But any document that they created would be a PAPER document, and the posse has shown that the scan Obama produced was never taken from a paper document.
Thus what Obama produced CANNOT be from the HDOH, period.
That digital image was not a scan of any birth certificate at all - not an original, not a supplemental. The adoption theory may well be what happened, but it does not explain why Obama presented a criminal forgery.
You've said that before, and I don't understand why you think it's significant. In order to create a new paper document, you must first create a digital file. (nowadays, not yesteryear.)
Thus what Obama produced CANNOT be from the HDOH, period.
That does not follow. Your reason above does not support your subsequent conclusion. DOH MUST create a digital file (nowadays) before they can create a paper document. (In the case of Adopted Children.)
That digital image was not a scan of any birth certificate at all - not an original, not a supplemental.
I know. It was a digital image file. So?
The adoption theory may well be what happened, but it does not explain why Obama presented a criminal forgery.
If it is the product of DOH Hawaii, it is not criminal, and it is not considered by law to be a forgery.
From my perspective, it is a virtual certainty that Obama was adopted not once, but twice. (1965 by Lolo Soetoro and again in 1971 by his grandparents.)
It is likewise axiomatic (from my perspective) that if he was adopted, he MUST have a replacement birth certificate.
If the initial premise is true, (he was adopted) then the subsequent conclusions must also be true. (He has an official fake replacement birth certificate.)