Douglas Vogt Won’t Appear in Debate on Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Claims

I talked to Doug Vogt by phone today, and it’s official — he isn’t going to participate in the upcoming debate on the claims that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

Mr. Vogt gave as his reasons the following:

  • He is simply too busy with his business.
  • His main area of interest, really, is the other stuff he’s into (polar shifts, archaeology, etc.)
  • He doesn’t really feel it’s that important for him to participate in such a debate.

Mr. Vogt seems like a nice guy, and a sincere guy. I can appreciate some of his reasons for not wanting to participate — especially the lack of time.

Sometimes I wonder why I myself spend as much time on this frankly financially unprofitable issue, as I have.

For all of those reasons, I’m not going to give Doug a particularly hard time for his declining to participate.

I did state to him, however, that I had found all of his “irrefutable” points to be quite refutable, and in fact had shown that not one of them represented any good evidence for forgery at all. And I stated that I would of course continue to be public about those facts.

Mr. Vogt disagreed with me on this, but he did also confess that he hadn’t actually read my book (again citing a lack of time).

In any event, I’ve done my part. A public debate with Douglas Vogt is NOT in the works. Those who are interested in my evaluation of his claims may consult Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? for the full version, or this post for the brief version.

This entry was posted in Challenges, What's Happening. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Douglas Vogt Won’t Appear in Debate on Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Claims

  1. Ellen says:

    Why don’t you suggest that the debate need not be a live radio debate, but simply a debate of postings in which he will put his claims on line at some site and you respond to them and vice versa. Ideally the site should promise not to edit the postings, so long as they are not salacious and do not call names. It could be on this site, or on his site, or both.

  2. Woofer says:

    Mr. Vogt may have moved on and be too busy for the debate but I see he is on Orly Taitz witness list for the upcoming ballot challenge hearing on January 26.

    • John Woodman says:

      Talking to Doug Vogt, it seems clear that he really believes he’s got the goods on Mr. Obama. I honestly kind of hate to disappoint the guy.

      Unfortunately, as time goes on I seem to see more and more some of the unhealthy results of this particular myth. At the moment I’m feeling that it’s not producing good results for attorney Orly Taitz, for example. I can see from here that she’s stressed out and potentially in danger of additional financial setback.

      I think it’s important for Orly, Doug Vogt and others who’ve sincerely bought in to the forgery theories to read the book I wrote. There’s simply no good evidence at all to support their risking their own well-being on the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.

  3. Paul Smith says:

    I could care less whether the Certificate of Live Birth (NOT a birth certificate) is valid or not. If Barry was born in Hawaii, that makes him a traitor (citizen) in addition to being a usurper (not natural born).

    See:

    MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

    • John Woodman says:

      I’ve read it, Paul. But just because Leo claims it, doesn’t make it so.

      As many others have noted, Donofrio’s “logic” in that article is totally bogus, and the claim that Minor v. Happersett created any definition of “natural born citizen” — let alone a “binding precedent” — is simply false.

      And I say this as someone who would be just as happy to find that Obama was ineligible to be President.

      • John Woodman says:

        My father-in-law (who’s visiting) and I actually had a brief conversation about this at the dinner table this evening. He asked me what was going on in regard to birtherism and I gave him a bit of an update. At that point, he commented something along the lines of, “I’d just as soon he was ineligible.” And I replied something along the lines of, “I know, ‘Dad.’ I can relate.”

      • Paul Smith says:

        I agree that the SCOTUS must resolve the issue but I see no way for them to find other than what they found in Minor. The combination of Minor 9natural born) and Ark (citizen but not natural born) is powerful. Minor has been quoted some 25 times since the decision was handed down and no other decision has been rendered and that is, again, powerful.

        I do know that all your work on the certificate was a waste of time (hopefully the book was profitable ) since the question is not one of where Barry was born but of his father’s status.

        • Paul Smith says:

          P.S. You might want to re-read that article. Leo has made new inroads and has updated the article. You might change your mind.

        • John Woodman says:

          My work wasn’t a waste of time, since it first accomplished what a number of people had been asking for (an honest investigation of the forgery claims) and secondly established the truth: that there is no good evidence at all that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

          As for Minor v. Happersett, it is clear to the vast majority of careful readers that Donofrio’s claim is completely bogus, since the Court themselves specifically told us they were NOT going to address the status of US-born children of non-citizen parents.

          There is, however, more to the issue than you are presently aware of.

    • John Woodman says:

      Incidentally: “Certificate of Live Birth” is official terminology for what is commonly called a “birth certificate.”

