It’s the ‘she was in Kenya’ claim that’s dubious. You need to present something to back it up, at least to overcome the evidence already to hand that shows that she wasn’t - even if it’s just a putative travel plan that shows how she could have gotten from there to HI within the time frame available.
It’s a step by step process, Natufian. Like AA. Before you can get to step two, you have to make it past Step One. Step One for anti-birthers is acknowledging there isn’t one hint of a scrap of a shadow of a tertiary, third-hand hearsay clue that she spent the 9 mos of her pregnancy in HI.
Akin to it is the corollary. Had she been there, some trace of residency would remain. After all, there is no Black Hole in any other stage of her life. Her whereabouts both prior and subsequent to this period are well known and well established. So why this one gaping hole?
What I am looking for is an anti-birther who is capable of admitting that this is troubling/strange/anomalous at best. Unless and until an anti-birther can take this first, critical step, there’s no need trying to proceed. An alcoholic who says, ‘I don’t have a problem, but I’d like to hear your thoughts about fixing the problem I don’t have’ is just wasting two people’s time. It’s the alcoholic that can admit there is a problem who is ready to progress.