To listen to a birther, you might get the mistaken impression that a host of document experts have examined Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate image and every one determined that it was a forgery.
I hope readers here know better to listen to birthers when it comes to matters of fact. Besides problems with the so-called document expert’s credentials, there are problems with claims about what “all of them say.” Let’s examine what some experts really say:
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.
Jean Claude Tremblay, noted Adobe PDF expert speaking to WorldNetDaily: “First, I never thought that what I saw in the Birth Certificate PDF was a proof of its authenticity. For me, what I have seen does not prove that it is legit, nor that it is a fake, nor that there has been any tampering whatsoever.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: "All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document."
No real expert has called the long form a forgery.