I do not think Hawaii created a fake birth certificate in 1961. I think they created some sort of birth record in 1961 that may or may not be a birth certificate, but I do think they created a new birth certificate for him in 1965 when Lolo adopted him after marrying his mother. .
That is how things were done in those days. It was the proper and expected thing to do when marrying a woman with a child.
I think that some other custodial document, perhaps an amended birth certificate, was created in 1971, but whatever it was, it wasn't this document that we have seen which purports to be Obama's birth certificate.
I think this current document was created at the behest of Obama's attorneys and made to appear as if it were a 1961 birth certificate. (Making birth certificates appear to be the correct type for the age of the person involved is the normal and routine practice in all states.)
I think the reason this current document is so easily discerned as a fake is because the States do not normally devote a great deal of effort to make their fake documents look perfect. In normal circumstances they are only intended to fool the child who looks at it, or the authorities that might need it for some legal matter short of the Presidency.
The state does not devote much time to making it look like a perfect fake because in the vast majority of cases this is unnecessary. Fake birth documents produced by a state agency were never intended to withstand the scrutiny that would be brought to bear regarding the office of the presidency, and of course it's faults and inconsistencies were quickly ferreted out.
So there it stands. We have a demonstrably fake document about which the vast majority of Americans do not give a sh*t. Those that do are simply dismissed by their apathetic and comfortably ignorant countrymen.
‘I think the reason this current document is so easily discerned as a fake is because the States do not normally devote a great deal of effort to make their fake documents look perfect. In normal circumstances they are only intended to fool the child who looks at it, or the authorities that might need it for some legal matter short of the Presidency.
The state does not devote much time to making it look like a perfect fake because in the vast majority of cases this is unnecessary. Fake birth documents produced by a state agency were never intended to withstand the scrutiny that would be brought to bear regarding the office of the presidency, and of course it’s faults and inconsistencies were quickly ferreted out.’
That is an excellent analysis. I had assumed the klutziness of the doc was due to the rush of putting it together so quickly (to stop the bleeding, once Trump’s spotlighting of the issue began to seriously undermine Obama’s credibility). Your explanation makes more sense.
Bookmarking.
A court order or a congressional subpoena can bring about release of the original birth document for inspection and comparison of the data with the copies that have been scanned and photographed.
As long as the state of Hawaii stands by the authenticity of the birth documents that have been seen publicly, there is little that can be done.
There is no evidence that has been found for an adoption by Lolo Soetoro.
Speculating on possble birth scenarios is fun for an Internet discussion forum but definitive proof would be needed of a birth somewhere else and thus far that proof has not been uncovered.
Remember that Obama also has the souvenir birth certificate with his infant footprints from Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecolgical Hospital.