[john mirse]

They may or may not have the originals. Since the digital copies are legal equivalents, and messing with decades-old paper is time-consuming and damaging, when you pay your $20 for a copy you’ll get the rendered digital version, not a photocopy of the actual original (hence my Zapruder example).

Eminently sensible.

******

I'm sorry, but are you saying that Obama's long form birth certificate is a fake or not a fake?

I am just your average home computer user and not a professional person who works with computers for a living, so I had some problems following your explanation.

Your explanation was written clearly, but, as I said, I am not as technically advanced as you and others here when it comes to understanding how the Hawaii Department of Health made a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate, so I hope that you understand how I had trouble following a lot of your message.

For instance, I thought Hawaii officials said that they made a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate from an original that was bound in a book.

Thanks for any help that you can give this layman when it comes to understanding modern printing methods as they apply to the way Hawaii officials made a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate.

So, again, does your explanation say that Obama's long form birth certificate is a fake or not a fake? Thanks from a layman.

[ctdonath2]

Short answer:
It’s a lousy photocopy of the original. Crummy, but legal proof.

Long answer:
I’m saying it’s not a fake. It’s a legally true, albeit poor, copy of the original. It’s a complex issue, with lots of overlapping technical nuances that confuse and distract the ignorant, but in the end it’s legitimate proof.

The bound-book original paper was likely scanned into a computer (or photographed, then that photo scanned) decades ago. To save disk space, lots of clever shortcuts were applied to that image to make the file very small while retaining enough detail to be legal. That image file sat there for a long time. On request, that stored copy was used, subject to lots of technical contortions, to create the PDF image released at whitehouse.gov.

Those who do not understand the history of document imaging technology will be confused by the “artifacts” (errors & distortions) caused by old techniques and how they interact with conversion to new techniques. Those who _refuse_ to believe it’s real will use _any_ point of confusion as alleged proof it’s a fake; everything they’re pointing out as “proof it’s fake” looks to me as proof it’s real. (And I’m as interested in proving it a fake just as much as anyone.)

Bonus answer:
Everyone is also overlooking the fact that it’s legal proof he’s a British subject, and thus he’s not eligible as President.