I might protest, “But I put it on the Internet for all to see! I released my birth certificate to the public.” “No”, they would say “You released a scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners. We need the original document.”
I might protest by saying. “It hasn’t been altered (except for the little detail of obscuring the official number on the document); it has a doctor’s signature, the name of the hospital, my parent’s signature and everything!” “Nope,” they would say, and if I insisted they might notice the line at the bottom “WARNING: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DUPLICATE THIS COPY” or “ANY ALTERATION OR ERASURE VOIDS THIS CERTIFICATE.”
So, unless I am able to provide authentic documentation, I will not be able to go on my fabulous, all expense paid cruise.
Yet there are people who live among us, and even have the right to vote, who think that if I presented my scanned, altered "CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD" during an election in the same manner, it would be enough evidence to prove that I am eligible to become President of the
And my altered, “scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners” is far higher quality than has been offered by AKA Obama.
AKA Obama has spent lots of money to keep the best available evidence secret. Let's just add suppression of evidence to the other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations, and filing fraudulent documents in all 50 states.
No matter what you might think, there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Far, far less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document, and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, and any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by examining scat.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, (CV here ) a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit HERE that states, in part: “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines’ summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Can Obama supporters see the logic here? Oh, I forgot, Obama supporters don’t use logic; not “warm and fuzzy” enough for them.