According to a Web site I found for the state of Vermont, that state's birth certificates are required to include the parents' social security numbers. I'd wager that no one on FR knew the particulars of the information that was included on a Hawaiian birth certificate c. 1961.
A common modification for photos is to obscure the face of someone who is not relevant to the story and who is not a public figure. For example, in covering the story about Christian Bale's foul-mouthed temper tantrum, a lot of news photos use file footage with the other people in the shot blurred out. Those people aren't involved in the story. If it should turn out later that someone in the photo was relevant to the story, then he didn't need to be blurred; but that doesn't change the rationale for the blurring in the first place.
>>>Whether or not it could be used for nefarious purpose is irrelevant
I disagree, I think it is relevant for the reason stated above.
Is the "reason stated above" that you believe it was obscured with the intention of making it impossible to verify? If so, you're imputing a motive to an unknown individual based on, as far as I can tell, nothing but a guess. The fact that someone obscured the certificate number is clear. The motive is supposition.
If the number was obscured by someone at the Obama campaign with the purpose of thwarting verification, why would they then have allowed images without the number obscured?
Their current attempt to completely socialize this country gives me much pause especially when he might not even belong in office. To take it even further, I think we have witnessed a political coupe.
If a coup involves winning a majority of the popular vote, I think you've defined any meaning whatsoever out of the word coup.
On the contrary, in several of the many post on this subject, there have been images of BC's issued from Hawaii at a similar time that did not have SS #'s. Even if the cert did, couldn't they just redact it? Now no one would question why that was redacted for obvious reasons.
Is the "reason stated above" that you believe it was obscured with the intention of making it impossible to verify? If so, you're imputing a motive to an unknown individual based on, as far as I can tell, nothing but a guess.
Yes. Many "guesses; are quite obvious, that argument won't fly
If a coup involves winning a majority of the popular vote
That's not what I'm saying at all. I am basing it on the contrived and plotted economic "crisis" we're experiencing. But that's another discussion and off topic.