Since this electronic version is the only certificate offered as "proof" then it's no proof at all since the document clearly says "Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate".
It's an invalid certificate because there's an alteration made to it. Sorry.
Wrong. For about the 756th time:
Photos of the certification, on which the Birth Certificate number was clearly visible, were posted at FactCheck.org on August 21, 2008:
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. Link
Philip Berg filed his now-famous first lawsuit in the PA Supreme Court on or about the same day. One of his main assertions was that the "electronic version" of the COLB was a forgery. And yet, not he, nor anyone else who filed similar lawsuits and/or made similar allegations about the scanned COLB image ever publicly challenged the authenticity of the document in the possession of the Obama headquarters in Chicago. Not one asked the Obama campaign if they could send a credentialled document expert to examine the physical copy of the COLB. Certainly, if Obama's staff had refused, that would have forced the MSM to sit up and take notice; or failing that, it would have caused a sensation on the internet, which would eventually have spread to the public at large.
But no one did that, and as a result, we still have the same tired arguments about the "electronic version." Why?
Whenever this subject is discussed, someone invariably posts that FactCheck is a subsidiary of the Annenberg Foundation, which is leftist, so therefore not to be believed. But that has no bearing on the question of why none of the people filing lawsuits asked to examine the physical document photographed by FactCheck. If that could be proved to be a forgery, the issue would have escalated, perhaps forcing Obama to supply the original Birth Certificate before the election.
Why didn't they ask to examine it?