Which is a good thing, this needs to be dug into on a technical level.
One thing that has been bugging me the last hour or so is why the document as released is from a bound volume and not a plain dump from a digital file. The curve on the left from the binding is starting to seem really weird if HI converted everything over to digital instead of paper.
Cripes, I thought I had this all figured out hours ago and now I am having doubts again. Dang it, why can’t they just play us straight and show the records the state has and stop playing computer games with it?
I was going to hit the sack an hour ago!
Here’s what I *think* - but I’m not an expert.
Seems safe to assume in 1961 the original BC was typed and filed in a bound book of some sort. Some time later due to space demands and available new technology, someone issues the edict that all vital records will be microfilmed. The camera captures the “curl” of the book as an indelible part of the image, and the “book” goes into the incinerator. More time passes and another edict comes down that aging microfilm (or microfiche, I never understood the difference) records are to be digitized and stored electronically. So this leaves us with an image of what was on the microfilm as the only “longform BC” in existence. More time passes, and today under pressure from Trump, they tell someone to load the image in a Mac (someone sleuthed this out from the pdf header) and combine it with security paper background and create a 4/27/11 pdf document that looks like what people expect it to look like.
This might even explain some of the comments that we’ve heard like “the original BC no longer exists”. Referring to the paper copy, I mean.
Of course as stated previously, once in electronic form, the potential for hanky-panky goes up tremendously, and this document - however it was created - doesn’t help establish the truth of the information presented.