Alvin Onaka refused to say that the White House “scan” of the “baby” is an accurate representation of the “real baby”.
Nor would he verify the specific features of that “baby” - wouldn’t verify that the eyes ARE green, the hair brown, the weight 8 lbs 6 ounces, for example. By law he is required to say the features of the child if the requestor accurately named the features.
The forgers couldn’t even get the security background right when they had a copy from the HDOH right there. Now THAT’s hilarious!
I don’t think you understand what the “real expert” is saying. It’s not that the birth certificate is not a forgery, like the “so-called experts”, he has never examined the birth certificate.
“There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not. The forgery can happen before being processed not to mention that the paper document itself could be forged, before the scanning. Thus, this is not the point.”
“The question is whether all these artifacts we see after rendering the PDF of POBC are signs of forgery. I do not see that. I see them more likely as a result of inadequate processing.”
[skip]
“In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.”
By artifacts he means things like the different layers, the white halos, the multiple pixel sizes, identical elements, etc.
So while the actual birth certificate might be a forgery, you can not tell by analyzing the pdf. This is because the process used to compress the original scan from megabytes in size to kilobytes in size destroyed any evidence that might have existed and created artifacts that appear to be anomalies but are not.
Google “Ricardo L. de Queiroz”.