O gee then that settles it. Our Declaration of Independence must also be a forgery by your reasoning since we dared to call ourselves the United States of America before while we were still under British dominion.
I would encourage you to go back and do some basic study of logic. And I'm not trying to be condescending when I say that. It's just that some things make sense from the conclusion, and some don't. If you don't have a good grasp of what you can reasonably conclude, you'll come to a lot of wrong conclusions.
It was with the Declaration of Independence that we officially declared ourselves "the United States of America." There's no way that you can twist my reasoning to conclude that the Declaration of Independence is a forgery.
On the other hand, we have a document purporting to have come from a government entity that (from all anyone can tell) simply did not exist at the time.
The REAL comparison here is: What if we were to come up with a image - an IMAGE, mind you - nobody has yet produced an actual paper document - of a birth certificate dated September 1775 supposedly of a David Bomford who was born back in 1772. It states on the IMAGE that this is an official document of "the United States of America."
In that case, there are only two logical conclusions: either this is a legitimate document that has been misdated, or it's a fake.
In fact, this line of thinking points to what is probably the only possible pathway for the Kenya document to be real: The date has to be wrong. And that, I will certainly admit, is plausible. It would not be the first time a mistake appeared on an official government document. And further enhancing that possibility is the fact that it appeared in mid-February, when that particular mistake might have been a bit more likely to have been made. Secondly, the "4" and "5" keys are struck with the same finger, making it very plausible that such a misstriek is a typo and not a mental mistake.
I think there are some serious problems with this theory, however.
First, it is unlikely. It seems less likely to me than that the Kenya document is a fake.
Second, the appearance of the document in February 1964 fits perfectly with a presumed timeline. We have a REASON why such a document would've been produced at that time: the divorce. The most likely "mistake year" would've been 1965, and we don't really have a plausible reason for the appearance of a birth certificate at that time. But that's a weak reason. There might've been a reason.
Third (and most important) there seem to be quite a few other problems with the Kenyan document - not the least of which is that the real David Bomford has stepped forward! But there are things in the image itself that are very telling. See my earlier post on this for more details.