Because they have already been named (and in fact, I have shown their names and what they said on this site several times before)> Still, since you ask, here they are:<quoted text>
Ah, but neither of your sources names a document expert by name. WHY?
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.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged 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.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.
Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.
And it is irrational (to say the least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.
So, Obama's birth certificate was NOT forged AND the chance of his mother having traveled outside the USA in 1961 is virtually nil. Yet birthers want gullible people to believe that there was a reasonable chance that Obama's mother had a passport (and very few 17- and 18-year-olds did) and that she was one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961, and that the birth certificate of Hawaii is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and the long form to him and that all the facts on the long form that the White House has put online are exactly the same as what they sent to him are all lying. No wonder Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.