But let's set that aside for a moment. Let us ask instead why his document looks "normal". (to a casual inspection.) I think there is very good circumstantial evidence to indicate that Obama was adopted by both Lolo Soetoro, AND his grandparents. *IF* this is indeed true, then he ought not have a "normal" looking birth certificate. (As you yourself pointed out.)
It is a fact that he does. I see two possibilities. He was never adopted and his document is completely legit, or he WAS adopted and they have managed to create him a document that resembles an original after he had his adoption(s) annulled.
No, you’ve totally reversed what I was saying. I’m saying that he WOULD have a normal-looking BC if he was adopted or reported as a home birth by his Grandma.
The only instance where he wouldn’t is if mother and baby were not examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month or two after the birth. And that is a whole ‘nother problem that has nothing to do with his adoption or parentage but with the credibility of the claim of a Hawaii birth. That credibility problem doesn’t go away just by him being adopted and having paperwork that claims different PARENTS for him.
Something people need to absorb: Obama is using a stolen BC# - almost certainly Virginia Sunahara’s, since her birth and death situation (including a misreported name on the death certificate) is a very, very rare combination in which there could be a legitimate discrepancy between the “date filed” and the out-of-sequence BC#. There would be no need for him to do that if he had a HI BC that originated in 1961 - regardless of how many adoptions he went through. An adoption would not require the HDOH to give Obama the BC# of Virginia Sunahara.