Answering Citizen Wells

I would like to thank Citizen Wells for his review, and for taking the time to read the book. However, I can certainly say that many of his conclusions and points don’t match my own perspective. And I will explain why.

Before I get into the areas in which we differ, though, I’d also like to thank Mr. Wells for the following comment:

“Mr. Woodman has done a good job of analyzing the PDF file and explaining his methodology.”

One of my fears has been that people would find it difficult to follow the technical analysis. I’ve tried hard to put it into clear English. It’s gratifying that Mr. Wells, at least, felt I did a good job in that.

The Book’s Purpose and Approach

Mr. Wells says: “John Woodman has stated and the premise of his book is debunking the debunkers. He seems more concerned about doing this than arriving at the truth about Obama’s eligibility and whether or not the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov proves a Hawaiian birth for Obama.”

He also later adds, “Mr. Woodman stayed true to his objective of debunking the debunkers.”

It doesn’t seem to me that Mr. Wells has well understood the purpose or approach of the book — at all — so I’d like to clarify that a bit.

Contrary to Mr. Wells’ review, I have never stated that my purpose or premise was to “debunk the debunkers.” In fact, I’ve pretty clearly stated that my purpose was entirely different!

Below are some of my actual statements, which differ significantly from Mr. Wells’ interpretation.

The first comes from Tuesday’s press release announcing the book — which Mr. Wells probably did not have access to — but the remaining statements come directly from the book itself that Mr. Wells has just reviewed.

And as far as I’m aware, I’ve omitted no statements where I might have implied anything different.

“I didn’t set out to disprove the forgery claims. I set out to discover the truth. And truth, even when some may find it inconvenient, is definitely one of the values we need to preserve and restore in our society.”

“I was fascinated by the immediate flood of accusations that [the birth certificate] was a fake. I was also interested in finding out the truth for myself. It was this interest to get to the bottom of the mess, to work out the truth, that led me to dig deep into the allegations — just to see if any of them could really be sustained.”

“Quite a few people, it seems, would like either to discredit the ‘birthers,’ or to discredit Mr. Obama. My goal was a little bit different: it was to sort through all of the arguments and see what made sense.”

“I began under the personal assumption that Barack Obama had been dodging the issues — and that therefore he probably either had not been born in the United States as he claimed, or there was something else regarding his long-form birth certificate that he didn’t want revealed.”

“In order to prove a forgery… all we need is one single irrefutable proof. And we will do our best to find such a proof. If we can’t find one, though, we won’t be allowed by the rules of honest investigation to manufacture it — because ‘manufacturing proof’ doesn’t lead to establishing truth.”

“Our major goal is to unravel a mystery.”

And, finally:

“If it’s the truth we want to get to, then we need to start without a commitment to any particular conclusion.”

Now it’s true that in the quest for truth, I took every allegation and theory of forgery I could find, and tested each of them one by one. And that process of testing may be the basis for Mr. Wells’ position.

But in fact, the only way that I know of to actually really, genuinely prove a forgery (which is, after all, what Mr. Wells would presumably like for us to do) is to find some good, strong theory that fraud has occurred, test that theory, and then show that whatever tests you apply, it simply can’t be broken.

In other words: if you truly want to prove something, take a hammer and keep banging on stuff until you find some evidence that is really solid.

The major alternative, of course, is to simply assume that any and all negative allegations made are true — and proceed on that basis instead.

If someone claims, for example, that the layers are proof of fraud, then we might just assume that the allegation must be true, or either accept it on the basis of flimsy evidence — and therefore, our next step is simply to impeach Mr. Obama, arrest and sentence him, and throw him in jail.

That’s the alternative to actually proving our allegations of fraud.

But I don’t think that simply assuming proof of criminal allegations is the direction we want to go. I don’t think it’s the direction Mr. Wells would want to go, either, if someone were to accuse him of serious crimes such as forgery and deliberate, massive fraud. And I don’t think conservatives in general support finding anyone guilty of a crime if the evidence simply doesn’t support such a judgment.

Regarding the Burden of Proof

Mr. Wells says, “My biggest overall criticism of Mr. Woodman is this. The burden of proof is on Obama. Even Little League participants are required to submit a photostatic copy of an original birth certificate.”

I do actually agree with Wells, up to a certain point, about the burden of proof being on Mr. Obama.

A candidate for President is required (in at least one state, and probably in quite a few) to submit a sworn statement that he is a natural born citizen eligible for the office.

Mr. Obama did make such a sworn statement. Of course, in this case, no birth certificate was required as proof.

Party officials are also required, in various states, to submit statements (whether in the form of a letter or otherwise) that their candidates are Constitutionally eligible to serve.

And again, the appropriate officials of the Democratic National Convention took that required action (again, so far, no birth certificate was legally required as proof).

Some in the public then questioned whether Mr. Obama was really and truly born in the United States.

As a result, the Obama campaign acquired from the State of Hawaii that State’s standard birth certificate, and publicly presented an image of it.

In the next step, the State of Hawaii officially confirmed that Mr. Obama’s standard (short-form) birth certificate was valid. For example, Janice Okubo, the official spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health stated clearly and unambiguously in June of 2008, “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”

The certificate itself confirmed Obama’s place of birth as being, quite specifically, Honolulu — rather than any foreign city.

Still, people questioned whether a foreign-born child might have obtained a fraudulent certificate based solely on the testimony of someone falsely reporting the actual place of birth. Wanting to see the hospital and delivering doctor, they asked for a long-form birth certificate that would reveal those details.

I myself was one of those who questioned, who wanted to see further proof.

In April of this year, Mr. Obama produced a long-form birth certificate, and posted an image of it on the White House web site.

Meanwhile, the Hawaii Department of Health once again affirmed that they had sent Mr. Obama a valid copy of his long-form birth certificate, showing that he was born in the USA. They also created an official link to the White House web site that offered Obama’s image, thus putting their stamp of approval on that one specific document.

Even so, people — myself included — still suspected, because of other things we had heard, that the document just might be a forgery.

For this reason, I investigated every single possible theory of forgery evidence that I or anybody else could come up with. After testing more than 30 different claims and theories of evidence of fraud, I found none that could truly stand up under scrutiny.

I didn’t set out looking for those results in particular, but those are the results I obtained.

The entire body of evidence we have, then, seems to me to now be well beyond Mr. Wells’ “photostatic copy of an original birth certificate” that the Little Leaguer is required to present. We not only have a birth certificate, we have an extensive string of official testimony that it’s perfectly legitimate, and we have a failure, as far as I can see, of literally every supposedly good proof that anybody has come up with to suggest that it isn’t.

Now as I clearly stated in my book, the results of my investigation don’t “prove” that the document is actually genuine. But I have personally concluded, to my own satisfaction, that at this point the burden of proof shifts in the other direction.

Might the document still be a fraud? It’s possible. But I certainly haven’t been able to prove that it is, despite three entire months of testing. And I’m now convinced that at this point in time, nobody else has the goods, either.

So with the adamant testimony of the Hawaii Department of Health — across two governorships, one from each major party — that the document is authentic, and with the fact that every significant fraud theory has failed to prove the point, it now becomes the burden of persons alleging fraud to come up with some fresh new evidence that isn’t going to fall apart when you kick it.

I would also like to note in passing that while Mr. Wells has presented criticisms aplenty in his review, he has produced no evidence of any significant flaw whatsoever in any of the extensive analysis in my 221-page book.

Other Problems and Issues

1. Mr. Wells claims there is “absolutely no proof of chain of document.” And to some degree this is true.

But as we’ve seen, we have clear statements both before and after the release of the long-form birth certificate from multiple officials at the Hawaii Department of Health (several of these are documented in my book) that Mr. Obama does indeed have a valid birth certificate, and was indeed born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

That being the case, “chain of document” becomes largely irrelevant.

2. Mr. Wells states, “Even if proven to have come from the Hawaii Department of Health, it may simply be an abstract.”

The stamp says “copy or abstract,” indicating simply that the same stamp is used for both.

And an abstract, of course, is a summary of a larger document. Wells contrasts the Nordyke and Obama certificates, acknowledging freely that the Nordyke certificate is a full copy, while stating that the Obama one “may be simply an abstract.”

Yet the Nordyke and Obama documents use the exact same form, and display the exact same categories of information!

Logically, then, if the Nordyke document is a full copy, then the identical-information Obama one is a full copy as well.

3. Wells states that the correct question to ask (rather than whether the birth certificate is a fraud) is:

“Is the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov a photostatic copy of a legitimate long form birth certificate for Obama proving birth in Hawaii?”

By this, I’m sure what he really means is: “Does the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov portray a genuine copy of a legitimate long form birth certificate for Mr. Obama, legitimately showing that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii?”

Personally, I think the analysis in the book comes as close to answering this question as we can come based on the evidence we have available.

And I know that Mr. Wells, and others, would like to see an independent forensic examination of the original document stored by the Hawaii Department of Health. That would probably help to diffuse the remaining skepticism, but I think it’s unlikely to happen. That being the case, we are probably going to be limited to the information we now have.

4. Mr. Wells states that I made a “hasty conclusion” on page 205 of the book.

To this I must reply: any reader who is interested in the issue should get the book, read it carefully and with an open mind, and judge for themselves the degree to which any of my conclusions have been hasty or unfounded.

I spent three entire months of my life, working in many instances late into the night, and in quite a few cases until morning light, very carefully investigating the birth certificate.

This represents 1/4th of a year of careful analysis on this single question. And I put in enough hours each day, in addition to my regular occupation, for this investigation to be legitimately considered a “full-time” occupation.

Some might question my sanity for doing so. But if I had found good evidence of forgery, it would’ve changed history. And of course, I would’ve become quite famous in the process. And even if I didn’t, I gained the opportunity to publicly demonstrate my expertise in computer technology, and in clear thinking, and to make a very significant contribution to our understanding of the issues.

But because of the fact that I did spend those three dedicated months, I can’t agree that Mr. Well’s charge of a “hasty conclusion” is justified.

5. Mr. Wells states, “Some of Mr. Woodman’s assertions are wrong or misleading.”

Wells fails to identify any specific statement at all I’ve made in my entire 221-page book that can be shown to be wrong or misleading.

He does attempt to do so, however, by saying, “Tim Adams affidavit and Governor Abercrombie’s statements are highly relevant.” But he entirely omits the fact that I clearly and specifically dealt with the statements of both persons!

I spent more than two pages and eight footnotes on Mr. Adams, and devoted a similar amount of space on the Governor. In the Governor’s case, I publicly brought to light for the first time the rather remarkable full story of what actually seems to have happened — as opposed to the internet meme of what supposedly took place.

And in neither case does Wells have anything to say about the very substantive points I made regarding either Adams or Abercrombie.

Instead, he claims, “Governor Abercrombie stated that he could find no birth certifcate for Obama. Only a notation,” — completely ignoring the evidence that I presented in the book as to what Governor Abercrombie actually did and did not say.

We might ask Mr. Wells to provide proof of his statement, to give us a direct and verified quote from Governor Abercrombie in which the Governor specifically stated that he found no birth certificate, and that he instead only found a notation.

But he can’t, because it doesn’t exist. I’ve looked.

6. Wells asks: “And has Mr. Woodman viewed any hospital records for Stanley and little Obama?”

Once again, Mr. Wells simply and completely leaves out the fact that I’ve dealt with that issue in my book as well.

Conclusion

I take Mr. Wells to be an intelligent person, and have frankly enjoyed conversing with him via email.

However, the book he has reviewed is simply not the book I wrote.

And note that I’m not accusing Mr. Wells of having deliberately constructed his review with that result in mind. But as I said to another correspondent earlier this week, there are two different dangers in regard to the book that I actually did write.

The first is that some folks won’t understand it from a technical point of view. This is somewhat unavoidable, because many of the issues are, in fact, technical.

The second is that many of us are so invested, both emotionally and in terms of having our minds already made up, in the belief that Obama is ineligible, that some simply won’t be able to accept the investigation’s conclusions.

It goes, actually, beyond that: We won’t be able even to clearly hear the rationale. We will quite naturally, even unconsciously, brush over the arguments in our minds — instead of understanding them fully, pulling that understanding deep into our minds, taking the author at his word when he says “this was my motive,” testing our own assumptions as well as the author’s, acknowledging that our previous theories are failing, and having the courage to replace them with new ones.

