“Just so you know, Zullo has mentioned that the security background doesnt match that used at the HDOH at the time, so his emphatic claim that the White House image is absolutely known to be a forgery is not just based on the artifacts and/or computer analyses.”
How can it be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt that only ONE type of security paper was in use by HDOH?
It seems to me that the office where routine COLBs are produced for normal citizens would be in a different location than Onaka’s office or wherever the LFBC was supposedly copied.
Isn’t it possible that these two offices were using two different security papers?
You have raised a question about the paper, but I don’t seen the basis for an evidentiary, court-ready conclusion.
If this ever made it to court we wouldn’t have to rely on evidence about the security paper; discovery would show us the microfilms and computer transaction logs which would answer our questions. I’m saying that even if the computer anomalies can be explained by the Xerox WorkCentre, other anomaliess - such as the type and signature stuff that others such as Reed Hayes have noted, as well as the difference in security background that I have noted - can’t be explained by it. Nor can Onaka’s refusal to provide a certified verification of any Obama birth facts.
I have seen both long-form and short-form certified copies of vital records, and they all use the same security background (except Obama’s long-form), so even if there are different divisions in the department the paper is the same. And it spans years and years. Why, even Johanna Ah Nee’s BC uses this security background, even though we know from the Peter Kema COLB that the security paper in use 4 years before the certified copy of the Ah Nee BC was supposedly issued had all kinds of watermarks that showed up when copied/scanned and the security background wouldn’t copy. Ah Nee’s long-form BC copy was supposedly issued in 1995 (IIRC) and has the same kind of security paper that Virginia Sunahara’s long-form death certificate and short-form BC had when the copies were issued in 2012 (I’d check the exact date but it looks like my copy is no longer in my computer’s files. sigh. Dang thugs messing with my computer...). The appearance is that Onaka changed the security paper to this less-secure kind when he became chief registrar shortly before 1995 and that security paper has been in use ever since - and is seen on long-form and short-form BC copies issued throughout that time period.