[butterdezillion]

Yes, they contained the same information.

But the scratches disappearing over time showed that the microfilms had been replaced, which makes no sense to do since the information was the same on both - unless the replacement with the “cleaner” microfilm was to cover up mistakes made when the previous microfilm change-out had been done.

IOW, the obvious manipulation/changing of the microfilms makes all versions of them suspect - because you only go to the trouble of changing out a microfilm roll if you think there’s a good reason to do so.

[Fred Nerks]

... the obvious manipulation/changing of the microfilms makes all versions of them suspect - because you only go to the trouble of changing out a microfilm roll if you think there’s a good reason to do so.

Which prompts me to ask, do you have images which show how different the various pages photographed from the microfilm look? I'm relying on five-six year old memory, but I seem to recall seeing cropped snippets of the announcements, and some had many more lines and imperfections than others...there was one, posted very early in this saga which looked like someone had drawn lines on it with a pencil after the image was taken from the microfilm. As I could never work out if the marks and scratches were on the original material, I never gave it much thought. I've always concentrated more on trying to work out, step by step, how the deception was effected and what it achieved. The motive and needs, in other words.

[Fred Nerks]

To illustrate what I mean, the 13th August image from the Sunday Advertiser seems to show lines and dots that were added by hand with a pencil:

A New Image of Obama’s Birth Announcement for Monday, August 14, 1961 The Star Bulletin

Below is the cropped image from Texas Darlin’s for Sunday, August 13, 1961 the Sunday Advertiser

"The August 13th image is one that was originally sent to Texas Darlin’. This was later used as evidence of Obama’s birth by Factcheck.org. The new image was found in Berkley by a citizen researcher and given to John Charlton that he has shown on his website today. I cropped both images to compare the two. These are from two different newspapers, and are from two different days so they are not identical layouts. The information regarding Obama is the same."

SOURCE

It seems there was a third source of microfilm, given to John Charlton. I guess now I'll have to look for that. Did you know about this?

[GregNH]

because you only go to the trouble of changing out a microfilm roll if you think there’s a good reason to do so.

Someone figured out they needed to make a "record" of someone who didn't have one so he could run for POTUS.

I personally took a look at the microfilm at Kahului Public Library, 90 School St, Kahului, HI 96732. In particular I was looking for an adoption announcement for Zippo because the notice of service to Sr went unanswered and there is usually a public announcement if the Daddy can't be found. I obviously didn't find one. But I can say that that particular box, for the birth announcements was a different box, I even took a picture and sent it to butter at the time.

But I can testify as to the condition of that film vrs others. That film was far less scratched than the films before it and after it.