And this is not because we lack anything in the way of intelligence. It’s not because we’re deliberately choosing to believe things that aren’t true. It is because the human mind, once it has been very decisively made up, and once that decision has been committed to with strong emotion, is often very, very difficult to convince otherwise.

Thursday night on an internet talk show, I spoke briefly of the cognitive dissonance that I myself went through in the process of investigating the birth certificate and finding that none of the theories of forgery were holding up. I asked myself why I was writing the book (one obvious answer was that I had so much of my life invested in the investigation already). I wondered whether telling the truth might significantly help a politician who is, I feel, leading our country in the wrong direction. I talked about it with my wife. I weighed such values as political expediency and truth.

One of the things I didn’t mention in the interview was that I probably have a much higher-than-typical talent for letting go of one conclusion, in the light of good new evidence, and replacing it with a different understanding. Even so, I myself experienced a bit of difficulty in moving from investigator to presenter of the results.

I have advised a few people to go about detaching themselves in the following way: pretend to yourself — no, convince yourself, as much as you can — that you’re not reading a book about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Get it into your head that you’re investigating someone neutral, like Alexander Graham Bell, instead. Then read the book in that mindset, and look carefully and dispassionately at the evidence.

For some of us, too, it simply takes time to accept new ideas that run quite contrary to our current and preferred beliefs. Perhaps Mr. Wells will eventually revisit the questions, reexamine the evidence, and come to a different conclusion.

In the meantime, his review (to me at least) is a reminder that it is often easier for us as humans to accept conflicting and not-entirely-accurate ideas, than it is for us to make a sudden and wrenching 180 degree turn in our understanding. When we choose to hang on to our preferred beliefs, we might save ourselves some unpleasantness — but we can also easily, inadvertently, cut ourselves off from the truth.

This entry was posted in Answering Critics. Bookmark the permalink.

189 Responses to Answering Citizen Wells

  1. ◄Dave► says:

    Well said, John. I found it unfair of Wells to mischaracterize the overall thrust of your project, which I viewed as focused on the question of whether or not the PDF file published by the WH was a scan of a physical document, purportedly provided by the DHOH, or rather created in a graphics program, as so many so-called experts have asserted. I viewed the validity of the data extant on the form, and even the authenticity of the original, which the DHOH copied and certified, as beyond your (or anyone else’s) ability to ascertain, without access to the original document itself.

    I must say, I remain perplexed that you are not receiving major love notes hereabouts from the Obots. I know for a fact that they know about your book. One would think they would all be reading it, and by now trumpeting it. I expected your website would be hopping by now. If nobody else wants to kick this thing around with you, I might as well… I have one other ‘Occam’s razor’ item, which you did not address, but would bolster your case…

    Uh oh… What is the character limit here? I’ll have to break it up. More to follow…

  2. ◄Dave► says:

    Well said, John. I found it unfair of Wells to mischaracterize the overall thrust of your project, which I viewed as focused on the question of whether or not the PDF file published by the WH was a scan of a physical document, purportedly provided by the DHOH, or rather created in a graphics program, as so many so-called experts have asserted. I viewed the validity of the data extant on the form, and even the authenticity of the original, which the DHOH copied and certified, as beyond your (or anyone else’s) ability to ascertain, without access to the original document itself.

    I must say, I remain perplexed that you are not receiving major love notes hereabouts from the Obots. I know for a fact that they know about your book. One would think they would all be reading it, and by now trumpeting it. I expected your website would be hopping by now. If nobody else wants to kick this thing around with you, I might as well… I have one other ‘Occam’s razor’ item, which you did not address, but would bolster your case…

    Uh oh… What is the character limit here? I’ll have to break it up. More to follow…

  3. ◄Dave► says:

    Corsi has repeatedly asserted that he received a report from an informant inside the DHOH, three weeks before the release of the long-form BC, that a ‘forged’ original BC had been surreptitiously placed in their vault, where none had existed before. Thus, he claims to have anticipated the release and even had meetings with Farah, to discuss possibly changing the name of his upcoming book. Their decision not to do so, was supposedly made to allow Obama to take ownership of the ‘forgery,’ which if nothing else, documented his status as a British subject at birth.

    Personally, after reading Jack Cashill’s, “Deconstructing Obama” and looking into the issues of his apparently falsified Draft registration and inexplicable Connecticut SS#, I don’t put anything past the phony Chicago street thug, who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama. Thus, I have no particular reason to doubt Corsi’s report; but then it would make zero common sense that there would be the slightest need to create or manipulate the PDF file in a graphics program, before posting it on the WH website.

    If such an unauthentic document actually exists in the DHOH vault, the number of people involved in creating and placing it there would, of necessity, be held to an absolute minimum. Ideally, it could have been a single person, who works for the HDOH; and he might actually have done the deed unprompted on his own, simply out of partisan zeal. I still think the original (2008) COLB had such a genesis, and if one reads Dr. Polland’s book, “Alias Barack Obama: A Lie Is Born,” he makes a persuasive case, and claims to have duplicated it with a graphics program. Have you read it? Your opinion?

    When I think about it now, to suggest that such a volatile file would even be available to the WH staff, for accidental posting ‘unflattened’ for the world to see, stretches credulity a bit too far for me. Meanwhile, you have documented that the B&W photocopies distributed to the press were of a higher resolution, and the reporter’s picture and report suggest that a physical document from the HDOH is in fact in the possession of the WH. To do anything other than simply scan it to a PDF for the WH website, makes no sense whatever.

    The risk that someone in the HDOH would balk at affirming its authenticity, or that some suspicious judge might grant someone a subpoena to view the original, would be just too great. So, regarding the PDF itself, your explanation is the far less convoluted one. Then, when one thinks it through with a clear head, to post a forgery on the web, without first placing one in the DHOH vault, would be an act far beyond mere hubris; it would be sheer suicidal madness.

    On the subject of Tim Adams, after reading his Master’s thesis, I am not as dismissive of him as you seem to be. Have you read it? Your thoughts? ◄Dave►

  4. ◄Dave► says:

    Corsi has repeatedly asserted that he received a report from an informant inside the DHOH, three weeks before the release of the long-form BC, that a ‘forged’ original BC had been surreptitiously placed in their vault, where none had existed before. Thus, he claims to have anticipated the release and even had meetings with Farah, to discuss possibly changing the name of his upcoming book. Their decision not to do so, was supposedly made to allow Obama to take ownership of the ‘forgery,’ which if nothing else, documented his status as a British subject at birth.

    Personally, after reading Jack Cashill’s, “Deconstructing Obama” and looking into the issues of his apparently falsified Draft registration and inexplicable Connecticut SS#, I don’t put anything past the phony Chicago street thug, who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama. Thus, I have no particular reason to doubt Corsi’s report; but then it would make zero common sense that there would be the slightest need to create or manipulate the PDF file in a graphics program, before posting it on the WH website.

    If such an unauthentic document actually exists in the DHOH vault, the number of people involved in creating and placing it there would, of necessity, be held to an absolute minimum. Ideally, it could have been a single person, who works for the HDOH; and he might actually have done the deed unprompted on his own, simply out of partisan zeal. I still think the original (2008) COLB had such a genesis, and if one reads Dr. Polland’s book, “Alias Barack Obama: A Lie Is Born,” he makes a persuasive case, and claims to have duplicated it with a graphics program. Have you read it? Your opinion?

    When I think about it now, to suggest that such a volatile file would even be available to the WH staff, for accidental posting ‘unflattened’ for the world to see, stretches credulity a bit too far for me. Meanwhile, you have documented that the B&W photocopies distributed to the press were of a higher resolution, and the reporter’s picture and report suggest that a physical document from the HDOH is in fact in the possession of the WH. To do anything other than simply scan it to a PDF for the WH website, makes no sense whatever.

    The risk that someone in the HDOH would balk at affirming its authenticity, or that some suspicious judge might grant someone a subpoena to view the original, would be just too great. So, regarding the PDF itself, your explanation is the far less convoluted one. Then, when one thinks it through with a clear head, to post a forgery on the web, without first placing one in the DHOH vault, would be an act far beyond mere hubris; it would be sheer suicidal madness.

    On the subject of Tim Adams, after reading his Master’s thesis, I am not as dismissive of him as you seem to be. Have you read it? Your thoughts? ◄Dave►

    • John Woodman says:

      I had not read Mr. Adams Master’s thesis (which I note is in English rather than in a more hard-facts based discipline), but I have done so now.

      It really didn’t add anything new that I didn’t know already. In fact, if anything after reading it, I am less inclined to view him as a source of careful, accurate information, because of the entire tone and attitude he has adopted. Not that that particularly matters. My assumption with Mr. Adams has been to assume he was telling the truth, and doing so accurately. Even in that case, as I noted in the book, all he is relating is claims that he would have heard from someone who was not in a position to know, who had heard them from unnamed other sources who might or might not have been. And that seems to me to be kind of the best case scenario.

  5. ◄Dave► says:

    Hmmm… it takes out paragraph separations too. That is ugly…

  6. ◄Dave► says:

    Hmmm… it takes out paragraph separations too. That is ugly…

  7. Slartibartfast says:

    Dave,

    Regarding Corsi’s allegations of a forged BC – apparently you didn’t understand what Mr. Woodman was saying about the burden of proof. Dr. Corsi is making allegations of felonious acts without a single shred of evidence. This speaks volumes about Dr. Corsi’s lack of journalistic ethics and says nothing at all about the POTUS.

    The social security number regional code (which even the SSA says shouldn’t be considered reliable as it was only used for convenience in archaic filing methods) is most likely explained by a clerk accidentally typing a “9″ instead of a “0″ (or vice versa – I can never remember which). In case you missed it, I just proved that your assertion (that the SS# was inexplicable) to be false – whether or not my explanation is correct, it is an entirely plausible explanation (unless you believe that clerks never make mistakes…).

    “Dr. Polarik” aka Polland is a complete and total hack – every video that he has made of his naive analysis has been thoroughly debunked immediately after it was posted. The comparison of Mr. Woodman’s analysis to that of Dr. Polland puts this fraud’s claims of expertise to shame.

    As for your theory, go read “The Boy Who Cried ‘WOLF!’” and come back when you have evidence which can be verified and admitted into court (or at least to a grand jury – a real one, not one of the birthers’ made-up versions…). In light of the many hateful lies that have been told by the birthers over the last three years, why should anyone consider an attack on his eligibility anything but a sign of bigotry on the part of the attacker in the absence of credible, compelling evidence?

  8. Slartibartfast says:

    Dave,

    Regarding Corsi’s allegations of a forged BC – apparently you didn’t understand what Mr. Woodman was saying about the burden of proof. Dr. Corsi is making allegations of felonious acts without a single shred of evidence. This speaks volumes about Dr. Corsi’s lack of journalistic ethics and says nothing at all about the POTUS.

    The social security number regional code (which even the SSA says shouldn’t be considered reliable as it was only used for convenience in archaic filing methods) is most likely explained by a clerk accidentally typing a “9″ instead of a “0″ (or vice versa – I can never remember which). In case you missed it, I just proved that your assertion (that the SS# was inexplicable) to be false – whether or not my explanation is correct, it is an entirely plausible explanation (unless you believe that clerks never make mistakes…).

    “Dr. Polarik” aka Polland is a complete and total hack – every video that he has made of his naive analysis has been thoroughly debunked immediately after it was posted. The comparison of Mr. Woodman’s analysis to that of Dr. Polland puts this fraud’s claims of expertise to shame.

    As for your theory, go read “The Boy Who Cried ‘WOLF!’” and come back when you have evidence which can be verified and admitted into court (or at least to a grand jury – a real one, not one of the birthers’ made-up versions…). In light of the many hateful lies that have been told by the birthers over the last three years, why should anyone consider an attack on his eligibility anything but a sign of bigotry on the part of the attacker in the absence of credible, compelling evidence?

  9. Slartibartfast says:
  10. Slartibartfast says:
  11. Slartibartfast says:
  12. Slartibartfast says:
  13. Slartibartfast says:

    Mr. Woodman,

    I think you showed great strength of character and commitment to science and the truth to publish results that were so completely at odds with your original hypotheses and desires like this. Well done, sir!

