There’s no detailed refutation in this article, but there is a detailed discussion at the website he links to.
Actually, I don’t know how reasonable the argument is, but it does stand out as the only instance that anyone has ever tried to respond in detail to the charges of forgery.
But the validity of it is a little suspect because the author claims that there is proof in the form of an actual birth certificate that has been shown numerous times but then only discusses a different document, the COLB without giving accurate information on the difference. Further, he falsely asserts that an Hawaii official has said that the proving documents exists and disproves the question but only quotes the official as saying that the document exists, which is not the same thing.