If an expert doesn't think it's proven to be a fake and doesn't know that there are people who still claim that it's a fake, that expert isn't going to post about it online. So what you're seeing is an unrepresentative sample.
Consider all the people here who've just stopped paying attention to this and you get an idea of how skewed the representation can be. People -- experts or not -- who aren't convinced that there are easily detectable signs of fraud in the document have just stopped talking about this and stopped caring.
And what kind of "experts" are you talking about? "Experts" who don't know about fountain pens and manual typewriters and how they work? "Experts" who think a forger would take the same word off different documents produced with different typewriters? "Experts" who don't know that turning a document in a bound volume into a two dimensional graphic necessarily involves some distortion of the words and letters and lines?
Realizing that there are people out there who assume that the ordinary workings of old fashioned pens and typewriters are signs of forgery because they don't look like today's ballpoints and felt-tips or word processors and laser printers convinced me that if there was a fraud, these "experts" would never be able to prove it.
I get no joy from being a skeptic. It would be the story of a lifetime if the birth certificate were an easily detectable forgery. But if you were the President of the United States -- even a particularly incompetent president -- wouldn't you at least be able to hire a competent and skilled forger if you needed one?
I'm not saying the document is legitimate. I don't know and couldn't prove it one way or the other. But most of these online "experts" don't have a clue either.
Also, it's difficult to prove something's not a fake, and impossible to prove that an online image is not a fake. So the best an expert could say is that there's not enough evidence to conclude that the online image is a fake. And, in fact, several have said that.
Proving the authentication of an actual document requires...the actual document. Thus far, no actual document has ever been presented for the COLB or the LFBC. They digital images, supposedly scans in some cases.
Authentication can never be done via digital images. Never. The actual document is required. However, fraud can be shown from digital images. The signs of fraud are usually present and they are present in both the ‘scans’ of both documents and the photos of the COLB posted on Factcheck.
When real, actual, physical documents of BOTH documents are provided they can be authenticated. But neither has been provided, ever. So nothing has been proven as authentic. It is impossible.
Hawaii or the WH could provide the actual certified copy of the document of record and the supporting records. They refuse. Hawaii officials seem to think they can play the game of being coy. This has run its course. Schatz is in this up his eyeballs. He is a young man with a family. Maybe he should come forward. It is time.
‘