For fear of reopening up an old conflict, I'd answer that point this way.
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, communities were small enough that people knew who the others were. Lineage was not in doubt, because travel was difficult, and the influx of new people was recognized.
Someone who ran for the highest office in the land would be expected to offer affirmative proof that they qualify, not argue that others should prove that they do not qualify.
For the person of unknown parentage, I recognize that it is a life hardship to have been born under that circumstance, but life is not always fair. If someone has difficulty affirmatively establishing that they meet the criteria for becoming President, then the citizenry should not look favorably on that candidacy, even if it is of no fault of the person.
-PJ
So which is it? Is natural born citizenship a form of legalistic arcana as the above would suggest, or a common sense directive to insure that our leaders owe allegiance to no foreign power? If the latter, then this nonsense about unknown parentage is just that, nonsense. You can't exactly be entangled by any allegiance your father may or may not have had, if you don't know who the Hell he is now can you?
No, your post pretty much confirms my opinion about the subject in general. Those who are most passionate about the issue aren't really concerned about anything important. Rather they're consumed a pedantic devotion to legalism. They make as much sense as the rare (but existent) nutbar who insists that the Air Force is unconstitutional because the constitution only addresses sea and land forces.