No, he said the "certificate of live birth" (in QUOTATION MARKS) matches information in a birth certificate that is ON file.
IOW, it's not a forgery, PDF artifacts notwithstanding.
Sorry, but there's nothing in this statement that proves the PDF is not a forgery. The information for example might match, but the signatures perhaps not so much.
Of course, the document on file at the Hawaii Department of Health may not be an accurate representation of Obama's birth. But that is a whole other case.
Not at all, but I'm sure that's what you want to believe.
You have to start with his long form as presented and show why it isn't true without recourse to layers and pixels and color depths.
We would only have to do this if an actual certified copy of the long form was ever shown in court. If a PDF is what is presented, then it can still be shown to be a forgery. So far, the Kenyan Coward refuses to show a certified hard copy. A PDF, even one with partially matching information is not a substitute for a legal, certified birth certificate. If the state of Hawaii can provide a letter of verification, then they can also provide a certified copy of the document to address the inconsistencies in the PDF.
“Sorry, but there’s nothing in this statement that proves the PDF is not a forgery. The information for example might match, but the signatures perhaps not so much.”
Why would signatures be exempt from the definition of information?
If he says the information in the Whitehouse COLB matches the information in their original, which bits would you say don’t match and on what basis?