Methinks no one has ever seen either the microfilm or microfilch. When the forged COLB was shown...they knew the next thing they would need is a birth announcement, so...they created one.
And a very helpful attendant at the library just happened to have what they wanted - available in her folder. She scanned what she had and e-mailed it. So simple.
I’m just looking at this now. You’re absolutely right. What’s interesting is that what the Hawaii State Librarian had in her desk drawer is the (almost - one forgery trace was deleted) same copy (right down to where the microfilm was stopped on the reader when it was copied) that Michael Rivero at Whatreallyhappened.com got directly from the Honolulu Advertiser.
The only place that would have that clean of a copy is the archived master copies at the Honolulu Advertiser office. IOW, the Advertiser sent a copied piece of paper to the Hawaii State Library to give out to people who asked for this.
You are right that nobody looked at the actual archives; if they had they would have known that announcements were NOT just posted on Sundays in the Advertiser.
The Advertiser’s archives were open to the public at least as late as 2004. When Michael Rivero asked the Advertiser for the birth announcement they didn’t send him to the Hawaii State Library; they sent him the announcements for both the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin (they have all the archives for both papers).
My guess is that they forged the announcement they wanted to get out, gave a copy to Rivero and then gave a copy to the Hawaii State Library. Then when Starfelt contacted them they told her that their archives aren’t open to the public and sent her to the Hawaii State Library, from which she was given the forged copy that the Advertiser had sent her.
IOW there is one source for both the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin images that are on the web: the Advertiser office - who alone has the master microfilm copies that are pristine and could be forged. And which also most probably has a microfilm camera with which they could make microfilm “patches” to splice into other microfilm reels - or could actually make a brand new reel and simply replace it for what was in the libraries.
The issue of whether it is microfilm or microfiche is actually important because the diagonal scratches that show up on the microfilm copies couldn’t come from a microfilm archive. They would have to come from heavily-used microfiche that was used to make a microfilm reel. I just looked at a website which said that the Advertiser has both microfilm and microfiche that had been available to the public - and I would add that they also have the pristine microfilm master copies. So they would have the ability to forge copies that look like they’re very worn as well as pristine copies like what Starfelt was given.
If the Advertiser was the only place that made microfiche copies, then the microfilms that have the diagonal marks must have come from the Advertiser’s microfiche that used to be public (which they have now closed). But if that was the case then there shouldn’t be any underlining or circling because the microfiche would have been made of clean paper copies of the paper, not ones that had been sitting in a library getting marked up. The other marks may have been added to obscure the evidence of forgery.
Whew. A lot of double-checking I need to do, now that I have better knowledge of the capabilities of the people most likely involved.
The more I look at this the more I think the Advertiser is hiding more than just biased reporting on Obama.
Any insights anybody can give would be great.
Microfilch! Such a fitting word!