We missed # 42 earlier, - please check it out. Thanks.
Actually, this is not the real BC. I believe that Inspector Smith’s doc (even tho he has limited credibility) is the REAL ONE ! He replied to an inquiry I made asking him why he never contacted Helton Maganga (who signed and stamped the doc) nor the delivering (signing) doctor’s daughter (who resides in Kenya) and he said he ‘has’ inquired with NO replies from anyone !
Also, from what I recall, 3 days after his doc was posted on the internet Hillary Clinton (in the flesh ! ) was IN KENYA ! ! ! To me, that was the clincher ! Not one U.S. authority has done anything to dis-credit this doc, except for attacking its acquirer for poor past track record for credibility. Also, it was not uncommon to have baby foot-prints on BC’s back then. I believe I have a copy of a US BC with one from that period. That’s my take ! Prove me wrong !
I agree that Inspector Smith’s document is likely the real deal. That was the one on E-Bay for a million dollars before E-Bay pulled it. Right before the Inspector Smith doc was shown to the public, the fake one (the one the Globe is showing) came up. I have to wonder if the fake BC was generated to take steam out of the potentially legitimate one from Inspector Smith?
We missed # 42 earlier, - please check it out. Thanks.
Astute point about how not one official, even though they had the chance, has tried to disprove this document. Attack the messenger, not what he says. Classic Alinsky. Classic way to avoid discussing facts and what’s true. My birth certificate, although not the “legal” one—the one from the hospital—has my footprint on it. It was common. If Smith has a legit birth certificate copy FROM the hospital, then it likely had a footprint. This was an identifying mark for a child. Like a fingerprint. Some birth certificates even had the parents’ fingerprints. Depends on the issuing body.
What is your opinion of the infamous blue footprint?