What I'm saying is actually very simple. If Obama produced a fake document that doesn't conform to the records that Hawaii has, an unbelievably risky thing to do, there is no legal privacy protection for that. The state of Hawaii can legally say that the information on that document does not conform to its records. Indeed, it is more or less compelled to do so if it is aware of a misrepresentation of official state records in a matter of legal consequence. That it has not done so, that it has indeed pretty much confirmed the information, is far more significant and telling than some guy's “analysis” of an image on the Internet.
Either the information on that certificate is false and Hawaii would so state, or it's not. If the latter, why would Obama bother to fake something that looks exactly like what he would get from the state if he asked? The link has been posted that COLBs are the standard document Hawaii issues upon request.
That's all very simple logic. Indeed, it's common sense.
Actually, I would contest as a matter of fact, your statement that an image on the internet cannot be used as proof of fraud. I felt Polarik’s breakdown quite compelling, especially the last portion of his analysis, in which Factcheck’s photographs clearly show the text of the “COLB” not following the same angles as they should be. Also, pixelation issues/distortions, detailed color analysis... None of these discrepancies are explainable, thus far, except for an electronic manipulation of the data.
I agree with you on one point, however - Document fraud is a risky move to take.
I recommend reading this freeper post, for an answer to the “why would he do this question:”
Long story short- the docs he likely posesses, shows his COLB was applied for in a manner that doesn’t prove birthplace.
Common sense gave up the ghost long ago, in terms of Barry’s refusal to release his Birth Certifcate.