You don't understand.
In January 2011 Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.
You're trying to convince yourself (apparently) that the Hawaii Department of Health was hiding the document from the Governor of Hawaii. Why?
Hawaii is not disputing the validity of the document he has posted..
Who is Hawaii? The Governor? The one who said in 2011 that the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Please.
I am confident the document came from Hawaii, and was fabricated by no one else.
You're wrong.
Obama's birth certificate was poorly crafted by somebody within Obama's inner circle. It was held until it was needed. It is the only possible explanation.
You're trying to convince yourself (apparently) that the Hawaii Department of Health was hiding the document from the Governor of Hawaii. Why?
Not at all. I don't regard the statement above as being conclusive. "that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. "
In other words, it doesn't prove anything. Abercrombie is a bit of a flake, so the stuff he says is plausibly just as much nonsense as it is valid. I put little stock in this comment as proof of anything. Unless the Governor himself went down to the DOH office and looked for it himself, he's relying on what people are telling him.
His statement MIGHT mean something, but it also might not. That is the trouble with this entire issue. There is all sorts of indicative information, but not a lot of conclusive information.
Who is Hawaii? The Governor? The one who said in 2011 that the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Please.
It IS a curious statement. Perhaps the birth certificate was created AFTER 2008, and the Change date in the document is the result of someone having the date on their computer set wrong. I have several machines where the date and time are not set correctly.
Where exactly are you seeing this 2008 change date in the document anyway? I haven't gotten into an extensive analysis of every aspect of it. Noticing that the resolution and bit depths of the text characters are different is all I needed to see to convince me the document was pasted together from multiple sources.
Show me what you're talking about, and i'll mull it over.
You're wrong.
Maybe so, but you haven't demonstrated me to be wrong. You are just saying it.
Obama's birth certificate was poorly crafted by somebody within Obama's inner circle. It was held until it was needed. It is the only possible explanation.
In my mind that is a childish and stupid explanation. It postulates an illegal conspiracy involving suspects unnamed in the Obama Administration with complicity of Everyone in the Government of Hawaii (to include the Governor) who has access to the original birth document. Obama's attorney would also be in serious trouble, and could lose his law license and possibly serve prison time if such a thing were discovered. Why go through all this when the document can be legally faked without all of those nasty loose ends?
If you are going to suggest such a ridiculous idea, you need to have far better proof then an offhand statement from an idiot governor and a change date on a file. For all I know, they used a previous file from 2008 as the starting point in crafting the new one in 2011. I reuse computer code all the time, and if I was constantly doing something redundant, (like creating replacement birth certificates for adopted children) I would likely start with the last similar file I created and modify it from there.
My own personal opinion is that the idea of a "conspiracy" always needs to be rejected if there is any other plausible idea on the table. If everything else is ruled out, then and only then should the notion of a "conspiracy" ever be suggested. Using a "conspiracy" as your starting point for anything you don't understand just gets the rest of us labelled as nuts too, and is a large reason why it's difficult to get anyone else to pay attention to the issue.