Not into the microfilm record. Just a full-page image that was claimed to be a scan of the Advertiser page from microfilm. Shouldn’t have taken 5 minutes for somebody to go to one of the libraries and get an actual copy from the microfilm if it was actually there, but a guy from Europe has to triumphantly put a public document on WIKILEAKS?
The microfilms themselves show signs of tampering, including scratches that disappeare And fingerprints.
I’m sorry, I will have to ask you again...did ANYONE go to the library in Honolulu and the Library of Congress, and take photographic images of the microfilmed pages of the newspaper in which the announcements supposedly appeared?
And when I posted the full page image on an FR comment, I was informed that this image was the property of the owner, (the person who had obtained the image,) and rather than cause an upset, I removed it from the thread.
So let's take a look at him, Jeena Paradies is apparently a university student, or was, in 2005. He lives in Sweden, and appears on Google Search many times. What makes you believe he actually had anything to do with it's creation, and not that he just simply picked it up from the web? Either from when I posted it, before I removed it, or from another source? In that short time it was up on FR, one freeper made up an entire web page based upon that graphic, plus the death announcement and the resulting controversy. There's nothing sacred or private on the Net.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1567#1567
there’s a ‘comment removed’ at #1566 dated April, 28, 2011 which is where I had shown the full page graphic of the birth announcements. That might very well have been the first time that entire page was shown anywhere.
http://www.birthers.org/misc/sequential.html
and that’s the page to which I referred - that appeared almost instantly, before I had a chance to remove # 1566.
You’ll notice that we both get a mention. The author even links to the comment number on FR, so there can be no confusion about the dates.
And the dates are important.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2637720/posts?page=37#37
excerpt:
There’s more to that also, that I just thought of. Wikileaks, through somebody with the name “jeena paradies” (who is friendly with the Soros types, according to what I was able to find on him), published Obama’s so-called “Advertiser” birth announcement, claiming that it was the first time they had been published even though images had been online for some time. But it was the first time that the document was in searchable pdf format rather than as a graphic image.
DATED DECEMBER 7, 2010.
~~~~
Incredible. And when I posted the same graphic April 28, 2011 I was told I had no right to do so, that it was the property of the person who had obtained the image by photographing the microfilm at the library in Hawaii, which same page also appeared on microfilm at the Library of Congress.
Better I don’t write what’s going through my mind. The contradictions are piling up like...compost?