s access to these microfilms.

It is truly remarkable how these are morphing since first being discovered, allegedly, at the State Library in Honolulu HI, is it not?

Translate »
Exit mobile version