BREAKING NEWS: Read carefully butterdezillion’s latest post, addressed to Bill O’Reilly. She found very interesting FACTS about the provenance of all versions of the supposed “contemporaneous” birth announcments posted on the Web. (Note to Mr. Leonard (I’m a racist toady) Pitts Jr.: we know the definition of the word contemporaneous, because we’ve used it in conjunction–in quotes, of course–with those announcements for nearly 2 years. So We the People don’t need a racist toady like you to school us on the English language. Click that link to his latest column if you don’t understand my reference.)
butterdezillion writes, “With new information emerging now, O’Reilly may be interested to learn that the announcement images that were posted online cannot be from the microfilms we were told they were from. This article documents that the stories we were told were a well-orchestrated lie, which raises serious questions about the microfilms O’Reilly says he has found, since those lies back in 2008 would not have been necessary if the microfilms O’Reilly relies on today had actually been in the libraries in 2008.”
Fitting that butterdezillion chose today, the day Barry announced that he wants to be reelected, to announce these cleverly discerned facts about those bogus “contemporaneous” birth announcements.
By request, I’m “nutshelling” butterdezillion’s main points. More detail will be in the comments, below, for those who are interested. Then do go to butterdezillion’s to see her illustrations and her arguments that prove her contentions. butterdezillion’s main points:
* The Lori Starfelt and Infidel Granny Honolulu Advertiser (HA) images came from the State Library, via email.
* koa at Free Republic and a commenter at Prius Chat both implied that their images from the Star-Bulletin (SB) came from the State Library, obtained by personally copying the image from the microfilm at the library.
* What Really Happened received both the HA and the SB images directly from the newspapers themselves via email (not from the library).
* Up until ladysforest obtained fresh images of the announcement from the State Library in Honolulu, ALL of the images on the Web from the HA were identical, despite that they were reported to have come from different films stored at different locations.
Up until ladysforest obtained fresh images of the announcement from the State Library in Honolulu, ALL of the images on the Web from the SB were identical, despite that they were reported to have come from different films stored at different locations.
This is an impossibility. They cannot logically be identical if they came from different films at different locations. Films are subject to wear and tear and the damage would be DIFFERENT from film to film, location to location. In addition, the images were identically cropped, even though this would also logically seem impossible for different individuals to accomplish. ladysforest’s image from the SB is a perfect example. She has posted the entire page, not just a cropped image without a date and without the last 25 or so births that were announced that day, but for some (nefarious?) reason were cropped from the SB images first released on the Web.