  14. Slartibartfast says:

    Mr. Woodman,

    I think you showed great strength of character and commitment to science and the truth to publish results that were so completely at odds with your original hypotheses and desires like this. Well done, sir!

  15. williams1977 says:

    Mr, Woodman,

    I’ve been following your attempts at addressing the folks over at Citzen Wells’ blog. I guess you’ve realized by now you will never get through to that bunch. Most there, (including Wells himself) are stalwart conspiracists – NWO, 9/11 trufing, HAARP, Bigfoot, etc., and mostly likely will never buy your research.

    I suspect with hardcore loons like them, Jesus Christ could personally visit holding the long form in one hand and Obama’s placenta in the other and that group would claim JC a CIA-generated hologram.

  16. williams1977 says:

    Mr, Woodman,

    I’ve been following your attempts at addressing the folks over at Citzen Wells’ blog. I guess you’ve realized by now you will never get through to that bunch. Most there, (including Wells himself) are stalwart conspiracists – NWO, 9/11 trufing, HAARP, Bigfoot, etc., and mostly likely will never buy your research.

    I suspect with hardcore loons like them, Jesus Christ could personally visit holding the long form in one hand and Obama’s placenta in the other and that group would claim JC a CIA-generated hologram.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      “that bunch.”
      “Most there, (including Wells himself) are stalwart conspiracists”
      “9/11 trufing”
      “hardcore loons”
      “Jesus Christ could personally visit holding the long form in one hand and Obama’s placenta in the other and that group would claim JC a CIA-generated hologram.”

      And this is just another example of why I despise many people from both groups.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      “The Obots are partisan hacks who do not care to discover the truth, but instead wish to do anything to defend their messiah. They will make fake documents (the Bombford), lie and tell half-truths wherever they post, call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, and say any “expert” who does not agree with their own bias is not really an “expert.”"

      My point with that paragraph is that your reasoning is a two-way street. There’s a reason why “birthers” despise people like you (and maybe rightfully so). This doesn’t make the paragraph true, but I’m sure it reflects some of the anti-birthers. All these generalizations tend to do is make people hate each other.

      Lets make love, not war.

  17. skepticismrocks says:

    I was just looking at Citizen Wells’s site, and came across this comment by you Mr. Woodman:

    “What Polland’s fakery fails to demonstrate, though, is that either the short-form or long-form birth certificates presented by the White House are fake.

    I’m not even quite sure what Polland was trying to prove, except that somebody *can* produce documents that look real using Photoshop. But I think most of us knew the power of Photoshop already.”

    I take it you haven’t done much research on the short form birth certificate.

    Isn’t it possible for the short form to be fraudulent even though the long form is not? Have you read any of Dr. Polland’s articles or his book?

  18. skepticismrocks says:

    I was just looking at Citizen Wells’s site, and came across this comment by you Mr. Woodman:

    “What Polland’s fakery fails to demonstrate, though, is that either the short-form or long-form birth certificates presented by the White House are fake.

    I’m not even quite sure what Polland was trying to prove, except that somebody *can* produce documents that look real using Photoshop. But I think most of us knew the power of Photoshop already.”

    I take it you haven’t done much research on the short form birth certificate.

    Isn’t it possible for the short form to be fraudulent even though the long form is not? Have you read any of Dr. Polland’s articles or his book?

  19. skepticismrocks says:

    “”Dr. Polarik” aka Polland is a complete and total hack – every video that he has made of his naive analysis has been thoroughly debunked immediately after it was posted. The comparison of Mr. Woodman’s analysis to that of Dr. Polland puts this fraud’s claims of expertise to shame.”

    This is a lie. @Slartibartfast

  20. skepticismrocks says:

    “”Dr. Polarik” aka Polland is a complete and total hack – every video that he has made of his naive analysis has been thoroughly debunked immediately after it was posted. The comparison of Mr. Woodman’s analysis to that of Dr. Polland puts this fraud’s claims of expertise to shame.”

    This is a lie. @Slartibartfast

  21. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks Apparently you can’t come up an example of quality analysis by “Polarik” – not surprising since none of his analysis has any merit.

  22. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks Apparently you can’t come up an example of quality analysis by “Polarik” – not surprising since none of his analysis has any merit.

  23. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks Since we lack any credible evidence to the contrary, both BCs are consistent with each other as well as all other extant Hawai’ian BCs, we have statements by officials of the DoH and Governors from both Republican and Democratic administrations testifying to the authenticity of both BCs, and, according to the Constitution, either BC is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i (and thus natural born citizenship) in any US court – including the SCOTUS – I think that we’re safe to say that Polarik and all of the birther experts are frauds. Feel free to raise as much of a fuss as you’d like, though – uppity birthers will only hurt the Republicans’ chances in 2012.

  24. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks Since we lack any credible evidence to the contrary, both BCs are consistent with each other as well as all other extant Hawai’ian BCs, we have statements by officials of the DoH and Governors from both Republican and Democratic administrations testifying to the authenticity of both BCs, and, according to the Constitution, either BC is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i (and thus natural born citizenship) in any US court – including the SCOTUS – I think that we’re safe to say that Polarik and all of the birther experts are frauds. Feel free to raise as much of a fuss as you’d like, though – uppity birthers will only hurt the Republicans’ chances in 2012.

  25. Hektor says:

    Leaving aside the fact that Polland is not a qualified forensic document examiner, I am rather puzzled by your contention that the short form birth certificate is fraudulent while the long form is not. All the data present on the short form is present on the long form. With that in mind, it seems that you are proposing that the President forged his short form birth certificate with entirely accurate information. I find such a concept bizarre, since it would be analogous to a teenager obtaining a fake ID that listed 17 as their age. There is considerable risk and effort involved in creating and using a forgery. What purpose would be achieved in forging an accurate document that in your mind would be worth such troubles?

  26. Hektor says:

    Leaving aside the fact that Polland is not a qualified forensic document examiner, I am rather puzzled by your contention that the short form birth certificate is fraudulent while the long form is not. All the data present on the short form is present on the long form. With that in mind, it seems that you are proposing that the President forged his short form birth certificate with entirely accurate information. I find such a concept bizarre, since it would be analogous to a teenager obtaining a fake ID that listed 17 as their age. There is considerable risk and effort involved in creating and using a forgery. What purpose would be achieved in forging an accurate document that in your mind would be worth such troubles?

  27. ◄Dave► says:

    @Hektor
    Having actually read Dr. Polland’s book, with the same open mind I used to read this one, I find he makes a very persuasive case that the COLB PDF was created in a graphics program. Woodman makes an equally persuasive case that the long form PDF was not. A reasonable explanation would be that a zealous Obama supporter created the COLB, which incongruously first appeared on the Daily Kos website, and the Obama campaign, perhaps foolishly, took ownership of it.

    Then, as the crescendo grew, somebody decided that a release of the long form would end it and a second forgery was created, necessarily using the identical data from the first, with the addition of a doctor, hospital, etc. This forgery was surreptitiously placed in the HDOH vault by a dedicated supporter, so that when the two certified hard copies were ordered by the WH, they were made from this forgery.

    The WH then made photocopies of these now officially certified documents to hand out to the press, and scanned one to a PDF file for publishing on their website. While the ‘birthers’ attacked the PDF with a vengeance, as Woodman has demonstrated, that is not where the chicanery lies. Some of the weaker of his arguments, such as dismissing the typography issues as solely due to ‘distortion,’ might be rendered moot if one were permitted to examine the so-called original document in the HDOH vault. Until that is done, this controversy is never going to dissipate. ◄Dave►

  28. ◄Dave► says:

    @Hektor
    Having actually read Dr. Polland’s book, with the same open mind I used to read this one, I find he makes a very persuasive case that the COLB PDF was created in a graphics program. Woodman makes an equally persuasive case that the long form PDF was not. A reasonable explanation would be that a zealous Obama supporter created the COLB, which incongruously first appeared on the Daily Kos website, and the Obama campaign, perhaps foolishly, took ownership of it.

    Then, as the crescendo grew, somebody decided that a release of the long form would end it and a second forgery was created, necessarily using the identical data from the first, with the addition of a doctor, hospital, etc. This forgery was surreptitiously placed in the HDOH vault by a dedicated supporter, so that when the two certified hard copies were ordered by the WH, they were made from this forgery.

    The WH then made photocopies of these now officially certified documents to hand out to the press, and scanned one to a PDF file for publishing on their website. While the ‘birthers’ attacked the PDF with a vengeance, as Woodman has demonstrated, that is not where the chicanery lies. Some of the weaker of his arguments, such as dismissing the typography issues as solely due to ‘distortion,’ might be rendered moot if one were permitted to examine the so-called original document in the HDOH vault. Until that is done, this controversy is never going to dissipate. ◄Dave►

  29. skepticismrocks says:

    Adoption and sealed records.

  30. skepticismrocks says:

    Adoption and sealed records.

  31. skepticismrocks says:

    “Apparently you can’t come up an example”

    Type English please, not gibberish.

    “not surprising since none of his analysis has any merit.”

    The burden of proof is on you since you’re the one falsely claiming none of Polland’s analyses have any merit.

    @Slartibartfast

  32. skepticismrocks says:

    “Apparently you can’t come up an example”

    Type English please, not gibberish.

    “not surprising since none of his analysis has any merit.”

    The burden of proof is on you since you’re the one falsely claiming none of Polland’s analyses have any merit.

    @Slartibartfast

  33. skepticismrocks says:

    “What purpose would be achieved in forging an accurate document that in your mind would be worth such troubles?”

    If Obama was adopted, there should be another birth certificate. The one we were shown may have only been the original.

    I’m not a “birther,” but anyone using any kind of common sense and can look past partisanship should be able to tell Obama is trying to hide something. I just don’t believe it’s his place of birth.

    P.S.

    I find it incredibly ironic that the anti-birthers here can have an “open mind” with Mr. Woodman, but when it comes to Dr. Polland, he’s a “hack,” “not qualified” and “not an expert.”

    @Hektor

  34. skepticismrocks says:

    “What purpose would be achieved in forging an accurate document that in your mind would be worth such troubles?”

    If Obama was adopted, there should be another birth certificate. The one we were shown may have only been the original.

    I’m not a “birther,” but anyone using any kind of common sense and can look past partisanship should be able to tell Obama is trying to hide something. I just don’t believe it’s his place of birth.

    P.S.

    I find it incredibly ironic that the anti-birthers here can have an “open mind” with Mr. Woodman, but when it comes to Dr. Polland, he’s a “hack,” “not qualified” and “not an expert.”

    @Hektor

  35. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks The burden of proof is on the birthers (President Obama has presented what appears to be unimpeachable proof of birth in Hawai’i and the best the birthers can muster is Orly Taitz, the worst lawyer in the world and her fraudulently obtained “evidence” – do you know how she obtained President Obama’s social security number? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t legal…) and they can’t meet it because they have no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. If you can’t see the difference in quality between Mr. Woodman’s analysis and Polarik’s, then you are most likely too far gone to be reached by any reasoning. That’s okay, though. Just keep yelling about this issue at the top of your lungs… it serves a useful purpose – helping reelect President Obama.

  36. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks The burden of proof is on the birthers (President Obama has presented what appears to be unimpeachable proof of birth in Hawai’i and the best the birthers can muster is Orly Taitz, the worst lawyer in the world and her fraudulently obtained “evidence” – do you know how she obtained President Obama’s social security number? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t legal…) and they can’t meet it because they have no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. If you can’t see the difference in quality between Mr. Woodman’s analysis and Polarik’s, then you are most likely too far gone to be reached by any reasoning. That’s okay, though. Just keep yelling about this issue at the top of your lungs… it serves a useful purpose – helping reelect President Obama.

  37. skepticismrocks says:

    Wow, you certainly proved Dr. Polland cannot be trusted. Taitz obviously can’t be trusted either (wait, what does most of your post have to do with anything except ranting against the “birthers”?)

    I see how it is. Since Mr. Woodman supports your preconceived bias, he is to be trusted but not Mr. Polland. I take it you voted for Obama?

    @Slartibartfast

  38. skepticismrocks says:

    Wow, you certainly proved Dr. Polland cannot be trusted. Taitz obviously can’t be trusted either (wait, what does most of your post have to do with anything except ranting against the “birthers”?)

