Don’t misunderstand. I do believe there is something very very wrong with the Obama’s BC narrative - and “photoshop conspiracy” isn’t it.
Since Onaka wouldn’t verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”, he effectively confirmed that it ISN’T. IOW, the legal custodian of the record, who alone can tell anybody else what is on that record, has confirmed that the White House image is a forgery.
It’s just one of many crimes committed on this issue, and the natural question that follows is why they forged this BC. That gets into the bigger picture. And yes, I do believe there is a bigger picture. But if a person believes Onaka’s legal disclosure they have to conclude that forgery is one crime that was committed to cover up something Obama and/or his handler doesn’t want the world to know. To him and his handler, forgery must have seemed small compared to what they are hiding. We can’t prove what he was hiding but we can know that forgery was committed to hide SOMETHING. Though forgery is only a small part of the story, it is a crime and the prosecution of that crime should lead to discovery which would reveal the big whopper that the crime was meant to hide.
Does that make sense?