NBC has replied to your comment (excerpted to exclude snark):
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/mmaschin/
MMaschin: NBCs argument is easily shown to not be valid, because if that was the case, then the perfect place for this to have occurred is in the security background layer.
NBC: The security background layer is recognized as a colored background and is almost completely separated as such. Since it is compressed with JPEG, there are no JBIG2 artifacts.
MMaschin: That IS a contiguous, repeating pattern. Are we to believe that a computer process found two hand draw, ink on paper, and photocopied boxes similar enough to replace one with a copy of the other, but it did not find a pattern in the security pattern background? If what NBC says is true, then the compression occurred AFTER the image layers were separated, because if you look at the image as a whole the boxes are very different when you considered the content inside the boxes.
NBC: That is the whole point of Mixed Raster Compression, the colored background is compressed differently than the foreground text.
MMaschin: This means that even analyzing the background layer by itself, this compression algorithm was incapable of finding a repeatable pattern.
NBC: MRC does not look for repeatable patterns, it only happens when the foreground bitmaps are compressed.
MMaschin: What NBC is saying is not taking into consideration that this must be a systematic process, and not a logical one. If you say this was done here, it must hold true for the entire document, you cant cherrypick
NBC: I am consistent in my hypothesis.
The image is scanned, and segmented into a background image and multiple foreground images. The background is JPEG compressed with relatively high quality reduction and then subsampled to half the resolution. The foreground bitmaps are JBIG2 compressed (which encodes repeating patterns).
Why should the background be treated differently than the foreground, if this is just a simple scan?
Yes, it is true that an Hawaiian BC could be created by anyone walking in off the street and claiming that the kid in question was born at home with two aliens (possibly illegal themselves) as witnesses.
However, Carp, many other Hawaiian records are perfectly OK! Most, in fact. No one can quarrel with a Honolulu dog license, or a Hawaii DMV-issued car or boat title. Their library overdue book records are invariably maintained in impeccable order. Ditto, parking permits, park passes, etc.
So, fellow birthers, IMNVHO it is time to cut the surfer guys and hula gals of Hawaii some slack. OK, there is no "Birth Certificate" in their records. So what? There's a ton of other data in digital format that can be cut and pasted into a Birth Certificate matrix by practically anyone, and which from 10-15 feet away looks darn convincing (to me anyway).
As far as Kapio'lani Hospital goes, I can also see what happened. In the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, many records were undoubtedly lost, not mention the odd tyfoon and very high spring tides the year BOH, Jr (or II) was born.
What difference does it make? The Birth Certificate the folks over to the WH made from whatever has been very educational to study for people who are interested in DIY car titles, debentures, stock certificates, real estate titles, etc. This is "Power to the People," with a cap "P!"
When something is legitimate, one should have NO FEAR that others find it fake because one knows it's real, right? Think about that. The green security paper was added to make people think the bc is legitimate. Why the worry?
I think the addition of the green bkgrnd occurred long after the bc elements themselves were tinkered with.