Dr. Onaka verifies that the document the White House published on its web site matches the State's records. IOW, it's not a forgery, PDF artifacts notwithstanding. That sinks the Cold Case Posse's case, at least as it pertains to the BC.
Of course, the document on file at the Hawaii Department of Health may not be an accurate representation of Obama's birth. But that is a whole other case. You have to start with his long form as presented and show why it isn't true without recourse to layers and pixels and color depths. For instance, the long form conclusively establishes that he was born in Hawaii and that Stanley Ann was his mother. We have the doctor's signature, after all. No nonsense about home birth or delayed reporting covering up a Kenyan birth.
However, no genetic data was collected, so BHO, Sr., might not be the sperm donor. Which would be a source of great entertainment: that would mean, not only was he not born in Kenya, which he falsely maintained for years on his book blurb, but BHO, Sr. wasn't even his father! It would be interesting to compare the DNA profiles of BHO, Sr., Frank Marshall Davis, and the Won. But good luck obtaining the necessary samples.
There are other attacks, also. But they are not promising. You could maintain that Dr. Onaka is simply lying. You could try to make the case that the long form was forged by HDoH employees. Fat chance. You'd need pretty shocking evidence to persuade a court to look into anything like that.
No, he said the "certificate of live birth" (in QUOTATION MARKS) matches information in a birth certificate that is ON file.
IOW, it's not a forgery, PDF artifacts notwithstanding.
Sorry, but there's nothing in this statement that proves the PDF is not a forgery. The information for example might match, but the signatures perhaps not so much.
Of course, the document on file at the Hawaii Department of Health may not be an accurate representation of Obama's birth. But that is a whole other case.
Not at all, but I'm sure that's what you want to believe.
You have to start with his long form as presented and show why it isn't true without recourse to layers and pixels and color depths.
We would only have to do this if an actual certified copy of the long form was ever shown in court. If a PDF is what is presented, then it can still be shown to be a forgery. So far, the Kenyan Coward™ refuses to show a certified hard copy. A PDF, even one with partially matching information is not a substitute for a legal, certified birth certificate. If the state of Hawaii can provide a letter of verification, then they can also provide a certified copy of the document to address the inconsistencies in the PDF.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that state government bureaucrats might be corrupt?
If Zero's document IS forged (and I haven't seen anything that persuasively contradicts the pdf analysis of tampering) then we KNOW the Hawaii bureaucrats are corrupt.
That is because no honest bureaucrat who sees a forged version of a document issued by his office being presented at a national press conference would stay silent.
So by definition, if there is a forgery, the Hawaii bureaucrats are corrupt, even if they themselves are not the actual forgers.
And that would be consistent with all of the stone-walling over the past few years from the Hawaii bureaucrats.
If all you are saying is that as a practical matter this is difficult to uncover and prosecute, no one can argue with you on that.
Federal authorities are under the control of the president and the attorney general and one shouldn't expect Hawaiian state authorities to cooperate in an investigation against the president in such a heavily-Democrat state (even in the case of a Republican governor, who needs many Democrat votes to get elected).
Unless Congress takes this up, it is extremely difficult for a third-party jurisdiction like Arizona to investigate and prosecute such a matter.