[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.

[hoosiermama]

Indicating it had been replaced?

[Fred Nerks]

Excellent...I would like to point out how-ever, and it might have nothing to do with the announcements issue; the divorce papers were received and signed for. The receipt is part of his INS file. The signature appears to be his. No reason for him not to sign. Agreeing to divorce was the mechanism with which she obtained sole custody of a child supposedly bearing his name, whose parents (for now) remain unknown.

[Fred Nerks]

# 369 was in reply to:

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

[thecodont]

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.

But of course.

Those film readers aren't at all delicate. The mechanism of the common microfilm reader (in which the film is rolled is out between glass plates and backlit), coupled with ambient dust, will produce numerous scratches on a roll of film with regular use.