releasing another forgery does not explain away the first...
A sensible person would ask, where was this particular “copy” two years ago?
...and would also wonder why anyone needs to release 3 different copies. Wonder how they square a third BC with the first two?
Sounds like they are just going to print out the PDF file on to old paper and use old ink. So they have an actual piece of paper.
Still isn’t going to explain away all the different type faces, and multitude of other problems with it.
What’s interesting is the inside source telegraphing their plans.
I would ask how a 50 year old got through his adult life without having his birth certificate at hand.
“A sensible person would ask, where was this particular “copy” two years ago?”
A sensible person would also say that releasing a new, better version would be an admission that the old one was known to be a forgery.
If Hawaii forged a different birth certificate, it would look really bad for Hawaii and the White House because the White House has already published a version of Obama's birth certificate online, and the state of Hawaii was confronted to verify it by AZ's SOS. Hawaii published a verification letter directly referring to a photocopy of the birth certificate published by the White House. Consequently any forgery by Hawaii would have to look exactly like the certificate published by the White House, otherwise, it would be obvious that Hawaii and the White House were lying.
(True, the Hawaiian verification letter only verifies the information it lists, rather than verifying the authenticity of the image of the document itself, but if the document itself was a forgery, and the State of Hawaii refused to give that information to another legally entitled party who requested it, then the fact that Hawaii's Department of Health did not say it was a forgery would make Hawaii an accomplice to the fraud or at the very least criminally negligent in their duties.)