    I see how it is. Since Mr. Woodman supports your preconceived bias, he is to be trusted but not Mr. Polland. I take it you voted for Obama?

    @Slartibartfast

  39. Slartibartfast says:
  40. Slartibartfast says:
  41. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Having followed the birthers for nearly 3 years, I already know that all of Polairk’s analyses are crap and that Orly Taitz is a completely incompetent lawyer. Don’t take my word for it – read the transcripts of ANY hearing Orly has participated in and show them to a lawyer or ask a questioned document examiner or someone with actual technical credentials their opinion of Polarik’s work. There aren’t any birther claims that can be supported in fact or in law and they deserve nothing but contempt for their deceitful, hate-filled, seditious attempts to usurp the Constitution and incite a coup against the lawfully elected POTUS.

  42. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Having followed the birthers for nearly 3 years, I already know that all of Polairk’s analyses are crap and that Orly Taitz is a completely incompetent lawyer. Don’t take my word for it – read the transcripts of ANY hearing Orly has participated in and show them to a lawyer or ask a questioned document examiner or someone with actual technical credentials their opinion of Polarik’s work. There aren’t any birther claims that can be supported in fact or in law and they deserve nothing but contempt for their deceitful, hate-filled, seditious attempts to usurp the Constitution and incite a coup against the lawfully elected POTUS.

  43. skepticismrocks says:

    Well, I’ll give you credit for one thing, you certainly know how to rant. You also seem to have much hate and contempt for people who are going against “your guy.”

    “I already know that all of Polairk’s analyses are crap”

    Thank-you for proving you have preconceived bias. You don’t even need to read Dr. Polland’s book to know his analyses are “crap.” Yet, you take everything Mr. Woodman states as gold. Funny that.

    @Slartibartfast

  44. skepticismrocks says:

    Well, I’ll give you credit for one thing, you certainly know how to rant. You also seem to have much hate and contempt for people who are going against “your guy.”

    “I already know that all of Polairk’s analyses are crap”

    Thank-you for proving you have preconceived bias. You don’t even need to read Dr. Polland’s book to know his analyses are “crap.” Yet, you take everything Mr. Woodman states as gold. Funny that.

    @Slartibartfast

  45. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    The state of Hawai’i said the president was born there – that is all of the information that is relevant to his eligibility. Find someone with real and relevant expertise and show them Polarik’s work and his conclusions – see what they say. I can debunk it for myself, but have no intention of wasting my time debunking it for you.

  46. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    The state of Hawai’i said the president was born there – that is all of the information that is relevant to his eligibility. Find someone with real and relevant expertise and show them Polarik’s work and his conclusions – see what they say. I can debunk it for myself, but have no intention of wasting my time debunking it for you.

  47. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    I have hate and contempt for people who wrap themselves in the flag and tell viscous, hateful lies about the president – I feel the same way about the lies that truthers tell about President Bush and Dick the war criminal even though I have enormous contempt for both of them. Regarding Polarik, I don’t have a “preconceived bias”, I’ve already made an educated judgement that Polarik has no credibility whatsoever (based on watching his videos and my own expertise in images – from the study of the mathematics behind image compression). As for Mr. Woodman’s work, its merit is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of how science works, but I already knew that the LFBC was legitimate. If, however, he had come to the conclusion that there was cause for doubt in its legitimacy using the same sound methodology, then I would have revisited my conclusions in light of the new evidence. In the absence of any credible evidence that calls my conclusions into question, I see no reason to reconsider them.

  48. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    I have hate and contempt for people who wrap themselves in the flag and tell viscous, hateful lies about the president – I feel the same way about the lies that truthers tell about President Bush and Dick the war criminal even though I have enormous contempt for both of them. Regarding Polarik, I don’t have a “preconceived bias”, I’ve already made an educated judgement that Polarik has no credibility whatsoever (based on watching his videos and my own expertise in images – from the study of the mathematics behind image compression). As for Mr. Woodman’s work, its merit is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of how science works, but I already knew that the LFBC was legitimate. If, however, he had come to the conclusion that there was cause for doubt in its legitimacy using the same sound methodology, then I would have revisited my conclusions in light of the new evidence. In the absence of any credible evidence that calls my conclusions into question, I see no reason to reconsider them.

  49. skepticismrocks says:

    “but I already knew that the LFBC was legitimate.”

    LOL. Yep, no preconceived bias here.

    Did you read Dr. Polland’s book? Its merit is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of how science works.

  50. skepticismrocks says:

    “but I already knew that the LFBC was legitimate.”

    LOL. Yep, no preconceived bias here.

    Did you read Dr. Polland’s book? Its merit is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of how science works.

  51. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Yes, I had already decided that, in my judgement, President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i had been verified far beyond any reasonable standard (and objectively his birth has been verified so as to be unimpeachable in any US court without extraordinary evidence to the contrary). And the understanding of science that I’ve gleaned from earning my PhD in mathematics and spending 5 years doing post-doctoral research as a scientist says that Polarik is a hack – his methodology is shoddy, his reasoning is faulty, and his bias is evident. To see otherwise indicates a pretty severe cognitive bias on your part – sorry. Don’t worry, though, that’s just my opinion… ;-)

  52. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Yes, I had already decided that, in my judgement, President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i had been verified far beyond any reasonable standard (and objectively his birth has been verified so as to be unimpeachable in any US court without extraordinary evidence to the contrary). And the understanding of science that I’ve gleaned from earning my PhD in mathematics and spending 5 years doing post-doctoral research as a scientist says that Polarik is a hack – his methodology is shoddy, his reasoning is faulty, and his bias is evident. To see otherwise indicates a pretty severe cognitive bias on your part – sorry. Don’t worry, though, that’s just my opinion… ;-)

  53. skepticismrocks says:

    “The state of Hawai’i said the president was born there – that is all of the information that is relevant to his eligibility.”

    This is not necessarily true for quite a few reasons. I usually don’t even go this far into it, however, because Obama has more than likely been committing crimes he could be impeached over.

    “Find someone with real and relevant expertise and show them Polarik’s work and his conclusions – see what they say.”

    Okay. What’s that? The “expert” will only be an “expert” if he’s an anti-birther? OK, that makes perfect sense.

    I can debunk it for myself,”

    You can do no such thing.

    @Slartibartfast

  54. skepticismrocks says:

    “The state of Hawai’i said the president was born there – that is all of the information that is relevant to his eligibility.”

    This is not necessarily true for quite a few reasons. I usually don’t even go this far into it, however, because Obama has more than likely been committing crimes he could be impeached over.

    “Find someone with real and relevant expertise and show them Polarik’s work and his conclusions – see what they say.”

    Okay. What’s that? The “expert” will only be an “expert” if he’s an anti-birther? OK, that makes perfect sense.

    I can debunk it for myself,”

    You can do no such thing.

    @Slartibartfast

  55. skepticismrocks says:

    “The state of Hawai’i said the president was born there – that is all of the information that is relevant to his eligibility.”

    This is not necessarily true for quite a few reasons.

    “Find someone with real and relevant expertise and show them Polarik’s work and his conclusions – see what they say.”

    Okay. What’s that? The “expert” will only be an “expert” if he’s an anti-birther? OK, that makes perfect sense.

    “I can debunk it for myself,”

    You can do no such thing.

    @Slartibartfast

  56. skepticismrocks says:

    “The state of Hawai’i said the president was born there – that is all of the information that is relevant to his eligibility.”

    This is not necessarily true for quite a few reasons.

    “Find someone with real and relevant expertise and show them Polarik’s work and his conclusions – see what they say.”

    Okay. What’s that? The “expert” will only be an “expert” if he’s an anti-birther? OK, that makes perfect sense.

    “I can debunk it for myself,”

    You can do no such thing.

    @Slartibartfast

  57. skepticismrocks says:

    “Yes, I had already decided that, in my judgement, President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i had been verified far beyond any reasonable standard”

    That’s not what you stated. You stated:

    “but I already knew that the LFBC was legitimate.”

    Like I asked before but you conveniently didn’t answer, did you vote for Obama? For that matter, are you a supporter of Obama?

    “To see otherwise indicates a pretty severe cognitive bias on your part”

    The one with “cognitive bias” is you. It’s pretty obvious you’re full of BS. I’ll ask you for the third time, did you read Dr. Polland’s book?

    @Slartibartfast

  58. skepticismrocks says:

    “Yes, I had already decided that, in my judgement, President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i had been verified far beyond any reasonable standard”

    That’s not what you stated. You stated:

    “but I already knew that the LFBC was legitimate.”

    Like I asked before but you conveniently didn’t answer, did you vote for Obama? For that matter, are you a supporter of Obama?

    “To see otherwise indicates a pretty severe cognitive bias on your part”

    The one with “cognitive bias” is you. It’s pretty obvious you’re full of BS. I’ll ask you for the third time, did you read Dr. Polland’s book?

    @Slartibartfast

  59. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Polarik’s MO is take image artifacts and use them to assert fraud in the underlying document – anyone with legitimate expertise in authenticating documents would realize that NO analysis could sustain the claims he makes, let alone analysis as shoddy and naive as his. You can find a thorough debunking of Polarik’s work dating back to December 2008 at:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/ron-polarik/

    Doc Conspiracy also has a guide to birther debunking where you can find the answers to any other lies you might like to tell…

  60. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Polarik’s MO is take image artifacts and use them to assert fraud in the underlying document – anyone with legitimate expertise in authenticating documents would realize that NO analysis could sustain the claims he makes, let alone analysis as shoddy and naive as his. You can find a thorough debunking of Polarik’s work dating back to December 2008 at:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/ron-polarik/

    Doc Conspiracy also has a guide to birther debunking where you can find the answers to any other lies you might like to tell…

  61. skepticismrocks says:

    That site is an anti-birther site. Dr. Conspiracy shares the same preconceived bias as you. Plus, the “debunking” is non-existent. Well, unless you call ad hominem attacks against Mr. Polland “debunking” him.

    Did you read Dr. Polland’s book? @Slartibartfast

  62. skepticismrocks says:

    That site is an anti-birther site. Dr. Conspiracy shares the same preconceived bias as you. Plus, the “debunking” is non-existent. Well, unless you call ad hominem attacks against Mr. Polland “debunking” him.

    Did you read Dr. Polland’s book? @Slartibartfast

  63. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    One statement (“the LFBC was legit”) follows from the other (“the president was born in Hawai’i”) and the statements in the public record. You’re free to believe that I have a cognitive bias (actually, we all have them to one degree or another…), but you should also test the hypothesis that you have one as well – if you can’t falsify that hypothesis then you have a problem.

    No, I didn’t waste my time on Polarik’s book and your implied assertion that all anti-birthers are supporters of President Obama is false so my support for him is irrelevant. In fact, I criticize him harshly – from the left (since he’s a center-right moderate who’s policies and positions are to the right of Nixon’s…).

  64. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    One statement (“the LFBC was legit”) follows from the other (“the president was born in Hawai’i”) and the statements in the public record. You’re free to believe that I have a cognitive bias (actually, we all have them to one degree or another…), but you should also test the hypothesis that you have one as well – if you can’t falsify that hypothesis then you have a problem.

    No, I didn’t waste my time on Polarik’s book and your implied assertion that all anti-birthers are supporters of President Obama is false so my support for him is irrelevant. In fact, I criticize him harshly – from the left (since he’s a center-right moderate who’s policies and positions are to the right of Nixon’s…).

  65. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    A considered judgement is different than a preconceived bias. The debunking you speak of comes complete with arguments by lawyers (and other people who have educated themselves on the issues) supported by citations to the Constitution, statutes, and court decisions as well as Founding Fathers and Constitutional scholars (and EVERYONE before, say, 2004… well, except for the majority in the Dred Scott decision). All sides of an argument don’t have equal merit and none of the birther arguments have any merit at all.

  66. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    A considered judgement is different than a preconceived bias. The debunking you speak of comes complete with arguments by lawyers (and other people who have educated themselves on the issues) supported by citations to the Constitution, statutes, and court decisions as well as Founding Fathers and Constitutional scholars (and EVERYONE before, say, 2004… well, except for the majority in the Dred Scott decision). All sides of an argument don’t have equal merit and none of the birther arguments have any merit at all.

