I follow this pretty closely, but I've never seen anything that convinces me that the original microfilms were all replaced. That no one has recently seen an original copy or the newspaper is no surprise at all. Newspapers are rarely retained by anyone.
ML/NJ
Last time I checked the holdings for the Bishop Library in Honolulu, they listed the PAPER COPIES for those newspapers. But they are not there.
Have you read what I’ve got posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2885916/posts?page=113#113 and at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/attention-bill-oreilly-the-rest-of-the-story/ ?
We’re talking about scratches that disappeared over time.
Also there is no way that the microfilms at the HSL right now are the same ones that were there in 1961, even though they try to portray themselves as if they were. The actual microfilming is so poorly done that it could not have been done by the microfilming company named on the microfilm boxes - on both the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin. The Star-Bulletin is too pristine (aside from the signs of substandard microfilming) to have lasted 50 years in the library in that condition.
This is a subject I sort of dropped because it takes so much detailed analysis in order to convince people, and there is so much other territory that is critical right now. But what I’ve got shows that we were lied to about where the images came from. And there is evidence of tampering - some of which I mentioned in the post above and some of which is on ladyforest’s blog. She’s done really detailed analysis and has blogged about it - anecdotal stuff as well as the images from the microfilms. I encourage you to look at her blog.
Ladysforest, maybe you could give some links to the best places for him to look?