So you're saying the lawyers returning to Washington DC from Hawaii with the envelope containing two certified copies of the birth certificate and a cover letter from Loretta J. Fuddy, Hawaii's Secretary of Health, wherein she states: "Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth," is a lie and she also included a diskette with an electronic copy containing layers?
And when she said, "I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies," she really meant the document she witnessed being copied was first compiled from electronic copy and then put on a copy machine so she could witness the process? Wouldn't her language have been different if the process you describe had been used?
I'm not in any way trying to be antagonistic and have no doubt early efforts at non-paper archiving were quite different than they are today. However, the facts in evidence do not convince me of your theory.
The fact were still talking about the layers and optimization and other abnormalities over year after the release by the whitehouse shows IT’S AS PHONEY AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL. I have produced a copy of my original long form birth certificate several times and never was it questioned once. If the FOREIGNER had a real one it would not be questioned either. What is equally pathetic as this charade of deceit by the socialist democrats on the american people, is the LEFTIST’S in the MSM TURNING A BLIND EYE ON THIS FRAUD. They truely are anti american and have no credibility left.
No lie involved. I’m saying the HI SoH personally watched a printer print two copies the official image data onto generic “security paper”, stamped them as certified authentic, handed the lawyers the two copies plus a floppy (or whatever) with the PDF file. No, her language would not be different because - legal terminology often having different nuances than general conversation - her language is consistent with legally equivalent processes across different technologies. “Witnessing copying” could apply to paper-to-paper photocopying or to digital-to-paper printing; same idea as far as the lawyers are concerned so long as the source is legally declared “original”, which was a big issue with the obnoxious process I described.
Yeah, I know I’m not going to convince many here. It’s hard to grasp if you weren’t there and haven’t seen the technology - and laws involving it - evolve.