  67. skepticismrocks says:

    “No, I didn’t waste my time on Polarik’s book”

    LOL. That’s all I wanted to hear. Thank-you for finally being honest.@Slartibartfast

  68. skepticismrocks says:

    “No, I didn’t waste my time on Polarik’s book”

    LOL. That’s all I wanted to hear. Thank-you for finally being honest.@Slartibartfast

  69. skepticismrocks says:

    “The debunking you speak of comes complete with arguments by lawyers”

    You mean anti-birthers who are lawyers. Nice try.

    “none of the birther arguments have any merit at all.”

    You’re hopeless.

    @Slartibartfast

  70. skepticismrocks says:

    “The debunking you speak of comes complete with arguments by lawyers”

    You mean anti-birthers who are lawyers. Nice try.

    “none of the birther arguments have any merit at all.”

    You’re hopeless.

    @Slartibartfast

  71. new horizon press says:
  72. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    You see merit in a movement that has racked up over 80 losses (and no victories) in frivolous lawsuits and $20,000 in sanctions in court vs. the people who accurately predicted the outcomes of those cases ahead of time? That’s you’re right, but it seems more than a little stupid to me. Please demonstrate a birther argument that has any legal merit (i.e. in any way calls the president’s eligibility into question or suggests that the Constitution wasn’t followed in his election, certification, and inauguration). Since you can’t do that (nor can any other birther), the birther position lacks any merit whatsoever (the birther movement is sure chock full of bigots and liars if that’s any consolation…).

  73. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    You see merit in a movement that has racked up over 80 losses (and no victories) in frivolous lawsuits and $20,000 in sanctions in court vs. the people who accurately predicted the outcomes of those cases ahead of time? That’s you’re right, but it seems more than a little stupid to me. Please demonstrate a birther argument that has any legal merit (i.e. in any way calls the president’s eligibility into question or suggests that the Constitution wasn’t followed in his election, certification, and inauguration). Since you can’t do that (nor can any other birther), the birther position lacks any merit whatsoever (the birther movement is sure chock full of bigots and liars if that’s any consolation…).

  74. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    I’ve been honest all along – does Polarik say that his previous videos are unmitigated crap in his book? I doubt that he does anything more than make up more lies and slipshod reasoning. I hope your weren’t a fool enough to pay him for it.

  75. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    I’ve been honest all along – does Polarik say that his previous videos are unmitigated crap in his book? I doubt that he does anything more than make up more lies and slipshod reasoning. I hope your weren’t a fool enough to pay him for it.

  76. skepticismrocks says:

    I will quote “new horizon press:”

    “Thank you, Dave! As an author with a controversial topic, my hope is that people will actually read the book and then judge it carefully and honestly, rather than just dismissing it out of hand. When that happens, it’s greatly appreciated. So thanks again!”

    You have failed to judge Dr. Polland’s book carefully and honestly. I would also argue you have failed to do the same with Mr. Woodman’s book. You accept what Woodman says just because it supports your viewpoints, while you ignore Dr. Polland because he is against many of your viewpoints.

  77. skepticismrocks says:

    I will quote “new horizon press:”

    “Thank you, Dave! As an author with a controversial topic, my hope is that people will actually read the book and then judge it carefully and honestly, rather than just dismissing it out of hand. When that happens, it’s greatly appreciated. So thanks again!”

    You have failed to judge Dr. Polland’s book carefully and honestly. I would also argue you have failed to do the same with Mr. Woodman’s book. You accept what Woodman says just because it supports your viewpoints, while you ignore Dr. Polland because he is against many of your viewpoints.

  78. skepticismrocks says:

    To sum up my reasoning into one word against your rant:

    Standing.

    You sure do like to try and brainwash though don’t you?

    @Slartibartfast

  79. skepticismrocks says:

    To sum up my reasoning into one word against your rant:

    Standing.

    You sure do like to try and brainwash though don’t you?

    @Slartibartfast

  80. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    I don’t see a birther candidate on the horizon (what the birthers need to gain standing [which is required by the Constitution, by the way]), but even if there was and they managed to file a proper lawsuit (something Orly has shown herself to be incapable of) it would just result in a ruling similar to the court in Ankeny v. Daniels – President Obama is a natural born citizen and the birthers are hatriot scum (that last bit is just my opinion ;-)).

  81. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    I don’t see a birther candidate on the horizon (what the birthers need to gain standing [which is required by the Constitution, by the way]), but even if there was and they managed to file a proper lawsuit (something Orly has shown herself to be incapable of) it would just result in a ruling similar to the court in Ankeny v. Daniels – President Obama is a natural born citizen and the birthers are hatriot scum (that last bit is just my opinion ;-)).

  82. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Having already made a careful and honest judgement that Polarik is a hack I am assuming that his book will provide no evidence that calls my conclusions into question. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a closed mind and one that has already made a rational judgement based on the available data. Sorry, but Polarik’s lies don’t deserve a second chance with me.

  83. Slartibartfast says:

    @skepticismrocks

    Having already made a careful and honest judgement that Polarik is a hack I am assuming that his book will provide no evidence that calls my conclusions into question. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a closed mind and one that has already made a rational judgement based on the available data. Sorry, but Polarik’s lies don’t deserve a second chance with me.

  84. ◄Dave► says:

    @new horizon press John, please explain why this and several other comments here are blank. ◄Dave►

  85. ◄Dave► says:

    @new horizon press John, please explain why this and several other comments here are blank. ◄Dave►

  86. new horizon press says:

    Dave, it appears to be a malfunction of the livefyre commenting system — which is supposed to be one of the best choices out there. It’s possible it’s a wordpress malfunction, but I suspect it’s livefyre.

    Livefyre has been uninstalled and reinstalled now. Hopefully we won’t see any more glitches. If so, we may have to consider changing to a different commenting system. Fortunately comments to date should be transferable.

    I wrote a fairly long reply to you, but it got deleted in the glitch… :-(

  87. John Woodman says:

    @skepticismrocks I had read some of Polland’s most important analysis earlier, but hadn’t attempted to tackle his whole book (which contains that analysis).

    I kind of suspected I might eventually be called upon to take a look at the short-form birth certificate, and Polland’s book on it, which I’ve done now — spent much of my Labor Day on that. I’ll have some comments on it which I may post as a separate article here.

  88. John Woodman says:

    @skepticismrocks I had read some of Polland’s most important analysis earlier, but hadn’t attempted to tackle his whole book (which contains that analysis).

    I kind of suspected I might eventually be called upon to take a look at the short-form birth certificate, and Polland’s book on it, which I’ve done now — spent much of my Labor Day on that. I’ll have some comments on it which I may post as a separate article here.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      “I kind of suspected I might eventually be called upon to take a look at the short-form birth certificate, and Polland’s book on it, which I’ve done now — spent much of my Labor Day on that. ”

      Thank-you. No matter what conclusions you draw, you’re actually practicing what you’ve been preaching and decided to read the book! Therefore, I must give you kudos.

      I’d personally love to see a debate between you and Mr. Polland. I think you guys actually agree on quite a bit from what I’ve read.

  89. ◄Dave► says:

    @Slartibartfast @skepticismrocks

    “And the understanding of science that I’ve gleaned from earning my PhD in mathematics and spending 5 years doing post-doctoral research…”

    Ahhh… That explains it. As an autodidact firmly grounded in the real world, it has been my advantage to be free to notice that the level of common sense and faculty for amassing wisdom of any individual, is roughly inversely proportional to the amount of time one has spent immersed in the stupefying morass of academia. ◄Dave►

  90. ◄Dave► says:

    @Slartibartfast @skepticismrocks

    “And the understanding of science that I’ve gleaned from earning my PhD in mathematics and spending 5 years doing post-doctoral research…”

    Ahhh… That explains it. As an autodidact firmly grounded in the real world, it has been my advantage to be free to notice that the level of common sense and faculty for amassing wisdom of any individual, is roughly inversely proportional to the amount of time one has spent immersed in the stupefying morass of academia. ◄Dave►

    • Slartibartfast says:

      I think that you have neglected critical thinking when putting together your personal syllabus – you should try learning calculus, it’s very good for building critical thinking skills. And I would point out that you are not firmly rooted in the real world – you are firmly rooted in Obama Derangement Syndrome. You’ve decided that anything which supports President Obama is false and anything which discredits him must be true – what a pitiful way to live.

      • ◄Dave► says:

        I would not wish to trade my critical thinking skills for yours, nor my open mind for your rather shuttered model. If mine were as myopic as yours, I wouldn’t even be on this site discussing the book that caused me to change it. Like your attitude toward Polland’s book, I would undoubtedly never have read it, much less written an honest review of it, and proceeded to post apologies around the net at places where I had previously asserted that the PDF was an ‘obvious forgery.’ Check to make sure your shades aren’t on backwards; you appear to be peering into a mirror. ◄Dave►

  91. John Woodman says:
  92. John Woodman says:

    Grr… I posted another fairly long reply, only to have it trashed by the comment system.

    For that reason, I have deactivated Livefyre. At the moment, we’re running on the plain ol’ WordPress comment system. I may switch to something else, we’ll see.

    Very brief summary of my lost comment: Dave’s theory has merit; therefore it’s not a bad idea to examine the short-form certificate; I’ve spent much of Labor Day reading Polland’s book and examining the short form, and plan to comment later.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      The native comment system works reasonably well, if you have ASKIMET enabled to handle the spam, which it does an amazing job at. May I suggest that you enable at least three levels of nesting of the comments… ◄Dave►

      • John Woodman says:

        Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll have to install Akismet.

      • John Woodman says:

        Hey Dave, do you know off the top of your head the short route for getting an avatar to show up?

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Under [Settings][Discussion] enable [Show Avatars]; but it appears you have already done that. I would also suggest under [Default Avatar] selecting [Identicon].

          If one logs in with a valid Real ID, i.e. a matching e-mail address and website that WP or Blogger, etc. recognizes, their chosen Avatar should appear. I noticed mine did. ◄Dave►

  93. Slartibartfast says:
  94. Slartibartfast says:

    @John Woodman

    I don’t think you’ve got the problem fixed yet, Mr. Woodman. I do think this is an interesting commenting system and worth working through the bugs, though…

  95. John Woodman says:
  96. John Woodman says:

    Apologies for the growing pains, folks! I’ve had to disable the livefyre commenting system and return to WordPress’ native system. There were really no options to change to get livefyre to work.

    Hopefully things should stabilize quickly now.

    • Dhara Mistry says:

      Hey John,

      My apologies for not getting back to you earlier on this. I am having an engineer look at your issue at the moment. If you have any other details that will help us get this resolved for you, please let us know.

      I will keep you posted on this. Let us know if you have any other questions John. We’ll be more than happy to assist!

      Thanks,
      Dhara

  97. John Woodman says:

    Dave, it appears to be a malfunction of the livefyre commenting system — which is supposed to be one of the best choices out there. It’s possible it’s a wordpress malfunction, but I suspect it’s livefyre.

    Livefyre has been uninstalled and reinstalled now. Hopefully we won’t see any more glitches. If so, we may have to consider changing to a different commenting system. Fortunately comments to date should be transferable.

    I wrote a fairly long reply to you, but it got deleted in the glitch… :-(

    • Dhara Mistry says:

      Hey there,

      I am a community manager at Livefyre. Sorry to break in to this conversation here. We hate to see you’re having trouble with Livefyre. If you could let us know what the issue was, we’d be happy to look in to it and get it fixed for you.

      Thanks!
      Dhara

  98. John Woodman says:

    This is such a contentious issue, with such strongly held opinions on both sides, it’s very, very easy to slip into an adversarial mode.

    I was just writing a bit of commentary over on Goodreads.com about how people’s views on the topic are so widely different, and why that’s actually reasonable: many of us have been exposed to different sources of information. And those sources (which give every appearance of being credible) have been feeding us different things.

    As an example: one (apparently credible) source says: We’ve consulted with experts. These are credible people. One has 50 years’ typography experience. One is a Photoshop expert who’s written dozens of books. And so on. In fact, we’ve consulted with about 20 different experts, and all of them agree: the birth certificate is clearly and indisputably a forgery.

    Another (apparently credible) source may say: These birthers are simply crazy people, for the most part. This is not even a legitimate question to ask. This is an issue that is simply driven by racism, and it was settled long ago.

