If I understand this document issue properly, it is datestamped in 2007 to say that it was generated no earlier than 2007 to certify that a birth certificate is on file in Hawaii.
The question is:
1. Is this supposed to be a scanned image of physical certificate?
2. Is this a computer-generated JPG that never made it to paper, but posted on the web instead?
3. If it is a scanned image, a) was the certificate generated using computer graphics and printed to plain paper stock, or b) was the paper stock a form with all the graphics pre-printed and only the data fields added from the computer?
4. If it is a scanned image and was generated using computer graphics and printed to plain paper stock, why would it need the word "laser" on it? Doesn't "laser" on a form indicate that the form stock is intended for laser printers? If the form is blank and all the graphics are computer-generated, what purpose is served by indicating "laser" after the fact?
5. If it is a scanned image and the form was pre-printed with a border and nothing else but the bottom text (including "laser"), why don't the border grapics line up cleanly in the corners, as one would expect from a professional printer, instead of the overlapping slightly off border boxes on this document?
-PJ
You’re assuming that if it were authentic, it would be done in a first class manner. Not necessarily the case, though. This is government.
I don’t have any problem with the idea of investigating the authenticity of the certificate, but I don’t think this is really the way to do it. You need to compare it to an unquestionably authentic Hawaii certificate of the same era.
And actually, the thing that is the most damning to the theory that it is authentic is the fact that it did not originate from the Obama campaign, but rather from Daily Kos, if I understand correctly.