[palmer]

There is no way in hell that it is a simple photographic copy of a birth certificate.

That is correct. It is a scan that was imported into some image processing software, broken into layers and some layers were edge enhanced, others were not. Some words have a letter in one layer and the other letters in another layer (depending on how dark the original letters were). Some signatures are partly in one layer and partly in another.

But everything else about the image is correct (the data on it). The original artifact (piece of paper) that it came from was seen and touched by reporters (admittedly not experts, but at least they can vouch for a paper artifact). To argue that somehow someone put together these layers (with one letter of one word in one layer and the rest in another etc) is ludicrous.

[Herbster]

“But everything else about the image is correct (the data on it). The original artifact (piece of paper) that it came from was seen and touched by reporters (admittedly not experts, but at least they can vouch for a paper artifact).”

---

I was under the impression that the reporters all got a copier machine copy and never saw the original Obama copy, like no one can see the original Hawaii document.

Help a FReeper out!