You know, I've followed this kind of closely. I've even read stuff you've written, and Woodman's book and blog.
It looks to me like you and the rest of the people who keep crying "fake" are smoking something.
Do you realize the guy who just about invented file compression - a REAL expert instead of the wannabes that have been debunked again and again - looked at the file and said you're all full of it?
Alvin Onaka would not verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. He has to verify it if he can, by law.
What expert of yours is able to prove Onaka a liar?
And we know that the security paper that the White House image is on is not the security paper that Hawaii uses. Somebody screwed up when they created that background layer.
But suppose you are right. A reporter at the press gaggle asked if the press would be able to examine the actual BC and was laughed at. Even Obama was not allowed to hold the actual BC. Why is that? Why don’t we have video footage of somebody examining that actual document in person, so we can see three dimensions?
My arguments have never relied on computer analysis, because I’m not knowledgeable about computers, so if the “expert” you claim (and who is this expert?) is going to say that I am “all full of it”, he/she had better address the non-computer proofs against the authenticity of that document. It’s quite a conspiracy theory if he/she is going to claim that Onaka perjured himself in a legal response to the AZ SOS. What evidence does he/she have, to refute the presumption of regularity for Onaka’s response - his response of NOT verifying the genuineness of the White House image or the facts of birth requested on the verification application?
Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142658577/McInnish-v-Chapman-AL-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Strike
The footnotes are a hoot.
Footnote 4
“The curious suggestion that the copy of the President’s birth certificate attached to the ADP’s brief is somehow a “new version” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a document and a scanned photocopy of that document. Just like a photograph of a baby is not a “new version” of the real baby, a scanned photocopy of a document is not a “new version” of that document.”
Footnote 5
“The ADP notes that the affiant signed the “affidavit” solely in his personal capacity and without any title, even an imaginary one.”