There is a distinct possibility, given that the documents in question were forged, that the best way to head off that resurgence in interest would be to present someone easily discredited to make claims which might have an element of truth, if only in the general narrative, but which can be discredited on the details.
In so doing, that individual's account, the details, and the general narrative become discredited.
If BHO's parents are not who is being claimed, if the documents were indeed altered, in hard copy, to cover for the digital construct, and someone not credible surfaces and claims to have done just that, then while the narrative was correct--those events happened, just not by the hand that claimed the act nor using the methods claimed--then the narrative becomes discredited as well, and even finding those who committed the alterations and discerning the means used would not have credibility because the former bogus claim was debunked.
In a word, it is a PSYOP, using a bogus individual to discredit a true story.
If some raving and discreditable person were to claim he'd been part of a mission to raise a soviet submarine before it was known that that had been done, would the story have been believed by most people? likely not.
If she forged the BC in 1985, then why didn’t obama release that one. Why the need for new forgeries? What’s the difference between all of them? It can’t be only that Owens made a mistake on a date by one day. It has to be more.
She claims that Owens is barrack’s name. Is that name on any BC? Is it Nancy Owens who chose obama sr as barrack’s dad?
Is there a connection between Beauchamp and Dunham? Did they hang out together? Why else would Stanley Ann adopt a child at her age?
Will there be any DNA testing?
What does Mark have to say about all this? Yikes! he has a book coming out soon. Maybe barrack is trying to cover up some stuff before hand?