Most of the complaints I have seen about the document show nothing but the ignorance of the people making them (e.g. the “layers” thing merely shows that the PDF was released in a format which does not permit meaningful forensic examination, but saves considerably on file size versus formats which would; perhaps the goal was to prevent forensic examination, but minimizing the size of what is apt to be a widely-downloaded file is an equally plausible explanation). Some of the complaints would be reasonable grounds for suspicion, and might justify some further investigation, but are hardly dispositive.
As for the “two versions” thing, I don’t think Obama or anyone associated with him is presenting copies of two or more source documents; rather, one of the items produced is an image of the original document (which would most likely have been typed onto a white paper form), printed on a sheet of green security paper, while the other item produced is an image of that same document, printed onto white paper.
As I've stated a number of times now, I think this is true of the layers phenomenon: It justifies further investigation, bearing in mind our likely limited ability (without knowledge of exact hardware and software and settings used) to exactly reconstruct it, and also having in mind that we still likely have to "get past" the letter of authenticity from Loretta J. Fuddy.
Just duke it out with tech guys, not me.
Why should I believe someone supporting a criminal rather the other experts taking it apart?
There are experts who have said it’s clearly a forgery. Debate with them and prove them wrong.