    I personally think the truth is somewhere in between.

    But the key thing here, I think, is to understand that just because some of us may disagree doesn’t mean that anything’s necessarily wrong with those with an opposite viewpoint. We simply find ourselves on opposite sides of a very contentious, controversial issue, with lots of conflicting information in the public sphere.

    So as much as possible, I’d like to encourage folks to remember that as we deal with others.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      I somewhat agree with your position Mr. Woodman. After taking much time to research BOTH sides of the issue, I’ve come to conclude that Obama has been committing crimes but this does NOT necessarily mean he was not born in Hawaii. A lot of “birther” evidence has plenty of “merit,” and the same thing goes with anti-birther evidence. People like me are usually alienated from both groups because I happen to disagree with many arguments from both sides.

      I would like to point out I have not read a single comment from a true “birther” on this thread. Instead, I (a skeptic) have been arguing against people who are obviously driven by Democratic partisanship (my take on it anyway).

      Ignoring technical analyses for a moment, here are some things that force me to use common sense to question the short form birth certificate:

      The White House claimed the short form was requested in 2008 when the date stamp on the short form says 2007:
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

      Obama claimed the short form was released two and a half years ago when the date stamp on the short form says 2007:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GvnpGruS6k

      Janice Okubo claimed the short form was requested in 2008 even though the date stamp says 2007:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc5JE0JAqlk ;
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/

      The White House linking to a fake birth certificate claiming it was authentic:
      http://www.youtube.com/watchv=CC2Vm5fnkVI ;
      http://www.wnd.com/index.phpfa=PAGE.view&pageId=331525

      SSN has a zipcode for a Connecticut mailing address:
      http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/dr-corsi-obamas-connecticut-social.html

      Obama claims his birth date is weeks before the “official” date:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WWv_kZjhFQ

      According to a 2009 internal NSIS report, Sarah Obama claimed Obama was born in Mombasa:
      http://www.wnd.com/files/110524nsisbulletin3.pdf

      Now, this circumstantial evidence CAN be explained away by things such as “mistakes” and “clerical errors,” but it’s the quantity that I find quite disturbing. Anyone with a true objective lens should be able to tell the “birthers” aren’t all just “racist” and “idiots.” Not all Obots are partisan hacks who can’t get out of their bubble either. Both sides bring up interesting arguments.

      Now, back to Polland’s technical analyses, what I believe Polland proves is simply that the short form birth certificate COULD have been forged. Many other experts have agreed with Polland’s assessment. Couple this with all the circumstantial evidence I’ve seen over the years, I truly do believe at this point that the short form birth certificate is more than likely a forgery. The debossed seal, the date stamp, and the border are the key characteristics of this document that I consider when adding it onto the circumstantial evidence I have already typed.

      Thank-you for your time Mr. Woodman. I am looking forward to your next article.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        As I see that Polarik’s credibility has been addressed by obsolete, I’ll just note that according to official statements and sworn testimony of Hawai’i DoH officials, the COLB is a valid Hawai’ian birth certificate (likely ordered by the campaign in 2007 in anticipation of proving President Obama’s eligibility. Saying that the COLB might be forged is accusing these officials of perjury (and President Obama of worse). Doing so without sufficient evidence is worthy of ridicule and contempt. How would you go about proving the legitimacy of your birth and what has President Obama done it this regard which hasn’t been either the same as his predecessors or incredibly more transparent?

        I am not, by the way, a Democratic partisan (I am a liberal, but that’s not relevant to this discussion). I am biased towards the facts – which in this case point to ALL of the birther arguments being completely without merit – and I am biased against seditious bigots. All birthers have decided to ignore any facts which are not detrimental to President Obama – in other words, they are prejudiced against him not based on what he has said or done, but based on their personal dislike for him (or the false image that right-wing propaganda has painted of him – his policies are to the right of Nixon, after all…). Thus the act of being a birther (and by birther, I mean someone who believes President Obama to be ineligible for his office) is both one of bigotry by it’s very nature, but explicitly an act of sedition as well because birthers are attempting to usurp the Constitution and incite a coup against the president lawfully elected by the people. I don’t believe that the hateful ravings of such people deserve equal time – or any at all – in a serious discussion.

  99. obsolete says:

    Polland’s “research” has been debunked by Dr. Neal Krawetz. – an actual expert.
    Quote: “Krawetz holds a Bachelor’s in Computer and Information Science, and a doctorate in Computer Science. His specialties are in computer security, software development, and computer forensics. Dr. Krawetz has given presentations on how digital images can be manipulated.”

    Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II
    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

    Polland has gone off the deep end straight down the rabbit hole- he now claims that every photo and video of young Obama is fake, and questions whether his Mom was real or a composite fiction.
    He got in trouble on FreeRepublic for posting his own altered copies of Obama’s COLB and trying to pass them off as something Obama posted, until the Freepers called foul and he admitted his deception.

    He also now claims that he made Obama’s COLB in the first place. Anyone who considers him an “expert” is lacking the whole picture about him.

    More here:
    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html

    • John Woodman says:

      Hi, and thanks for the comments!

      I’m aware of some of Krawetz’s interaction with Polland. And having read some of Dr. Krawetz’s commentary on the inner workings of PDF files, I do also regard Krawetz as an expert. In fact, he’s mentioned in my book, and is one of the minority of experts whose comments regarding the birth certificate pass my own analysis.

      My position, though, has been to set that aside as best as reasonably possible and give Polland a fair hearing, with the idea that if I end up agreeing with Dr. Krawetz, then that says something, and if I end up disagreeing with Dr. Krawetz, well, then it becomes more interesting for somewhat obvious reasons.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Then I’ll be interested to see how interesting your analysis of Polarik is – I hypothesize that it will be boring (due to your agreement with Dr. Krawetz) since any objective assessment of the facts will not favor Polarik (this is my opinion, but it is based on my knowledge of his work rather than my disagreement with his conclusions – we’ll see what opinion you develop of the man…).

        • skepticismrocks says:

          “Then I’ll be interested to see how interesting your analysis of Polarik is – I hypothesize that it will be boring.”

          I hypothesize it could be VERY interesting.

          “since any objective assessment of the facts will not favor Polarik”

          Come now. I don’t agree with everything Mr. Polland has written, and sometimes I think he goes a little overboard in his analyses, but he presents MANY facts that have merit and put the short form into question.

          “this is my opinion”

          Your “opinions” are just attacks against Mr. Polland. No substance, just attacks.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      “He also now claims that he made Obama’s COLB in the first place. Anyone who considers him an “expert” is lacking the whole picture about him.”

      This is a lie.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      “Polland’s “research” has been debunked by Dr. Neal Krawetz. – an actual expert.”

      Thank-you for proving one of my earlier points! Only anti-birthers are “experts.” And anything they say about a “birther’s” analysis must mean they “debunked” them. What’s up with this liberal usage of the word “debunk” anyhow? Discussing another possibility means you “debunked” the original possibility? Okay then.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Sorry, but we’ve been following the birthers for over three years now – we’re well aware that their ideas have no merit, their experts have no relevant credentials, their conclusions have no support in fact, and their legal theories are frivolous crap. Just because you’re a noob to the issue, don’t assume that others haven’t come to their opinions based on a thoughtful consideration of the evidence.

        • skepticismrocks says:

          Wow…just, wow. I’m far from a “noob” and your post is horribly ironic.

          I truly do pity you.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Yeah, I know, you’re not a noob – you’re a non-birther ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) sufferer. If you feel that the birthers have any credible evidence, why don’t you present it?

            • Chester A. Arthur says:

              “Yeah, I know, you’re not a noob”

              You do realize you’re now admitting you’re a liar correct?

              “you’re a non-birther ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) sufferer. ”

              No, I’m a skeptic who has done research on both sides of the issue. A lot of “birther” evidence is “crap,” heck, a lot of what Polland has to say at times is “crap,” HOWEVER, I don’t dismiss a person or an entire group like you do. Both “birthers” and anti-birthers have presented valid evidence.

              “If you feel that the birthers have any credible evidence, why don’t you present it?”

              You’ve asked this quite a few times, and I’ve presented what I consider to be some of the best “birther” evidence. It’s just not good enough for you. So, what can I say other than we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

            • Chester A. Arthur says:

              Oh, forgot to mention, Chester A. Arthur is the usual handle I’ve been using. skepticismrocks is me. I use that handle when I have to log-in to my account. Sorry if there was confusion.

            • Chester A. Arthur says:

              Oh, and one last thing, despite what I’ve seen some people type on some certain sites, I am not Dr. Polland. I believe Dr. Polland brings lots of good common sense evidence to the table, but some of his analyses can be pretty lacking. Nonetheless, I believe his book is worth reading just as Mr. Woodman’s book is worth reading.

              I am also looking forward to Woodman’s analysis on the short form (if he chooses to do so). I think I’ll find what he says a lot more objective than what a certain anti-birther expert says (while attacking Polland in an analysis, and even saying none of it matters anyways).

              P.S.

              Mr. Polland has stated he doesn’t agree with what a lot of the “birther” “experts” have claimed about the long form. Some of his analysis on the long form is very similar to what I’ve seen Woodman write.

        • skepticismrocks says:

          Oh, and, I should also mention, you do realize you’re suffering from “sports team syndrome” no?

          Who is “we’ve”?

          Your generalizations of “birthers” and anti-birthers only serves to cause conflict.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            I used we’ve as there was at least one other person posting on this site that’s been following the birthers for quite a while (“obsolete”), but my sentiment is shared by pretty much the entire birther debunking community. If I’m so delusional, then why don’t you show me all of the birther evidence of crimes being committed? It should be easy to prove that I don’t know what I’m talking about, right? To show that there is evidence that Dr. Fukino perjured herself? Either President Obama was born in Hawai’i and the COLB is legit or she gave false testimony under oath (by the way, I thought that most birthers were supposed to be Christians, but they seem to like bearing false witness an awful lot…). Since the birthers stridently believe the former, they are calling Dr. Fukino a criminal liar without a shred of evidence to back it up. You may think that’s okay as long as it’s directed at someone you don’t like, but most of us feel that “innocent until proven guilty” is an American value and that making baseless accusations are not.

            • skepticismrocks says:

              “but my sentiment is shared by pretty much the entire birther debunking community”

              Not everyone is the same. I’ve actually had conversations with many “anti-birthers” who have been honest and don’t resort to childish name calling. You’re one of the worst of the anti-birthers.

              “If I’m so delusional,”

              Who said you were delusional? Is this a confession?

              “then why don’t you show me all of the birther evidence of crimes being committed?”

              The “evidence” isn’t good enough for you. With many anti-birthers, the “evidence” needs to be ironclad and able to prove crimes with no doubt whatsoever. Now, if Obama were to release his records…

              As for the rest of your rant, you don’t wish to debate, but instead, you just want to call names and bait people into doing the same to you. You may be fine with the liberal thinking of “feelings trump facts and logic,” but I don’t agree.

              Evidence includes:

              The SSN from Connecticut, the date stamp on the short form, the debossed seal, the selective service registration form with a different date stamp than all the rest, the White House linking to a forged “birth certificate” by Dr. Polland, many claims to a 2008 request date of the short form when the date stamp shows 2007, Barry Soetoro, Soebarkah, Obama Sr. never married to Dunham, a person claiming Barack Obama was not on the original birth index of the HDOH but it was later changed, the HDOH 1960-64 Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records (birth names of adopted children, which helps support my own pet theory), Dunham’s suspicious SSN application, refusal to release the patient records, the mix-up between two different hospitals, and many other things that have been discussed.

              Like I’ve stated before, it’s the sheer quantity of this information that promotes a majority of my skepticism. Insider information has also greatly helped.

              One thing I’ve noticed anti-birthers do far too often is try to trap “birthers” into catch 22′s. Two major topics related to this are standing and the release of records.

              Many anti-birthers don’t want to debate, they want to condemn and ridicule. You definitely fit this category.

              Now, excuse me while I go converse with the only true “experts,” those who have “birther” beliefs (see what I did there?)

              Oh, there’s also Albert Renshaw and Joseph Newcomer, they’re pretty good experts too.

