The first image that we ever saw of the COLB had a black bar covering the certification number. At the bottom of the document it stated ‘Any Alterations Invalidates This Document’. The blacked out numbers invalidated the document.
Then when that was called out, the next image we see are two FactCheck hippies in a picture holding what appears to be Obama’s COLB with a alleged authentic seal. What we do know is that those two hippies were not qualified in any type of professional forensic attestations of documents. They wouldn’t have known if it was authentic or not. The Hawaii Dept. Of Health officials were asked numerous times to confirm if those images was Obama’s authentic COLB. They refused to acknowledge it.
Speaking of vague, how exactly can I can talk about a "document" and then offer "not a word about the document"??? You're not making any sense.
The “seal” doesn’t bend/distort when the paper it is supposedly on is folded. Classic sign of the “seal” being C&P’ed onto a photo of a folded piece of paper.
Ask yourself why the COLB that was supposedly scanned on the same copier as the long-form, using the same protocols and settings, wasn’t separated into the background layer and the other layers, etc. Why did the COLB “scan” behave so differently than the long-form “scan”, when it was supposedly done on the same machine in the same way? Keep in mind that Bob Bauer spent quite a bit of time explaining at the gaggle how the COLB should have been enough and the long-form is just frosting. So why did they “scan” that oh-so-important-and-credible document on such low-quality settings that it didn’t even pick up the background cross-hatches, which is part of the security features to show the authenticity of a document? Is it because they DIDN’T scan it - they just took it from snopes.com, as one of the lines on the copy shows? Why would they scan in a print-out of a snopes page, on a low-quality setting?
The press was given a “copy” of the long-form. It was presumably scanned on the same Xerox machine that separated the long-form into different layers, with background, etc. But when the file from that scan was printed out for the press it had no security background on it at all. The standard protocols wouldn’t turn off that layer all by itself, since it didn’t do that on the long-form scan. Did somebody manually turn that off after the Xerox scan? If so, why?
Security paper has hatches to help make it non-transparent - so nothing will show through from whatever page the BC is sitting on. But when that long-form was scanned for the press, the scan picked up the image of the snopes COLB copy that was apparently sitting underneath that security-paper long-form. The Xerox could see that deeply - a poor copy on another page below the security document being scanned - but did not pick up the security cross-hatches?
In addition to the “seal” being C&P’ed onto the COLB and the exif data showing the falseness of the story of how and when the Factcheck photos were taken, Onaka’s refusal to verify the facts of birth that are contained on the COLB shows that the COLB is not genuine. If it was genuine there would be no reason to refuse to verify any of those facts.
In addition, the HDOH, the head of the OIP, and another attorney at the OIP all effectively confirmed through legally-binding FOIA-type responses that there were receipts to amend Obama’s BC and affidavits filed to support the claims on the BC (which would not be necessary if it was a Kapiolani birth as claimed; affidavits would only be necessary for an unattended birth, late filing, or amendment).
So the COLB has big, big problems. Which might explain why they used a printout from snopes.com in the packet they gave the press...
