Here’s an email from Polarik, received a few minutes ago:
“The Lucas Video shows a forged BC. The baby’s footprint immediately gives it away.
“Secondly, he is intentionally keeping the BC moving so that it cannot be examined.
“Every image and photo (and now video) purported to be Obama’s real BC is bogus.”
** “Every image and photo (and now video) purported
to be Obama’s real BC is bogus. **
- - - - -
Well, then!
If colmado_naranja DOES sell that on eBay, he risks
gettin’ his FIRST negative, then !! :)
http://myworld.ebay.com/colmado_naranja&ssPageName=STRK:MEFSX:SELLERID
The footprint, in and of itself, does not mean the Smith birth certificate is bogus.
On the birth certificates issued by hospitals, it’s common for there to be a footprint. Not on the government-issued birth certificates — but on the ones issued by the hospital which may be used by parents until the official certificate is completed and issued by the registrar. Both of my kids have hospital-issued birth certificates with footprints on them that we’ve kept over the years. It even has the doctor’s name, signature, birth date & time, etc.
The raised seal on the Smith birth certificate says Coast Regional General Hospital. They are the issuing authority of this document, not the
registrar’s office. As such, IMO, the Smith document is still plausible, especially considering the footprint.
“Secondly, he is intentionally keeping the BC moving so that it cannot be examined.
“Every image and photo (and now video) purported to be Obama’s real BC is bogus.”
It seems like "they" are enjoying seeing us running around in circles....Alinsky?
Of course it’s fake. That Lucas guy is a nut case. I agree with Ron.
It can't be what it purports to be and have a copy of the footprint I don't think. A copy of the original record might and probably should show the footprint--but that wouldn't be a certificate. In many US jurisdictions, you can get a photocopy of the original record with footpring with a certificate incorporate on the photocopy with a raised seal. Doesn't look like that is what this is.
Polarik had comments on the Orly Certificate some of which I thought were not well founded. In one case, he was clearly looking at the certificate after it had been hacked and the hacked document was clearly a fraud.
Other comments about the institution which may have been on the pre-hacked version are not so clear.
The Orly certificate was issued after the October 3, 1963 agreement in which Zanzibar ceded Coastal Province to "The Republic of Kenya" (even though no such entity existed). There are several news articles some of which BP2 (I believe) posted describing why the local administrative agencies immediately changed their name to Republic of Kenya.
The Coast Provincial General Hospital was no long a "Provincial" entity at that point because it was no longer in a province of Zanzibar.
It isn't obvious to me why that certificate (pre hacked) is "bogus". It would be helpful if Polarik could tell us however this is the second time I have asked.