Yeah, I looked at that. That convinces me all the more strongly that they are covering something up. They are not direct and forthcoming, they are evasive and equivocative. Let me show you what I mean.
Beside the number "1" it says:
"The Original certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II, is on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health. "
This statement stands alone, and is self evident. It is telling us nothing new or interesting, and it make no claim as to whether or not his original certificate was an ordinary certificate like the vast majority which are on file with that office. This statement would still be true if the "original certificate" is an affidavit of at home birth.
Statement number "2" says:
The information contained in the "Certificate of Live Birth" published at (Whitehouse.gov) and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the Original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
Note he does not say it is an exact copy of the original, which would be far easier. He simply says the information is the same as is on the Original Certificate of Live Birth.
Again, if the "original" certificate is based on an affidavit of at home birth, it is still not proof of actual birth in Hawaii. It also begs the question as to the meaning of the term "original".
My very own birth certificate plays the very same game that is being played with those words above. I am absolutely adopted, (I even have my original Hospital issued birth certificate to prove it) but my document says:
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and cause the official seal to be affixed...To a careless reading it would appear, based on looking at the statement at the bottom of the document, that you are looking at a certified copy of the original. Nope. It says you are looking at a copy of my birth certificate, AND they have the original on file. They don't mention that what you are looking at is NOT the original. They intend that you think it is.
They have to play these sorts of games with the birth certificates of adopted children because they are legally required to not lie, but they also can't divulge that a child has been adopted, which would happen accidentally if they mentioned that the document was different from the original.
So they say in number "1" above, that they have a birth certificate on file. Fine, we knew that. They say in number 2 that the INFORMATION matches what they have on file, but they they do not say it is an exact copy of the original. They do not say if any information is omitted, such that the document has been amended or modified by court order.
Like I said, their wording convinces me even more strongly that they are not telling us the whole truth.
What's the definition of "exact copy"? If you were to scan the original paper at 1200 dpi, the result would look perfectly fine — you'd be able to see detail not visible to the naked eye — but it would still not be an exact copy.
He simply says the information is the same as is on the Original Certificate of Live Birth.
That's all he needs to say. He's saying the material facts asserted by the document Obama put out match those asserted by the document in Hawaii's possession. That's what a court would be looking for, if the question came before it.
Again, if the "original" certificate is based on an affidavit of at home birth, it is still not proof of actual birth in Hawaii.
If that were the case, then the released document would mismatch the on-file document on a material fact. Dr. Onaka would be a liar. And a court would take a dim view.
My very own birth certificate plays the very same game that is being played with those words above. I am absolutely adopted, (I even have my original Hospital issued birth certificate to prove it)
This is not an adoption. If it were, he'd be named Soetoro, wouldn't he?
They say in number 2 that the INFORMATION matches what they have on file, but they they do not say it is an exact copy of the original. They do not say if any information is omitted, such that the document has been amended or modified by court order.
But the information on the certificate is what it would have been amended from, if it had been amended, not what it would have been amended to.
If there is something wrong with the document, either the fraud must have taken place way back in 1961 or some Hawaiian officials have partaken in a monumental conspiracy. To uncover it, you'd have to start at the source. Pixels, color depths, and layers won't get anywhere. You'd need some compelling new external evidence to motivate a court to look into it.