I remember that Lori Starfelt she said she found it on microfilm (or maybe microfiche), because I remember thinking that if one microfilm existed there were probably more, and that the scratches and cracks on different microfilms vary are serve as unique ids of that microfilm and give a clue as to age.
Everytime a microfilm or fiche is used, a few more scratches are added. Cracks at the edges and feedholes develop with age, and depend on storage conditions and how aggressively a microfilm was used or rewound.
The first mention of the the find on the long thread was on 7/22 and is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2040486/posts?page=3866#3866
And as a separate thread at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049721/posts?page=1
That happened around the same time as a document examiner ‘TechDude’ went black — went quiet — after making allegations that the COLB was a forgery on the basis of his image analysis. The last thing TechDude claimed was startling — that he was able to recover the name of the person whose original Hawaiian COLB was used for the forgery. As I remember he claimed it was “Maya Soetoro”.
Freeper Polarik had first made the claim that the COLB was forged based on his experiments and analysis, but Polarik was not considered to be a document expert. While the public identity of TechDude was never revealed (it was guessed at), his analysis was provided through Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugged blog and Texas Darlin at TD Blog, and those two bloggers claimed that he was a legitimate forensic document examiner.
No one else seems to have been able to duplicate that feat — and such a feat should have been able to be duplicated by any earnest and able computer image editing user.
I mention all that because sequence of events, reviewed long term, can give a sense of what was real and what was misdirection.
By ‘feat’ I mean the discovery of a residue of “Maya Soetoro” on the COLB.