Thanks, for the short / concise explanation.
Posted by me on Lucas Smith’s YouTube site:
I am a retired CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner) as well as a retired CPA. Authenticity of documents requires examination of all features of the document. To be genuine, as many features as possible must be linked back to a hospital in Kenya in 1961 and not show evidence of fraud. The fingerprint might be that of an identifiable person who was in Kenya in 1961. That wouldn’t validate the whole document, just that feature, the fingerprint.
If the fingerprint is that of Lucas Smith (totally unlikely but must be considered) and appears to be in ink and put on the paper as the footprint was created, that would lead to another conclusion. No element of Obama’s background would be more significant than placing his birth in Kenya, if that is what validation of the document shows the experts on examination.
If Obama knows this document is genuine, I believe that he will inevitably conclude that he must resign before it is validated. This would preserve the constitutionality of his presidential acts prior to resignation. If he waits until it is validated in a court, all of his presidential acts to date would be subject to legal challenge because his non-natural born citizen status would have been proved and legal chaos would ensue.
Of all the features on the BC, the fingerprint could be the most forensically verifiable with the highest accuracy, as the current hospital stamp, current signature stamp and 48 year old signatures could have less certain validation compared a fingerprint. So this could come down to one finger of one nurse and whether she is still alive and can be found.
But, you say nothing about the footprint. Doesn’t that make the document self-authenticating when the Judge tells Obama to submit to a footprint?
I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around the difference between resigning and being outed as to legitimacy of actions.