It does a good job of laying out the argument, but there is no way this is a hired investigator's report as represented in the editor's note. I have read such reports and they read nothing like this.
This is the kind of thing that provides ammunition to the other side. The article purports to be the unedited results of a private investigation commissioned by an ex-CIA officer, but reads like a summary of all the "birther" arguments.
The arguments may or may not be valid, but the article is a mis-representation of what it claims to be.
but reads like a summary of all the “birther” arguments.
agreed. my understanding further is that the site is WND owned so its likely a summary of their many articles on the subject.
If you know someone who could give a point by point rebuttal based on evidence— that would be helpful.