Quite the contrary.You can't say that a document is genuine from an online image, which is what they were trying to portray in the article. You can show however that it is not genuine from an online image, by pointing out obvious manipulations with the pixels.
The easiest way to clear up any questions is to produce that actual vault certificate with the signatures on it. To date he has not been done.
Here is the link. I am pretty sure I know those three independent news sources. If you check, they are all quoting the same source. They may be independent news sources, but they are all quoting the same thing - so it is not independent verification
BTW, and as a caveat: I have seen the images in question. Having had a good deal of experience with document science, photography and computer graphics, I could not say for certain that the images had been manipulated beyond the obvious redactions made for privacy reasons.
Compression algorithms common to .jpg/jpeg images can do some funky things to pixels around the perimeters of geometric shapes, especially when filters have been applied to them to enhance or diffuse sharpness, resize the original, detect or isolate edges, or even adjust properties such as gamma and contrast. I've manipulated thousands of images myself, and seen all manner of strange things happen, especially when images are resampled from one format to another.
In the digital age, the only way to absolutely prove that a document is genuine is hands-on inspection. Otherwise, one would normally accord a presumption of authenticity to a state-issued document based upon the opinion of a relevant official. That presumption can be overcome by a presentation of compelling evidence to the contrary, which, as in this case, is not always easy to come by.
I hope someone prevails on the authorities in this instance to allow for an independent expert to make such an examination. If nothing else, it would put to rest the sort of needless speculation generated by the Obama camp's unnerving tendency toward secrecy.