An Internet blogger writing under the name ladysforest has collected various copies of the Honolulu Advertiser announcements of Barack Obama’s birth and compared them. Some of the images are in better condition than others, and some have scratches. The research is new, but the idea that the birth announcements were tampered with is not. (Note that commenter Black Lion first noted the ladysforest article here last June.)
Ladysforest makes a big point about not giving conclusions, but only pointing out “oddities”, although if I were trying to be objective I wouldn’t have used the word “infamous” to describe President Obama’s birth announcement as she did. I think any objective observer would say that the ladysforest article casts doubts more than it objectively presents evidence.
I would observe that one would not go to all the trouble that she did to compare images without some significant suspicion that something was awry. I can testify from my own experience that if you look at low-quality images of documents with suspicions, confirmation bias will make you see things to confirm your suspicions.
If you ask me why the films are different, I need go any further than ladysforest’s article. She herself provides evidence that the films were created by different companies: Micro Photo and Recordak. As for her other images, she got them online and who knows how many times these were copied and recopied, enlarged and shrunk.