  100. obsolete says:

    Quote: “I personally think the truth is somewhere in between. ”
    I respectfully disagree. There is an objective reality in the details- The birthers want to have their own facts. I grow tired of the “Scientists claim Earth round- opinions differ” type of reporting.

    They disregard the the Hawaiian DOH and Hawaii’s last two administrations and Governors, who have steadfastly claimed that Obama was born in Hawaii, they have the proper records on file, and Obama has released accurate copies of those. The State Dept. released papers through a birther’s FOIA that determined the State Dept. looked into Obama’s citizenship in the late 60′s/early 70′s, and concluded he was born in Hawaii.
    Birthers “Just want to ask questions”, but have not provided any shred of proof that Obama was born elsewhere, or, as you seem to have concluded, that anything is actually wrong with his records.

    The birthers are simply wrong. Obama has proven this to a greater degree than almost anyone has proven their birthplace, and certainly more than any other politician.
    Obama was born in Hawaii. That is a fact.

    PS- I am buying the Kindle version of your book. Looking forward to it.

    • skepticismrocks says:

      “There is an objective reality in the details- The birthers want to have their own facts. I grow tired of the “Scientists claim Earth round- opinions differ” type of reporting.”

      The same can be said of anti-birthers.

      “Birthers “Just want to ask questions”, but have not provided any shred of proof that Obama was born elsewhere, or, as you seem to have concluded, that anything is actually wrong with his records.”

      LOL. I won’t say this is an outright lie, but your bias is definitely showing.

      “The birthers are simply wrong.”

      The “birthers” are right on some things and wrong on others. Just like the anti-birthers.

      It’s generalizations like you just wrote that has led me to despise people from both sides. At least with Mr. Woodman, he is trying to present an unbiased opinion.

      “Obama was born in Hawaii. That is a fact.”

      Unless you want to play the semantics game, this is not a “fact.” We both may believe he was born in Hawaii, but it is still not a “fact.”

  101. John Woodman says:

    There is indeed an objective reality in the details. But what are people to believe when they don’t understand the details — and their apparently reliable sources of information tell them the experts (many with impressive credentials) are all in agreement?

    And I think we’re all aware that politicians sometimes lie and engage in corrupt behavior. John F Kennedy, for example, was pretty much of a walking lie, and I think that’s been well documented. He presented to the world a picture of robust health, when the reality was that he really never knew how much time he had left, except that it probably wasn’t long. The fact that he had Addison’s Disease wasn’t his fault, of course, but if his real state of health had been widely known, he would never have been elected.

    I don’t think the average person who is skeptical of Obama’s eligibility is ignorant, unreasonable, racist, etc. I do think they may be getting their information from the wrong sources, but that’s only a conclusion that I reached after doing my own investigation. The average person simply lacks either the time or the expertise to sort out the truth. So typically, we rely on others to do it for us. One person trusts one particular source of news, another person trusts a different source. In this case, some of the sources are in stark disagreement with each other. As you read the book, I think some of the reasons why that is will become more clear.

    In any event, thanks for getting the book! All purchases are appreciated, and all careful, honest reviews are as well. :-)

    • skepticismrocks says:

      What is your opinion on anti-birthers then? You made me curious.

      • John Woodman says:

        I don’t think the average person who takes it as “given” that Obama is eligible, and who looks down on those who still ask questions in light of some of the “expert pronouncements” in the public sphere, is ignorant, unreasonable, etc. I do think that the mainstream news sources they generally rely on don’t always tell us the whole truth, and sometimes fail to report important stories altogether. The average person simply lacks either the time or the expertise to sort out the truth, so typically, we rely on others to do it for us. One person trusts one particular source of news, another person trusts a different source. In this case, some of the sources are in stark disagreement with each other. :)

        It’s easy for people, especially when discussing a highly controversial topic, to make little of the views of people on the other side of the issue. But the reason things are controversial in the first place is usually because there are, in fact, two sides to the story. That being the case, we basically have a choice: we can call each other names (in which case real conversation suffers), or we can try a bit harder to stick to the facts and sort through the complexities.

      • John Woodman says:

        Or, to put it a bit more simply: sometimes when an issue is very controversial, it may hint that both sides have some valid reasons for thinking as they do. And yet, because it is very controversial, they may be more likely to call each other “idiots.” :-)

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Respectfully, I disagree. This president was subjected to higher standards than all of his predecessors – why? Is that right? No other president has shown their birth certificate at all, let alone offered it up to anyone who wished to inspect it, posted it on line, had it verified by the the official statements and sworn testimony of Hawai’i DoH officials during administrations of BOTH parties and furthermore gone to the extraordinary step of requesting a special version of their long form birth certificate be generated by the Hawai’i DoH which was shown to reporters and released online. President Obama has been not just open, but extraordinarily so (at least in this regard) and thus we don’t need to resort to any technical analysis to tell us that the LFBC is valid – the only people with the right (under the US Constitution) to determine the validity of Hawai’ian birth certificates have gone to ludicrous lengths to do so already. There is NO PURPOSE served by a forgery – ANYTHING made and certified by the Hawai’i DoH is valid and if the DoH didn’t make and certify this then they have perjured themselves quite blatantly by saying that they did. In other words, any accusation that the LFBC is a fraud is an accusation that officials of two administrations (one from each party) have committed serious crimes. In other words, the birthers are accusing innocent people of heinous crimes with evidence that you yourself have shown to be crap (and they have much more evidence with even less credibility than that…). Why should they be treated with anything besides contempt?

          • John Woodman says:

            Well, I do understand the viewpoint. But I also understand the viewpoint on the other side as well.

          • John Woodman says:

            And I will add that yes, for those who have accused people of serious crimes on the basis of crap evidence, who continue to do so, then yes, those people are worthy of contempt.

            • skepticismrocks says:

              Yes, but, what is “crap evidence?” This can be a slippery slope. Some birthers claim, however, that there must be a mass conspiracy going on which involves basically everybody. Unfortunately, many anti-birthers take this to mean every single “birther” believes in a “mass conspiracy.” I find it much more believable that if anyone has committed crimes, it would be very few people. It is not a crime just to repeat what you’ve been told because you took someone’s word for it. And just because many Congressmen don’t care about the “birther” issue, does not mean they’re “in on it.” No, not all of Congress is in on it, and no, not every Hawaii official has lied. The statements made from the HDOH for example have been very carefully put together, especially concerning the short form birth certificate. And I like to remind “birthers” and anti-birthers, how many people have seen the actual document in the vault? If “birthers” are “right,” it is very possible only a few people have committed crimes.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Please prove that you did not help Glen Beck rape an murder a young girl or stop making baseless accusations against ANYONE when you haven’t got a shred of credible evidence. Any why haven’t you released your birth certificate? (by sending the original vault copy to me so I can verify it) What are you trying to hide? If you’re going to assume that people are guilty of crimes without evidence, I’m going to assume that you are a moron until you prove otherwise – I don’t think you can do it.

            • skepticismrocks says:

              @Slartibartfast

              I’m not running for president and I’m not a Glen Beck fan.

              I feel sorry for you.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              The Glenn Beck thing is an internet meme I was using to illustrate my point about making accusations without evidence – by questioning the validity of President Obama’s Hawai’ian birth certificate you are accusing a number of people of serious crimes with no evidence. If you think that is an appropriate thing to do, then I feel sorry for you…

            • skepticismrocks says:

              You sure do like catch 22′s don’t you?

              Besides, I’ve already presented plenty of the evidence. If the short form is forged, obviously someone forged it. DUH.

  102. Chester A. Arthur says:

    Browsing through various comments today, I came across a comment from an article entitled:

    “Is Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fake?”

    Mary Heuberger PhD had something very interesting to say:

    “It is very easy to obtain an ‘altered birth certificate’. They can be printed with altered information and produced as ‘accurate birth certificate’ with the State Stamp on the certificate.
    We have adopted three children in two different states. Their Certificates of Live Birth have my husband’s name listed as FATHER and my name listed as MOTHER along with our occupations at that time. All of these certificates state the place and time of birth along with signatures of physician and person who certifies this information as accurate and true.

    Well… the information on our three adopted children’s Birth Certificates is NOT TRUE! We are ADOPTIVE PARENTS, not BIRTH PARENTS.

    I doubt that Barack Obama’s birth certificate that is on display here is accurate according to actual birth records. I believe that this information has be ALTERED as was in our three children’s situations.”

    http://conservativebyte.com/2011/04/is-obamas-birth-certificate-a-fake/

    Going by the 1960-1964 Hawaii Birth Index, I believe she may be onto something.

    • John Woodman says:

      Okay… but can you name an instance other than adoption in which an altered birth certificate is produced? I can’t.

      And there is no allegation, by anybody, that Obama was adopted by Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Obama.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        I don’t agree with the theory, no.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Oh, I would also argue that there is some pretty good evidence that they never did adopt him. Didn’t Sally Jacobs discover that Sr. and Dunham considered giving Barack up for adoption?

        My own theory is that Barack Obama may have been adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

        • John Woodman says:

          He may have been, but that would’ve only (possibly, and possibly not) resulted in a birth certificate identifying Soetoro as the father.

          And from what I’ve seen, once the adoptive parent is filed with the state, then the birth parent listing should go away on the birth certificate. So it appears that no filing was ever made to the State of Hawaii that Obama was adopted by Soetoro.

          • Chester A. Arthur says:

            Yep, that is also a possibility. This article has a bit of information concerning why some people think Obama may have been adopted:

            http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/08/was-obama-adopted-by-indonesian-citizen.html

            I find this particular paragraph interesting:

            “If Obama was adopted in Hawaii by by Lolo Soeroto, it could explain why he won’t release his original birth record. He may not be able to without a court order. The original birth certificate of an adopted person is sealed and can not be retrieved without a court order.”

            How did Obama get his BC? And what reasoning did Hawaii give for releasing it? ;D

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        I don’t think I ever linked directly to the article I keep mentioning. Here it is:

        http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/1960-64-birth-index-includes-legally-invalid-records/

        It’s a definite must read.

        • John Woodman says:

          I am of course familiar with butterdezillion. You just about wouldn’t believe how much stuff I’ve read regarding the birth certificate, or how many hours, days, weeks I’ve spent on the issue. I don’t doubt her sincerity, but I think she sometimes jumps to some invalid conclusions.

          In this case, she maintains that the presence of birth names of a couple of adopted children in the birth index means the whole index is worthless and could say anything. To me, it’s simply an indication that somebody fell down on their job in at least those two particular cases, when it came to removing records that were no longer supposed to be there.

          Note that she makes no allegation that the records contain information that was in any way falsified, although she (rightly) maintains that the records are legally invalid. Failure of a government worker to properly and diligently fulfill all the minute duties of his or her job is not exactly a smoking gun. Frankly, in some offices, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were normal.

          • Chester A. Arthur says:

            Yes, but, like I’ve stated before, it’s the sheer quantity of information that promotes skepticism. There’s WAY too many “mistakes” when it comes to Barack Obama. And also, like I’ve mentioned before, the White House, Obama, and Okubo all claimed the short form was requested in 2008, when the date stamp says 2007. I cannot stress this enough.

            • John Woodman says:

              I spent 3 months running down literally dozens of alleged evidences of fraud, and finding ALL of them baseless in the end. For example, I’ve documented at least 23 different allegations of evidence of fraud that have been publicly supported or promoted by Dr. Jerome Corsi. Not one of those has stood up as good evidence under real investigation. In the end, to me, the sheer volume has become indicative of nothing except the determination of certain people to promote the fraud theory as often as possible, and in as many different ways as possible.

            • ◄Dave► says:

              Baseless? Really? You disappoint me. I was starting to buy your impartiality. I have acknowledged that your book provided a plausible alternative explanation for most of the so-called evidence of the PDF file being generated in a graphics program; but that falls far short of a claim that fraud in documenting Obama’s nativity narrative has not occurred, or that all the anomalies that give rise to the suspicion of fraud are ‘baseless.’ ◄Dave►

            • Chester A. Arthur says:

              @Dave

              I must confess, I have never thought Mr. Woodman was being impartial. I do believe, however, he does a good job of PRETENDING to be impartial.

              That’s just my personal take on it after conversing with him here on his site. If you go back and carefully parse his comments, you’ll notice he favors the rhetoric from anti-birthers.

