Obviously, somebody descended down into the stacks, found the volume containing the long forms for August 1961, took it off the shelf, turned to Obama's form, pressed it down onto the copier, made two copies, then signed and stamped them. Duh! Those copies are what they turned over when Ms. Corley showed up to collect them! I have a different theory. Back when I was keeping up with this issue, I noted seven different bits of evidence which indicated that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro back in 1964 or so.
The normal process in such cases is for a court to place the original under a court seal, and order the issuance of a replacement birth certificate. When Barry went to live with his grandparents ~ 1970 or so, some form of legal guardianship had to be created. It has been proposed that Obama Sr showing up in 1971 at the same time Stanley Ann just happened to be visiting from Indonesia, was there for the purpose of asserting his parental rights and annulling the previous adoption.
If this be the case, then another court order would issue for another seal and another replacement birth certificate, or perhaps just a COLB.
My theory is that what we see as the "official" birth certificate is nothing but a computer generated replacement birth certificate designed to look like one from 1961. There are issues with it that have nothing to do with layers. One of the most prominent is the spacing of letters. Some are off horizontally and some are off vertically. A typewriter cannot do this unless someone loosens the rollers from the platen. Given the numerous examples of where characters don't line up properly and in so many different places, it is improbable that someone would have removed the document or loosened the rollers from the platen so many times.
The most glaring problem with it is the certification which is *NOT* the certification Hawaii used in 1961. In 1961 Hawaii certified birth certificates by saying "...true and correct copy of the original document..."
Nowadays they say "True and correct copy of the document on file or an abstract thereof." Basically a meaningless certification.
The 1961 statement was unequivocally and unambiguous. The modern certification just means that it says the same thing as the documents *THEY PLACED* in their files.
My theory is that what we see as the "official" birth certificate is nothing but a computer generated replacement birth certificate designed to look like one from 1961. There are issues with it that have nothing to do with layers. One of the most prominent is the spacing of letters. Some are off horizontally and some are off vertically. A typewriter cannot do this unless someone loosens the rollers from the platen. Given the numerous examples of where characters don't line up properly and in so many different places, it is improbable that someone would have removed the document or loosened the rollers from the platen so many times. It's absurd that the HDoH would have gone to such trouble to fabricate an amended BC, especially since they do not give out the long form unless under pressure from the likes of Bob Bauer.
The certificate contains typewritten entries, handwritten entries, and what look like pencil marks, probably checkoffs made by an official cross-checking the certificate. No doubt it was rolled into manual typewriters multiple times. So it's no surprise the spacing is not up to laser-printer standards. The attending physician's signature was verified by his widow.
Of course, if you are contemplating forgery by the HDoH, lot's of things are possible. However, the contemporaneous birth announcement blows those theories out of the water in any case. Remember, Toot didn't place the announcement. The announcement appears in two separate papers, each containing the same list of babies in the same order.
Issuing an opaque amended certificate is trivial for the short form, because it's just the printout of a database query. You want to amend a database? There's a computer language for that. It's called SQL. Plus, the short form omits a lot of details, so they simply aren't there to be amended in the first place.
If he had an amended long form on file, it wouldn't look like the thing the White House posted. It would look like something somewhat removed from the actual birth attended by an actual doc. Something like a long short form or a short long form.
However, if in fact Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, it's likely the records never left Indonesia and were never submitted to the HDoH. Therefore, there would have been no need for Obama, Sr., to have caused the HDoH to amend anything. And, even if Lolo Soetoro did indeed adopt Obama, that's merely an interesting fact, of no significance.
Nowadays they say "True and correct copy of the document on file or an abstract thereof." Basically a meaningless certification.
Tell it to the judge.