Having been attacked as a "birther" now, and having my judgment questioned for daring to challenge their veracity of anything produced by this administration, on further examination, it looks worse.
In a former life, I used to be employed by a company that manufactured microfilm cameras and printers. I'd tell you that they were manufactured in Minnesota, but you should stop when you got to the third "M".
A number of things affect the quality of microfilm:
*The density, clarity and contrast of the original image.
*The exposure settings on the camera
*The maintenance and cleanliness of the camera
*The quality and processing of the film
*Proper storage of the processed film
*The maintenance and cleanliness of the microfilm printer
Now, we're going to look at the dog who did not bark, to borrow from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. First look at the copies from the Honolulu Advertiser. (Click here for larger image)
See the milky white patches in the background of these "negative" prints? That means that for some reason, those patches were underexposed, which would result in a bit of gray haze or background on a positive print. Now look at the copy provided by the White House:
Hokey smokes! Pristine! Clean as a whistle! No haze, no background. If I may be so bold as to say it, almost perfect! Now, even if we were to assume that these documents were recorded within days of each other, it would not be unreasonable to assume that when they were transferred to microfilm, they would have been photographed within seconds of each other!**
Why the dramatic difference in the quality of the film? You can see in the White House "copy", the slight shadow of the curvature of whatever book they were bound in, same as the other two. But miraculously, there is none of the clouding or underexposure of the film which would have produced some background, as if the Magic Microfilm Fairy miraculously healed any deficiencies in the system to help illuminate that shining light that would become our President! (And then, probably let it revert back for all you common people!)
Again. Don't shoot the messenger, but this appears to be yet more evidence that whatever the White House is passing off as genuine, is not.
**And almost undoubtedly on the same roll or cartridge of film. I suppose it is theoretically possible that the documents would be on two different rolls, but highly unlikely. And then the conditions of the film and the filming still would not be that dramatic, IMHO.
Update: I don't know if this will help the hopeless to see what I'm talking about, but I thought I'd give it a shot!
Cross posted at Proof Positive