posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Annee
I'll put this in baby terms, since that's clearly necessary.
We don't have the "original" document. We have a .pdf file that is claimed to be a digital copy of the original.
The .pdf file is constructed of individual layers consisting of different text that indicates the image has been edited (no matter how you look at it
- the image has been edited). Whether the information on there is incorrect, or not, the document has been edited, digitally, after any original
documents were scanned. This is the -only- way to explain the layers within the document.
That's the issue.
However, it doesn't make any sense, as the quality of the edit is amateur, at best. If you were going to make a forgery for the President... you'd
think you'd put a little more effort into it.
On the other hand - if you were going to release a 'touched up' version of the original... why leave it in a condition that makes it appear to be
Especially when there is plenty of other supporting evidence to demonstrate that it is highly probable Obama was actually born in Hawaii?
It's just one huge convoluted mess that doesn't make a lick of sense. There's just no reason for the digital document to be the way it is... and
yet, there it is, plain-as-day.