Right. And those lines which appeared on the full-page Advertiser image at whatreallyhappened.com actually came from somebody at the Advertiser office - but by the time the Advertiser showed that image for Will Hoover’s article a couple days after the 2008 election, they had heard the suspicions aroused by those lines and gotten rid of them.
Shows that the Advertiser office was manipulating the image to make it appear more legitimate - since microfilms don’t suddenly lose their scratches like that. And the Advertiser also deliberately blurred the rest of the page so people couldn’t find other problems with the image.
There are a ton of other reasons for me to believe that the images we’ve seen are manipulations/forgeries and that Obama’s birth never was announced in the August 1961 papers. Most of it is more detailed than most people have the patience to go through, which is probably why nobody on our side is willing to come right out and say that the announcements were forged.
Sheesh. That first line made no sense. Sorry. I meant to say that the full-page Advertiser image at whatreallyhappened came from somebody at the Advertiser office, supposedly from their microfilms, yet when they printed Hoover’s story showing the image (supposedly from their microfilms) it no longer had what I call C&P lines right under the announcement for Norman Asing’s son.
Thank you. I'll bet someone has come up with a 1961 newspaper original by now that shows just that.