Didn’t find that convincing, sorry. He spent all of a few seconds on the time stamps.
What about the idea that the document was combined by the state of Hawaii or the hospital? I.e. they have the certificate on microfilm and then they add a security layer to it? That explains two of the layers and may also explain a different time stamp as well.
If there is a Real Estate Title Office near you, ask any Title Officer what the difference is between a "Certified Copy," and an "Abstract." E.G., there is a "An Abstract of Deed," which may, or more likely may not, have all of the info that is on the actual Deed, and thus would be in a "Certified Copy" of the Deed.
What we don't know, as you quite correctly point out, is exactly who put the digital data from various sources into the one document. Neither do we know what was in the document picked up in Hawaii by Obama's lawyers. Since the WH released it, it legally their responsibility.
And that is strange, too. If there indeed is a BC on file, the normal procedure would be to photocopy it, certify it as a true copy of the original document on file and FEDEX it, or perhaps telephonically or digitally fax it on over. This is done every day in every city in the country!
If there were a simple explanation, it would have been proffered. Instead, a blinding fog, an Obamian miasma, a cloud of boolshiite has descended over the whole thing.
Personally, I believe there is no Birth Certificate. On the odd chance one does exist, I'll bet it is the old Hawaiian canard, "The Certificate of Home Birth." An Hawaiian (wink-wink) institution that flourished for 60 years or so, this usually handwritten document is the attestation of witnesses and relatives that little Wong, Hiro, or Barry, was born in Grandma's pad down on Fungi Street. The truth of the matter is that Hawaii is awash with Filipinos, Chinese, Japanese, and Pacific Islanders of every sort who have this kind of documentation, usually issued several years after the fact of their birth is some far off land! If you're going to be POTUS, this would be a good thing to hide.
A Honolulu Dog License? Now that's a reliable Hawaiian document from the past.
You seem reasonable, and interested in understanding this issue. I will suggest an alternative explanation for what we have seen which makes sense to myself and some others.
You may not be familiar with Adoption. During an adoption process, the original birth certificate of the adopted child is sealed by court order, and resides in the state archives, but cannot be released without an explicit court order to do so. A new "replacement birth certificate" is created to give the adopted child a record with his new parents listed as his birth parents. The document is designed to look exactly like an original birth certificate from the time of birth, and the intent is to shield the adopted child from the knowledge that they are adopted.
I know whereof I speak because *I* am one of these adopted children. In my case, the adoption was no secret (I was five years old at the time) and I happen to possess both my original, and my replacement birth certificates. (So does my sister, who was also adopted)
I believe the long form birth certificate we are looking at was created BY the state of Hawaii's department of health because they received a court order to do so. I believe Obama was adopted back in 1965 by Lolo Soetoro (I have six pieces of circumstantial evidence which indicate this) and was later re-adopted, or the adoption set aside by his Grandparents in 1971 when he came to live with them from that period on.
Barack's lawyers have petitioned the court to either set aside his original adoption(s), and/or amend it/them to reflect what information he needed to be on his new document.
I personally suspect his ORIGINAL birth certificate was nothing more than an affidavit signed by his grandmother attesting that he was born at her home in Hawaii. I believe all the other information we have is what SHE (Madelyn Dunham) put down in her affidavit.
Hawaii DOH produces replacement birth certificates for Adopted Children every time an adoption occurs in Hawaii. They have the Records data base, (All those original documents) and the means to do so. Further, they have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do so. The documents that a Department of Health produce are NOT INTENDED to withstand deep scrutiny. They are only intended to look real to the adopted child and any authority which needs a cursory examination of the child's document.
The Fact that Hawaii is standing behind the document as his birth certificate convinces me that this document (perhaps without the green anti-copy paper) is a product of the Hawaiian Department of Health, and is a defacto legal document.
It is a "forgery" as well, but when a fake document is produced by legal authority, it is not appropriate to refer to it as a "forgery."
That is my perception of what we are dealing with here.