Replies

Which means "they know" and can review these two documents with an experts eye ~ without having had to work in the Honolulu BOH offices.

Did you know, lo and behold, we had some Freepers call up the BOH out there to clarify procedures. I, myself, estimated the size of the building that is needed to store the originals in standard document binders, which is not all that enormous, and could be easily done ~ and would only take a couple of employees to maintain once they went to microfiche back in the 1960s (like everybody else in America).

I've witnessed the development of document processing technologies. Right around the time HI would have digitized all BCs, storage technology was limited enough that certain obvious & creative solutions were in use to compress the scanned images to very small files. These techniques included separating out multiple "layers" of preprinted form content (compressed to barely-legible low-resolution low-bit-depth severely-cropped sections), unique form content (more legible but still anemic (by today's standards) highly-compressed sections), and legally important content (higher resolution, grayscaled, but carefully selected sections such as signatures); each of these sections would be stored as an unassembled box of scraps, pieced and pasted together when needed to regenerate a legal equivalent of the original. Those files, having no content of higher quality and no reason to regenerate en masse at great cost to modern norms, were retained pretty much as-is. So, a few weeks back, the Obama's minions descend on HI with a large carbon footprint (no FedEx here, gotta send a high-powered lawyer in person!) to fetch a "copy of the original BC", which is regenerated from these legally satisfactory (but confusingly antiquated to modern eyes) fragments of a scan of the original, and printed on modern "security paper".

They did not - as is obvious to any knowledgeable observer - go into a warehouse and pull an ancient photocopy made on modern security paper.

Eminently sensible - if you understand the history of digital document processing, historical limitations of data storage, and the growth of legal acceptance of digitized material.

This still doesn't explain the use of security paper that didn't exist in 1961. If you look at a Cashier's Check, for incidence, the entire document has the security motif in the background. In some incidences, it's a watermark. The numbers, signatures and other data printed on the check are printed on top of the security motif, and do not have white background inside the lettering. On Obamalamadingdong's BC some of the hand written letters, like the "O" and "b" in "Obama", as well as some of the questionable typed letters don't have the security motif behind them. This indicates alteration, exactly what the security paper is supposed to show. Compare the signature of the parent with the signature of the attendee and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

As to why the White House would put up such a document that has so clearly and obviously been altered is about as curious as them thinking they can spend their way out of debt.