eBay seller releases video of 'Obama birth certificate'

WND ^ | 8/23/2009 | Drew Zahn

[spacejunkie01]

BORN IN THE USA? eBay seller releases video of 'Obama birth certificate' Elusive Lucas Smith films alleged Kenyan document

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 22, 2009 4:19 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily

Screen shot of whole document from Lucas Smith's video; close-up views available in clip below

A man who had claimed to have a copy of President Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, attempted to sell it on eBay and then disappeared from contact has reappeared, this time with a video of the document he claims proves Obama's foreign birth.

As WND reported, Lucas Smith, a former resident of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and known by the eBay handle "colmado_noranja," claimed online and in phone conversations with WND to have an authentic document from Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa proving Obama's birth there at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

After promising to reveal the document to WND, Smith then dropped communications with a team of people offering to help him verify the document, only fueling belief the sale – and therefore the alleged document – was a scam.

Since then, various images have appeared online, purported to be Obama's original birth certificate – along with pranksters taking credit for forgeries meant to fool Americans still waiting for Obama to release conclusive proof of his purported Hawaiian birth.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Lucas Smith, however, still claims he has an authentic Obama birth certificate from Mombasa, and a video of him showing the document – which includes a close-up shot of the document's raised seal and the alleged footprint of Barack Obama – appears below:

[Beckwith]

OK, now who is going to get Obama’s footprint and make a match?

He is at the beach -- shouldn't be too hard.

[Balata]

I wonder if he’ll have the Secret Service running behind him destroying his footprints in the sand now?

[BenLurkin]

Six toes?

8^)

[Redwood Bob]

“OK, now who is going to get Obama’s footprint and make a match?

He is at the beach — shouldn’t be too hard.”

**********************

Footprints aren’t on BC’s any more because there’s no way to match an adult’s footprint with his baby-print.

[joshhiggins]

You made me go back and count. I would not have been surprised.

[rolling_stone]

Footprints aren’t on BC’s any more because there’s no way to match an adult’s footprint with his baby-print.
...................

incorrect they can be matched to adults, it just depends on whether they were taken properly to show the ridges.

The Value of Footprinting

Print experts agree that every individual’s prints contain friction ridge minutiae, i.e., ridge detail, that are unique to that person. Even the footprints and fingerprints of identical twins are different. Furthermore, friction ridge minutiae remain naturally unchanged throughout a person’s life. Because of this consistency, FBI print experts have identified the adult victims of such disasters as fires and airplane crashes by using the footprints of the individuals taken in infancy.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n11_v63/ai_16473798/

[rolling_stone]

http://images.craveonline.com/article_imgs/Image/baby_foot_print.jpg

http://www.organic-babyclothing.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/baby-carbon-footprint.jpg

examples of baby footprints

[WellyP]

5 toes

[PA-RIVER]

Because Obama refuses to show anything, any document that raises its ugly head could be legit.

[El Gato]

Here's a set which come with no explanation.

And two probably different ones.

And another, from a blog called "the Bump". :)

[Beckwith]

Footprints aren’t on BC’s any more because there’s no way to match an adult’s footprint with his baby-print.

My understanding is that the footprints were for identifying children while still in the nursery to avoid mixups.

[Redwood Bob]

I have two birth certificates. One came from the hospital I was born in and is a “souvenir” BC, done in calligraphic style and adorned with storks and cherubic babies, and also having my baby footprints. It’s no good as proof of birth.

My other BC is an “official” BC from the county health dept. which has no footprints but will be accepted in any court of law as prima facie evidence.

I imagine that in working with a limited data-set, such as victims of disaster, or babies in a nursery, footprints can provide a match to a reasonable degree of certainty. When you get to a larger data set, the chances of error become so great that the only value is that of a negative match, i.e. the person is definitely not the same as the person that the prints came from. But there is no way to get a definitive positive match. Fingerprinting, which was once regarded as ironclad science, has come under heavy attack in recent years. The real killer was when three separate FBI fingerprint “experts” matched a fingerprint from the Madrid bombings to American Curtis Mayfield. Oops! http://truthinjustice.org/mayfield.htm

Much of forensic “science” is turning out to be just voodoo in lab smocks. Off topic, but speaking as a scientifically trained person, I will not be surprised if a few decades from now, people will marvel at the hubris of those who are now proclaiming the dire threat of global warming.

[DMZFrank]

That is what adjudication and the courts are for. Therefore, it is an open question at this time.

[Elsbeth71]

Your article also states:

“One article cited a study in which footprints were obtained from 20 newborns at 5 different nurseries with techniques known to provide maximum detail. An unidentified “police dermatoglyphist” examined the footprints. This print identification expert found 89 percent to be technically inadequate for identification purposes, with only 1 percent possessing sufficient ridge detail for positive identification. The article concluded by stating that the typical health care professional is not fully aware of “...how unreliable footprints of a newborn happen to be for purposes of identification.”(1)

In a 1988 publication, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated that “...individual hospitals may want to continue the practice of footprinting or fingerprinting, but universal use of this practice is no longer recommended.”(2) Both organizations based their findings on studies that demonstrated that the majority of infant footprints taken by hospital personnel prove inadequate for identification purposes.

[Elsbeth71]

But, to get the courts involved we have to show standing and we have to show that we, as the Plaintiffs have enough evidence to pursue a case. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff. Orly has already submitted the first FKBC to 3 courts. She is finished.

This 2nd FKBC does more harm. It gives the appearance that Plaintiffs may (not are, but may) be manufacturing false documents.

Lucas Smith has repeatedly tried to con people. I am unwilling to believe this man. What he is showing is not a real KBC. The Kenyan gov has even given pics of what a Kenyan BC from 1961 would look like.

At least the first forger did some homework. Smith typed a document on his computer, found a real docs name (he is a researcher in immunology, not a doc who delivers babies) and made a fake footprint.