The first is true, as verified by both the Governor and the head of the Health Department (or that part of it, the Department of Health Statistics" which maintains birth and marriage records). The second and third have yet to be verified. We don't know if the certificate was filed by the grandparens, or by a hospital registrar. The state just takes the word of witnesses in the case of a non hospital birth. Thus it would good to know if Barry's is one of those, which the original would indicate, but the Certification does not.
I suspect that the original does have at least the same date of birth as the posted image of the Certification, since that information has been corroborated by the announcement in two different newspapers, and by the Indonesian school record which shows that same date. The place of birth may or may not agree, although that school record also shows Honolulu as the place of birth.
But if the long form birth certificate is for a non hospital birth, with a grandparent as witness, then it may not contain the correct information, with the state being as "hoodwinked" as much as anyone else.
The governor is not allowed to view the certificate eitehr, so she cannot possibly have verified what is on it. The same goes for anyone else, other than the clerk who input the data from the original into the state database, however long ago that might have been. But it remains true that there is more information on the Certificate, or implied by the absence of certain information on it, than is available from the Certification.
Let's for a moment indulge this line of questioning. Let's stipulate that the "ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE" indeed indicates that it was NOT a hospital birth. Let's also stipulate that it was not witnessed by a Doctor or other medical personnel and that the only witnesses are the grand parents. Then what?
The burden of proof in a civil court case is not on the respondent, but on the petitioner. Barry doesn't need to "prove" that he was born in HI, but the petitioner needs to prove that he wasn't. Furthermore, the case law is clearly on Barry's side as the copy Obama has provided is well-recognized prima fascia evidence of origin of birth.
Inconsistencies in Barry's biographical story or birth documentation wouldn't be proof of anything with respect to where he was actually born. You might be able to prove he's a liar, but you probably can't prove that his mother and grand parents are liars - And that's the material question, did Barack Obama's mother and Grand Parents lie about where he was actually born. Since you can't question any of them, and clearly nothing but circumstantial (and questionably circumstantial evidence at that) exist to DIRECTLY contradict Obama's story. So, all that is accomplished is the MSM is given substantial ammunition to paint ALL conservative as conspiracy theorists nutbags.