Save the card with all three footprints to your pictures...I did. They are easy to enlarge and compare that way. The two on the sign have just been flipped from one picture. The second toe is longer than the big toe, and there are many indentures along the foot indicating folds.
OTOH the footprint on MR SMITH’s copy: the second toe is about even or shorter than the others. There is a definite cross behind the toes (that is not in the DRs card and there are fewer indentures on the outside edge.)
If I was going to forge a Kenyan BC I would look for a doctor in Kenya at the time and I find it suspicious, but not conclusive, that a footprint on an article written by this prominent doctor is very similar (though certainly not identical as you point out) to the footprint in the Smith document. The second toe appears a bit longer in the doctor's image, true, but that toe could easily be moved with editing software intentionally or inadvertently. The rough edges in the Doctor's print seems to be caused by the low resolution of the publication and could have been smoothed out for the Smith document. What still concerns me is the high similarity of the general proportions and features of the images (shape of pads under the toes. Just a concern...not drawing a conclusion without authentication of the actual document. It's up to Smith, now, not WND.
BTW, Corsi’s “debunk” point #8 that baby footprints weren't on Kenyan BC’s in the early 1960’s is refuted by Dr. Ang'awa’s use of such footprints in his publication. Corsi’s claim that Smith's BC doesn't look like their other Kenyan BC’s is easily refuted because Kenya Colony BC’s Kenya outside the coastal strip leased from Zanzibar) wouldn't necessarily look like Mombasa Protectorate of Kenya BC’s. NWD made the same silly claim about Taitz’s 1964 certification compared to 1961 Kenya Colony BC’s. Very sloppy on NWD’s part.