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.
FYI
~~~~~~~~
2. Authors’ Demands on White House Called ‘a Pain’
A growing number of veteran journalists are readying books about Barack Obama and his administration and seeking inside information from the White House.
The blitz of upcoming books “has created complications for presidential aides, who have a country to run, and frustrations for the authors, who are clamoring for face time with their sources,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
“One White House official calls the mounting demands ‘a pain’ in the posterior, saying: ‘We try to engage when we can. No one is getting as much time as they want.’”
The Post’s Bob Woodward, who has been covering Washington politics since the Watergate era and penned four books about George W. Bush, has a book about Obama scheduled for publication in the fall.
***Another Post journalist, David Maraniss — who wrote a biography of Bill Clinton — is said to be a year away from completing his family history of Obama.
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter’s book, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” is due out in May.
The New York Times’ Jodi Kantor has a deal, reportedly worth seven figures, to write about the personal side of the first couple.
New Yorker Editor David Remnick’s biography, “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,” will be published on April 6.
NBC’s Chuck Todd, who covered the 2008 campaign, is writing about the partnership between Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
New York magazine’s John Heilemann, who wrote a best-seller about the 2008 campaign, has reportedly signed a $5 million deal to write about Obama and the 2012 presidential race.
Books are also in the works from MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe, New York magazine’s Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza, and Time magazine’s Mark Halperin.
First lady Michelle Obama’s office has also been swamped with requests from journalists, but all have received the same answer, according to The Post.
Camille Johnston, Michelle’s communications director, declared: “We are not cooperating with any books on the East Wing side.”
http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKI6axGFvUFUhBIL4XHNSFYZzxbzbLU1Z
Will be interesting to see what Maraniss turns up.
You catch on fast, lol. That's exactly how we would have done it back in the day.
I've asked this before an no one has answered, maybe no one knows, but there is money in those reels and genealogists beg for such info. The newspapers had to have made copies and mailed them around the country to various libraries. So, has anyone found them outside Hawaii? They should be out there somewhere. Of course by now they could all have been switched out with the fake copy.