And Hawaii stating officially that the information on the WH image matches that on the original record on file points us to the 1961 version and excludes any of the other suppositions you list.
Even assuming there was a subsequent adoption by Lolo and a replacement certificate issued, what is shown by the White House doesn't list Lolo as birth father -- it lists BHO. This gets to what I've now twice said: the adoption theory fails and in the end simply affirms what the White House image claims. If what Hawaii was trying to do is avoid giving to Obama the "most recent version" showing Lolo as father and they had to dig back into the sealed records to find the original, then what the WH is showing then IS a copy of the original, pre-adoption certificate. (It's most certainly not reflecting a replacement certificate by which the African and S.A. purported to adopt the child).
Again, I am adopted.
And your obsession with this topic might rightly be attributed to over-personalization on that account.
They say " I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office."
Clever indeed.
What they couldn't say though if someone were to submit to them a copy of your B.C. is that the information on that copy "matches the information on the original record on file." Though Hawaii has done that as to the WH copy.
It does not. The information may have been created by an affidavit submitted by Madelyn Dunham in 1961. (The Father's birth date is wrong, and so is his race. Obviously he wasn't there providing correct information. )
If Obama was adopted in 1964 by Lolo Soetoro, then his Hawaiian birth certificate would have been replaced. If legal Guardianship was acquired by the Dunhams in 1971, the Soetoro Adoption may have been annulled, or they may have gotten the judge to issue a new birth certificate saying the same thing the original did. Probably the machinery of government regards it as a simpler methodology to create a new document rather than jumping through the hoops of unsealing an older one and sealing the second one. Maybe his third birth certificate said "Dunham" but he kept using the name "Obama" and they let him. Maybe he got that legally changed back to "Obama" after he reached the age of maturity, or perhaps when he started running for President.
I don't know. All I do know is that in this cat and mouse game of lawyer poker, you can't reliably accept anything unless it cannot possibly be interpreted in any other manner.
Obama is an atypical case, and I should not be surprised to find all sorts of weirdity regarding his legal status.