I think the Lucas Smith paper is genuine.
At intervals, there has popped up a story of how the kid was born in Kenya because of the parents travel being held up by weather, so the birth and the birthing doctor was there, but there was a new examination and registration as soon as they got to Hawaii. The would match exactly with the analysis by “The Daily Pen”, and explain why a whole load of vital data (mandatory in most locations) are missing from the colb.
At this point, I do not believe the Lucas Smith paper is genuine, for the simple reason that it doesn't look anything even remotely like the only example we have a known genuine birth certificate from Kenya in the early to mid 1960s. (This was published on the web by World Net Daily).
Is it possible that they changed forms? Yes, but a) government agencies don't often change forms, b) if they do the normal practice, simply because it's much easier, would be to go with a form very similar to the old form, only with minor revisions, and c) we have no evidence at all that they did change forms. In fact, the only certificate we have seen that looks like the Lucas Smith document is the Lucas Smith document itself.
If other documents emerge that verify the validity of the Lucas Smith document, I'm very open to changing my mind. But at this point, it seems completely in conflict with the one known example of a birth certificate from Kenya in the 1960s.
Again, the source for this is World Net Daily, the very organization that has carried the torch for the entire birther/ Obama eligibility skeptic movement.
At intervals, there has popped up a story of how the kid was born in Kenya because of the parents travel being held up by weather, so the birth and the birthing doctor was there, but there was a new examination and registration as soon as they got to Hawaii. The would match exactly with the analysis by “The Daily Pen”, and explain why a whole load of vital data (mandatory in most locations) are missing from the colb.
The scenario is plausible. But plausibility does not equal reality. Where's the evidence?
It's plausible that Sean Hannity's real father was John F. Kennedy. Kennedy would've been the right age, and he was a known serial womanizer. Kennedy slept with a lot of women. But where's the evidence? The little bit of evidence that we do have (Hannity does not look like Kennedy) suggests that he wasn't.
As far as vital data being missing from the Obama long form, there isn't. The long form is exactly the same format and contains the same data as the "known good" certificates of the Nordyke twins, and of other birth certificates from Hawaii from that era.
You have to think in terms of evidence, and of the quality of the evidence. Obama is on trial in the court of public opinion, and rightly so. His actions have been very suspicious. But is there enough evidence to "convict" him on the matter of being born elsewhere? At this point, I don't see that there is. I'm open to being proven wrong, but if the evidence isn't sufficient to convince the friendly skeptics (I personally am in this category, being skeptical of everything I hear, good or bad), then it's unlikely to be sufficient to convince the nation at large.