I would find the claim more credible if somewhere in some of the links they posted an actual picture of the page upon which they are basing the claim.
When I am citing some historical document, I make it a point to post an image of the page if I can. Anyone can assert that some bit of text or information is somewhere in some document which we aren’t seeing, but when the image of the document itself is posted, no one can argue about what is written thereon.
Unless they post an image (or a link to it.) of the document upon which this claim is based, i’m calling fake.
Stop the presses--we agree about something! One question I have that seeing the page might answer is whether it says the 1961 child was born in Kenya. All the story says is
The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961.I could easily see the colonial officials recording a "vital event" pertaining to BHO Sr. even if it didn't happen in Kenya.
Besides (and here I suspect we part company), why so much trust in Kenyan handwritten records that don't even spell the man's name the same way each time? Would anyone here accept a handwritten entry from Hawaii that "Biraq" Obama had had a son there as proof of BHO's story?