Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.
See, the issue isn't layers. Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun. The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document. How do we know? Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:
Note the chromatic aberration. This document is in fact a color scan.
And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:
Note the absence of chromatic aberration. The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.
Folks, this is physics. It is "how things work." It is why you see rainbows. Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image.
Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program? Probably. Why would you? The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.
The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy." No, it wasn't. Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that. Look here. Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.