              Once again, it’s just my take on it. I can’t claim to know for sure because Mr. Woodman is a human being with his own feelings and thoughts, but, I’ve also think I’ve conversed with enough people over the years to get a feel for people.

            • John Woodman says:

              Look, I appear to be damned if I do and damned if I don’t. It appears that no matter how hard I try to be as fair as humanly possible, somebody is going to pop up and claim that I’m biased.

              And do you know what? I undoubtedly am, simply by virtue of the fact that I’m human. Apparently, in order to be credible, I have to be something more than human, or something else than human.

              I invested three entire months of my life, working enough hours for it to be considered a full-time occupation, into doing as fair an investigation into the issues as I possibly could, and I found that ALL of the allegations of fraud that I investigated collapsed under scrutiny. Every single one. If that doesn’t qualify as “baseless,” I’m not quite sure what the meaning of the term is.

              When you’ve invested 3 months of work into running down invalid “proofs” of fraud, and to this point received pretty much nothing in return except for criticism — if I had gone and flipped burgers at McDonald’s instead at least I’d have a couple thousand dollars in spare cash to show for it — at some point you finally begin to feel slightly ripped off. And it’s frankly not by the Obama administration that you begin to feel ripped off. It’s by those who have widely promoted the baseless accusations that you’ve investigated, so that now millions of Americans believe them. And it’s also by those who have NOT invested the 3 months of work, who have not gone out on a limb and written the book, and yet feel completely free to sit back and criticize and accuse. I sincerely hope you’re not in that category.

            • Chester A. Arthur says:

              Woodman,

              No one forced you to do three months of research. You could have supported the tea party in that time period instead.

              Also, your apparent anger is very telling. It looks like me and Dave may have hit a nerve ;D

            • John Woodman says:

              When I’ve spent 3 months — some estimated 500 hours or so — investigating around 30 different allegations of evidence of fraud, and found that every single one of them was invalid, I think that gives me the right to use the word “baseless” in regard to them.

            • Chester A. Arthur says:

              Tsk tsk, you’re once again trying to confuse the issue of the long form with the short form and the eligibility question in general.

              I brought it up once and I’ll bring it up again, from your questions section:

              “For if the birth certificate is a forgery, then we have an illegal President.”

              This is not necessarily true. This is a tactic used by anti-birthers to try and confuse the issue.

            • ◄Dave► says:

              Permit me to cite just one example. You did a workman like, yet barely adequate, job of creating doubt over the typography issue, with the third generation distortion and the creases you found; but you in no way put that issue to bed. That could only be done by a forensic examination of the original typewritten document, if such a thing actually exists. I remain unconvinced that distortion alone explains the differing vertical location of the cross bars on the “t’s, or the differing oblique angles on some of the horizontal elements.

              Therefore, the typographers suspicions are by no means baseless, even though the PDF you examined was unlikely to have been created in a graphics program. If you wish to be taken seriously as an objective seeker of truth, it would behoove you not to make sweeping generalizations beyond the scope of your work, without clearly identifying them as your conjecture, and acknowledging that you don’t and can’t assert them as facts. ◄Dave►

            • John Woodman says:

              Dave, are you aware that Paul Irey himself publicly confessed that he “knew” before even looking at the birth certificate that it was a forgery, and that his entire purpose in examining the birth certificate fonts was simply to try and come up with evidence to prove that?

              Irey simply didn’t go into it in an objective manner.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Sorry guys, but Mr. Woodman is only coming to the same conclusion that any rational person would come to if they looked at any of the birther claims – they are all baseless.

            • ◄Dave► says:

              Come, come, John why continue flirting around lifting your skirt? You may as well disrobe. To challenge the motive or objectivity of Irey is Obot 101. What possible difference does it make to me, the skeptic seeking truth, what caused him to expend the time and effort to carefully examine the typography in the document, if I can see for myself the anomalies he reports? Frankly, I appreciate his forthright reply to the questioner. Why else examine it, if one were not suspicious of the claims of one side or the other of the controversy?

              I took the trouble to read your book, even though I was suspicious of your own objectivity. I found value in it, accepted the evidence you presented, and even changed my own mind in the process. Possessing an uncommonly open and objective mind of my own, your motive for writing it had no bearing on its value and effect to me. Now that I am discerning that you do in fact have an agenda, only disappoints me; it does not change the value and effect of the evidence you presented one iota. Data is data; whoever compiles it, for whatever reason. Ad hominem and/or non sequitur argumentation, rarely gets past my BS filters.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’ve read somewhere that those who are sincere are often misread. Nevertheless, you’re free to believe whatever you want to believe.

              As far as Paul Irey is concerned, I find it entirely relevant when he says that he was looking for what he could to prove that the document was a forgery.

  103. Woofer says:

    Dude, there are 769 comments on that post. Do you expect us to wade through all that crap?

    • Chester A. Arthur says:

      Sorry, I didn’t realize at first your comment was directed towards me.

      There’s this cool feature in browsers where you can find key words on a page. You just gotta click on “edit” then “find.” Just put in key words to look up the relevant information.

      Glad I could help.

      • Woofer says:

        @ Chester A. Arthur

        Yes, altered birth certificates are available in some states. In some states they are identified as altered and in some states not. However, if the Obama long form birth certificate is a copy of an altered birth record for an adoption why would it not show Lolo as the father? (Of course you have no proof Barack was ever adopted by Lolo, do you?) Can you prove that when Hawaii produces altered birth certificates for adoptive parents where the original is altered to appear as if it were an original and not marked as altered? Let’s see one of these and then we can talk.

        You seem to have adopted the common Birther argumentative technique that my father used to call “let’s throw a bunch of s__t against the wall and see what sticks”.

        • John Woodman says:

          An interesting comment, in light of the fact that I investigated more than two dozen different claims of significant evidence of forgery, and found that none of the claims I examined held up under close and careful examination.

        • Chester A. Arthur says:

          “However, if the Obama long form birth certificate is a copy of an altered birth record for an adoption why would it not show Lolo as the father?”

          Nah, it could be a copy of the ORIGINAL.

          “(Of course you have no proof Barack was ever adopted by Lolo, do you?)”

          Please see the bluegrass link I provided. You anti-birthers are so very mean to me :( It makes me cry somewhere deep inside.

          “You seem to have adopted the common Birther argumentative technique that my father used to call “let’s throw a bunch of s__t against the wall and see what sticks”.”

          Now now, your anger toward people who simply disagree with you is showing.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            The answer is: it doesn’t matter. The state of Hawai’i has said that the COLB and LFBC are valid proof of President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i which is sufficient (along with being over 35 and 14 years a resident) to make him eligible for his office. Neither certificate can be used as evidence of what is not on them (like an adoption by Lolo Soetoro) and thus birthers are arguing about something for which they have no evidence except a foreign school record which, if accepted, would prove President Obama a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the presidency.

  104. Woofer says:

    I think the throwing xxxx against the wall analogy is appropriate for Birthers. Just look at the two year old article you posted claiming Obama was adopted. There is no proof of that claim. There is no proof of Indonesian citizenship either. Given both to be true that would not alter Obama’s status as a natural born citizen of the US. The article chides Obama for not releasing an imaginary record showing he gave up his US citizenship. How is that for logic?

    I have not read Ron Polland’s book but I have seen his video’s. Polland’s claim that the COLB was forged by printing the text on mylar film and adhering that to a blank form is ludicrous. His proof consists of “shadows” made by the letters that are physically impossible. He popped up at obamaconspiracy.org and was embarrassed in the comments. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/02/new-polland-video-casts-shadows/

    • Chester A. Arthur says:

      “I have not read Ron Polland’s book”

      LOL. LOL. LOL.

      • Woofer says:

        LOL, why don’t you address Polland’s shadow claim and bring any points you want from the book? I will be waiting.

        • Chester A. Arthur says:

          When did I ever claimed I agreed with Mr. Polland’s “shadow claim?” Are you sure you’re not crying instead of laughing?

          I’ll bring up this point that Poland hints at in his book:
          Why does the date stamp state 2007 when the White House, Obama, and Okubo all claim the short form was requested in 2008? Why did Okubo refuse to state the person requesting the document in question? Why did the White House link to a forged birth certificate by Mr. Poland?

          • Woofer says:

            The June 6, 2007 date stamp on the COLB was explained over two years ago in the FactCheck article on the Obama birth certificate:

            “We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world.” The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.”

            http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

            The fact that Polland even brings it up shows how poor a researcher he is (or worse and more likely he is just a flat out liar).

            As to the claim that the White House linked to a phony COLB that Polarik/Polland made? This turns out to be false too: http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2011/08/polariks-breaking-news-is-broken.html

  105. Woofer says:

    The Obama campaign said they obtained several copies of Obama’s birth certificate in 2007 going into the campaign. The White House never linked to Polarik’s site. Why would Okubo reveal who ordered a birth certificate and what difference would it make? Next.

  106. Woofer says:

    @ John Woodman

    I see you have made acquaintance with Paul Irey. He is quite a piece of work is he not?

    • John Woodman says:

      Woofer, I stated my opinion earlier in these comments that Paul Irey went into his analysis in a biased way. And I do think that’s true.

      At the same time, and based on my limited experience so far, I kind of like the guy. I told him on the phone today, and meant it, that I think he’s an honest and sincere guy. I also think he’s honestly quite wrong in this particular matter. And I told him that as well. People can be biased in a matter, or incorrect in a matter, and still be sincere.

      And yes, I know that Mr. Irey is a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Personally, I tend to take a bit of middle ground when it comes to such things. I don’t tend to buy into conspiracy theories… but I’m also aware that sometimes genuine conspiracies do actually take place.

      I remember reading some months ago about an actual conspiracy in which something like 5 or 6 different people literally conspired to murder one of their close acquaintances. And I remember asking myself, “How on earth could real people really conspire to do something like this?” But they had. So real conspiracies do exist.

      In any event, I find it good to touch base with some of these folks. It may lead to a debate. It might even lead to more than one debate. Or, it may not. We’ll see. :-)

      • Woofer says:

        Conspiracies happen or they wouldn’t have made it a crime. Everyone points to Watergate as the crown jewel of conspiracies to justify that fact that large conspiracies are possible but it is good to note that it was a spectacular failure that ended with the resignation of a president. That was in the early 70s before the days of the internet and 24/7 news.

        I think the likelihood of the existence of a conspiracy is proportional to the square of the inverse of the number of people that would have to be involved. In the case of forgery of the Obama birth certificates the number of people directly involved would have to be significant and probably in the hundreds.

        It is hard to take Mr. Irey seriously when he makes statements like he has made in the Facebook comments on the latest WND article (BTW, the “other” image in that article has already been further redacted to block text that didn’t support Irey’s theory). They really border on buffoonery. If you debate Mr. Irey on the radio I would suggest that you prepare a series of exhibits to be released concurrently with the debate on your web site for reference. If you really want to debate the technical merits of the claims this would be helpful. Otherwise, it would be coming a battle of credentials and “take my word for it” charges. Neither of you are credentialed forensic document examiners so I would consider a discussion of credentials mostly irrelevant. Your work on the book speaks for itself and shows you are interested in applying a scientific approach to the analysis without allowing your admitted preconceived bias to affect your conclusions.

        • John Woodman says:

          > BTW, the “other” image in that article has already been further
          > redacted to block text that didn’t support Irey’s theory

          I am very interested in this claim. Do you have the evidence to back that up?

          • Woofer says:

            I do not have a copy of the original photo but it had the redacted areas in green instead of white like they are now. The image properties shows today’s date.

          • Woofer says:

            It was in the Google cache:
            http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/07/090811AuthenticBC.jpg

            Better grab it quickly!

            • John Woodman says:

              Woofer, you are 100% right — and what’s more, one of those images contains evidence that DIRECTLY AND ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS one of Jerome Corsi’s major “proofs” of forgery! For more information, see the comments on the WND thread.

            • Woofer says:

              You mean the certificate number? When you flip the photo of the back of the document and enhance the contrast it is 61-09945. Yep, I saw that last night. You can just about make out the names too.

            • John Woodman says:

              Yes — but have you grasped the implications of that fact? I’ve just elaborated on them, in a new post.

              Thanks, by the way, for confirming my reading of that number. I got the exact same thing.

  107. Pingback: A Response to All of “The Usual Critics” | Investigating the Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

Comments are closed.