If you don't consider the Hawaii Secretary of Health to be an independent arbiter, then I'm not sure who would suffice.

How about nationally recognized reporters from three major US news outlets, one of which to include Fox News, and whatever experts they choose to hire to perform whatever non-destructive testing they choose to employ?

Would that make the loonies go away?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it would certainly put the allegations firmly in the camp of the loonies.  As it stands now with access to the original document restricted it just continues to smell of cover-up.  Whether you like it or not, that much is true.

It has the official raised-seal of the state of Hawaii.   It has been verified by the Secretary of Health in Hawaii.

If the document was altered after it had been issued for someone else.  What part of that doesn't register with you?

Once you're willing to believe that one document is a fake without any evidence to support the claim, then no document will be considered valid proof.

It is a little thing called chain of evidence.  It is certainly possible that the original document on file in Hawaii is also a fake, but that is far less likely than the possibility of having altered or fabricated a "duplicate" which isn't even an actual copy of the "original".

You try to use that raised seal like it is some sort of talisman which wards off any foul play.  Is it honestly your position that the raised seal of Hawaii cannot be faked or otherwise fradulently obtained?  The seal is an indication that the document was likely issued by the state of Hawaii but it is by no means 100% iron clad proof of anything, especially with regards to alterations which were made after it had been issued.

If the original is there and it says what everyone claims it says, then why hide it in secrecy?  Why shroud it in mystery?  Let the light of truth shine on the document for all to see.  Why the cover-up?  It only fuels the paranoid fears of the tin foil hats.

By the way.... Obama's sister was NOT born in Hawaii.  She was born in the Phillipines.   So the claim that the certificate is an altered version of hers is even too silly by your standards to take seriously.  She was born in Jakarta on August 15, 1970 - when Barack was 9 years old.

Luckily I am not the one making these claims.  I have never claimed that I believe any of this.  However I am someone who is trying to put this whole mess to rest.  Let the original document be examined by independent investigators.  The more you resist the more you fuel the tin foil hats and give them a foothold to spread doubt.

Think about this, GR.  You are not really this stupid.   You are failing miserably at this.

Obama's half-sister Maya was born in the Phillipines.   In order for your silly scenario to be true, they would have had to first make a fake Hawaii birth certificate for her, and then alter that to make it look like it is his. 

First of all, this is NOT "my scenario."  I have not alleged that this is true.  Ever.  The only reason I raise it is because it is one of the theories that are floating around out there.  The only reason I am even aware of it is because of the snopes.com report that someone pointed to earlier.

Even so, whether the fake is a doctored version of Maya's as has been claimed, or someone else's for that matter, isn't really the point.  The point is that the seal itself does not prevent the alleged forgery.  The possibility of having altered a document issued for someone else which bore the raised seal is a trivial explanation for how a document with a raised seal could have been obtained even when it was a forgery.  Hence the need to NOT rely on duplicates such as this but rather to examine the original document which is the best that can be done to squash these allegations.

Again, this is not my theory.  I am only interested in knocking off as many of these tin foil hat theories as possible in one simple action.

You... and the conspiracy nuts on the right.... are failing miserably.    You're really going to claim the half-sister thing? 

Again, I'm not claiming anything.  I am merely reporting what others are saying and suggesting that allowing an independent examination of the original document is the best way to cut through all of this and prove all of these theories to be tin foil hat material.

By examining the original document all this business about raised seals and altered documents becomes completely moot.  If three independent sets of news organizations and experts examine the original document and judge it to be legitimate that is the best form of proof that can ever be provided, so why resist providing it?

As you yourself state the original could already have been faked ... so even the testimony of the Hawaii Secretary of Health is now suspect unless she explicitly conducted an investigatation into the actual authenticity of the original document.  Is she claiming that she did such a thing or is she merely assuming that because the document is in their controlled files that it must be legitimate?  There's some more fodder for the tin foil hats for you.

How to eliminate that fodder?  Allow an independent examination of the original document to determine its authenticity.

Rather than fueling the tin foil hats any further why not cut right to the chase and allow the authenticity of the original document to be determined by independent sources?  It seems obvious to me that this would be the most convincing evidence that could be provided so why not just jump right to that and be done with it?  Avoiding it only allows things to drag on indefinitely and leave a cloud of suspicion over the entire affair.