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.
Did you use the step by step process to choose Kenya as her location? A sort of ‘I can’t establish she’s in Hawaii so I’ll just assert she’s in Kenya instead regardless of whatever evidence there is to the contrary’ step by step process? That would seem to lack rigor if you did.
BTW, I would agree that there isn’t much evidence that she was there but to say 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” would be exaggerating.
As I recall, there is a reference to their marriage some time in 1961 in Hawaii in their divorce papers and also IIRC there is some testimony from the doctor who delivered her child - both of those would be classed at worst as tertiary or hearsay evidence.