The state agency that issued the document does NOT say that this is the document they issued.
It verifies that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. That's all that's necessary to close the case on him being NBC.
Computer image experts have demonstrated that it could not be a copy of anything- it was GENERATED from several different documents.
No, idiots who don't understand scan-to-PDF software misinterpreted how it works. I've read their "analysis" and they weren't "computer experts." Basically none of the "expert image analysis" that you read on the web is worth a pile of rat dookey.
Daily Kos had a post proving -- PROVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- that the Anthony Wiener photo was a forgery. Did I mention PROVING!!!!!! It has been a while since I've read it, but it had all kinds of high-tech sounding mumbo-jumbo that the Kos Kids ate up like candy. Hilarious.
In any case, even if for some bizarre reason the release document image was fake, the state of Hawaii has verified that Obama was born in Honolulu. If Obama was, indeed, trying to cover something up, it wasn't his birthplace.
OK now I know where you stand...
Look, I have WRITTEN computer imaging software. I could be called into a courtroom as an expert witness, I am a qualified expert in that field. I have been to Fort Huachuca to have the government verify NITF imaging software I wrote as correct. Get it? I don't need anyone else's "pile of rat dookey", although the analysis I have seen is spot-on accurate.
I can easily see that the document is a fake generated from several other documents.
I know what I am talking about- and the document is FAKE
You just dont want to accept that anaylisis.
It is you who does not understand 'scan-to-PDF' software.
Mr, Know It All, what are your computer-image analysis qualifications? Did you even read Mr. K’s?
Onaka settled the forgery question for us. He was asked to verify that the White HOuse image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and he would not.
He was also asked to verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information contained in the HDOH record, and he would not verify that either.
He’s required to verify everything he can, so if he really VERIFIED that Obama was born in Honolulu, then his only lawful reason to not also verify that he was born on Oahu is if there is a Honolulu that is not on Oahu, and Obama was born there. Is that what you’re claiming?
Unless there is a Honolulu on a Hawaii island other than Oahu, Onaka either violated HRS 338-14.3 and this verification is worthless, or else he verified exactly what he said in the language in his verification: He verified the existence of a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, II which “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
You are pinning everything on the word “indicating” meaning “proving”, and Onaka unlawfully forgetting to verify anything else (like island of birth, date of birth, gender, and parents’ names) - after the HI AG’s office dithered around for months over the technical legalities of this request.
So which is it? Did Onaka violate HRS 338-14.3 and the verification is thus legally worthless because it’s inaccurate? If so, please support your answer with evidence, because the legal presumption at this point has to be that the verification was n compliance with HRS 338-14.3, unless there is good evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity.
Or did Onaka mean exactly what he said - that he verified the existence of a birth record “indicating” a Honolulu birth, and he obeyed HRS 338-14.3 which requires him to verify everything he can?
Take your pick.