OK - I guess that is possible
How likely do *you* think that scenario is?
At the moment I believe it is highly likely. It fits so perfectly with all of the information of which I am aware. The Document is an obvious paste up. Since it seems incredible that Hawaii would not call foul on something Obama's team did, I must conclude that Hawaii isn't crying foul because it's something THEY did. It is the OFFICIAL document that Hawaii is going to call his birth certificate.
Most states are bound by the ruling of a Judge regarding the creation of a new Fake birth certificate. The Fake Birth Certificates are ostensibly to protect the privacy of both the child and the adopting parents who may not want the child to know he's been adopted. So in the interests of the child and adoptive parents, Courts will routinely seal the original and order the creation of a new birth certificate which becomes the child's "OFFICIAL" document.
Now I'm convinced that in 2008 Hawaii didn't have this document. They just computer printed out the information which was put into their records at that time, thus producing the COLB. This convinced most of the rubes, but more perceptive people cried foul! Demanding the Original was a bit of a problem because Hawaii wasn't allowed to show that document. (Privacy law, Judges seal.) Probably knowing that they would have to produce something eventually, and remember, access to their records HAD to be restricted to only those authorized bureaucrats working in the archives. As the bureaucrats are not likely to be highly knowledgeable about anything but being a bureaucrat, their amateurish efforts in cut and paste image manipulation are plain for everyone to see.
In any case, that is my current working theory.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm
And here's the relevant text:
The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii...The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth.
So even if Obama's BC is amended by an adoption decree, we know the birthplace could not be changed from a foreign country to Hawaii. Hence we know for sure his original BC said he was born in Hawaii.
But so what? Maybe his original BC said he was born in Hawaii, but listed his birth as unattended, as some birthers have speculated. Could an adoption decree have caused the state to falsify information about an attending physician, hospital, and the like?
The answer is no. State law says that the only information that gets deliberately falsified on an Amended BC when a child registered as being born in-state gets adopted is the child's name and the identity of the parents. The law does not allow for changing the name of the hospital, doctor, date of birth, or anything else. You can find that here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
Hence we can establish for sure that a) Obama's original BC said he was born in Hawaii and b) it had the same information as the recently-released document regarding the hospital, the doctor, and the like. In the unlikely event it is amended (and there is really no reason to believe it is), the only thing that might have changed are the names of the parents and perhaps the child. But none of that is relevant to Obama's eligibility.
So I'm now at a loss as to why anyone would care that Obama's BC is amended. Why do does it matter so much to you, and why have you invested so much emotional energy in it?