What is not in evidence is anything that indicates he wasn't.
Anyone who argues that the plaintiffs here haven’t proven their case is as badly in error as those who are convinced that he is ineligible.
Both you Obots and birthers are arguing from ignorance—a formal logical fallacy.
The question framed might be, how could this dispute be resolved? And I think the answer is self evident.
In any event, if Barry doesn’t cough it up I’ll spell anyone riding him into the ground because my good friend Quasimodo told me he had a hunch that 0’s lying.