That birth announcement in the two newspapers contemperaneously with Obama's birth is probably the strongest argument in favor of Obama being born in Hawaii. Of course, we know that there are other factors involved that could make those announcements meaningless in that regard, e.g., the address, the apparent differences in copies, how Hawaii registered births, etc. I wish we could destroy this "evidence" definitively. You have done a great job in laying out the facts. Lots of smoking guns.
First thing. The microfilms could very easily be forged. Very easy to do. Below you’ll read some info on microfilm production. Just be aware that although the type of film used to make service copies was changed in the 80’s, you can still get the vintage film. Even on Ebay.
The thing that my collection of copies proved beyond doubt is that the stories behind the “ORIGINAL DISCOVERIES” of obama’s newspaper birth announcement were absolutely false. Especially the first person that claimed to have gotten their “copy” at the HI State library in person. The copy they sent around could not have come from the film in that library. The copy that was supposedly emailed to “Lori Starfelt” could not have come from the film it was purported to be copied from. (By the way, it is said that Lori Starfelt died the day before Trump began speaking out about the birth certificate-and she was a filmmaker)
So, why were the stories made up if the films were on level?
We do know that when mothers check out of a hospital they are asked if they would like the announcement printed in the paper. Usually there is a little form that is checked off or signed. In addition, parents could then, and now, call in the info. In fact the Honolulu Star Advertiser still allows family to do that, just NOW A DAYS they claim to require that you provide documentary evidence of the birth before they will print the announcement. I’ll bet they didn’t back in 1961. Hell, I bet they didn’t require all that three years ago.
Butterdzillion did a better breakdown on the relationship between all of the “original discovered” announcements. It supports my findings-I did mail her second gen copies of all my original copies so she could do her own research with them.
This is just a little info on microfilms and how they are made:
1980s and 1990s
Kodak introduces polyester-based microfilm, which quickly becomes the new standard. The old “Kodak Safety Film”, which used an acetate base, had a giant drawback - the acetate begins to break down into acetic acid, otherwise known as vinegar syndrome.
Master Negative (also called:Camera or Archival or Original) The original microfilm taken directly from the microfilm camera. This is the generation that is considered for permanent archival storage.
This is the archival copy, which is used to produce a duplicate negative (see below) for the generation of use copies. The master negative should be stored in a different location from secondary copies and under conditions as close as possible to the ideal. The only subsequent use of the master negative should be the reproduction of a duplicate negative lost to damage or disaster.
Duplicate Negative (or Print-Master Negative)
This copy is almost always silver-gelatin. The duplicate negative is used to generate use copies (see below) for the collection. It should be stored under the best available conditions, since it serves as a working master, to protect the master negative. Ideally, it should be physically separated from use copies.
Use Copies (or Service Copies)
Any of the available media or formats may be acceptable, and images may be positive or negative. Good storage and handling will extend the life of use copies, thus protecting previous generations of microforms.