      One of many issues addressed in the book. :-)

      • Paul Smith says:

        BTW, you ‘proved’ that the COLB is not necessarily a forgery. Do you acknowledge that it COULD be a forgery? I sure hope you did because there is no doubt in my mind that it is. (No, haven’t read the book but saw your arguments in an online article.)

        Question: Was the long-form COLB that the White House posted to the web site a photocopy of a document from Hawaii’s archives or a computer generated document from a Hawaiian database?

        • John Woodman says:

          Paul, all I can say is that you really ought to read the book.

          In fact, EVERYBODY who’s interested in the Obama eligibility controversies ought to read the book.

          There is simply no way to really put three months’ worth of research — and 221 pages of analysis and, ultimately, conclusions, into brief online articles.

          I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: You simply cannot truly understand the issues without reading and fully understanding the book.

          Beyond that, you must do so with an open mind. Pretend that it’s talking about Thomas Edison’s birth certificate, and not Barack Obama’s. There are a lot of people who simply cannot emotionally accept any facts that contradict what they “know” must be true. You have to take a step back from your emotional commitment to have the results come out one way or the other.

          In answer to your question: The file posted to the White House web site was a sharpened and optimized scan of a paper birth certificate, with seal, supplied by the Hawaii Department of Health. That was created by reproducing the Department of Health’s image of an original onto safety paper, and then imprinting the Department’s seal onto the result.

        • John Woodman says:

          Oh, and yes: I certainly do acknowledge that it COULD be a forgery, even after all of my analysis.

          However, the ultimate finding of three months of careful investigation is that there is no good evidence at all that it is.

          • Paul Smith says:

            “The file posted to the White House web site was a sharpened and optimized scan of a paper birth certificate, with seal, supplied by the Hawaii Department of Health. That was created by reproducing the Department of Health’s image of an original onto safety paper, and then imprinting the Department’s seal onto the result.”
            —————-

            Would you like to attempt to explain why they didn’t post the long form certificate in the first place? Or why no hospital in Hawaii has any record or witnesses to a very unusual birth for that time?

            Anyhow, it really doesn’t matter – it’s all about daddy.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’m not sure exactly how you want them to post the birth certificate. If it’s to be posted on the web, then it has to be in an electronic format.

              Regarding the hospital issue — again, you need to read the book.

  4. Paul Smith says:

    “In fact, EVERYBODY who’s interested in the Obama eligibility controversies ought to read the book.”
    ——————

    Why? Eligibility in this case does not hinge on where Barry was born; it hinges on his father who wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

    BTW, the fact that the Hawaiian governer’s search came up empty is all the proof I need that something is really rotten and it ain’t in Denmark.

    • John Woodman says:

      Your comment is perfectly illustrative of why EVERYBODY who’s interested in the Obama eligibility controversies ought to read the book.

      Because if you HAD read — and fully understood — the book, you would never have made it. :-)

      • Paul Smith says:

        Explain – so I’ll want to rush out and buy your book.

        • Thomas Brown says:

          For one thing, the “the Hawaiian governer’s (sic) search came up empty” idea: Total and utter baloney. What happened is the Governor of Hawaii claimed that he could put it to rest by releasing the original record (a laudable intent, really), only to discover that not even HE could do so, BY LAW.

          I repeat: he never said it wasn’t there. Nobody has ever found a single shred of evidence that the record is not there. In fact, the previous Governor, a Republican, verified that it was, but could not remove it or publish the record for the same reason the new Governor couldn’t: It’s against the law.

          So your “all the proof I need” is based on a lie. Got it?

          Here’s a clue, and take it to heart: every single thing the Birthers say that “proves” Obama is a fraud is a lie. Everything. So don’t vote for him, contribute to his opponent, whatever… but the Birther thing is a non-starter.

        • John Woodman says:

          There’s a claim or meme that the Governor supposedly failed to find the birth certificate, and/or admitted that he had failed to find a birth certificate.

          To complicate things further, radio personality Mike Evans publicly stated that Governor Abercrombie had told him there was no birth certificate in the records for Mr. Obama.

          The actual truth of the matter turns out to be a lot different than the impression many people got. As far as I’ve seen, I’ve been about the only person to track down and publicly identify exactly what happened there.

          And this is what I’ve seen again and again and again. You have two sides of the issue. One side makes literally dozens of the claims. And in every single instance, when I’ve tracked down the facts, those facts have been different from the claim.

          Thomas calls such things “lies.” To me, a lie technically implies knowledge of falsehood on the part of the person who speaks it. While I’m convinced that some certain people in the birther movement ARE flat-out, bold-faced liars, I think that much of the spread of such factually false statements is done by deceived people who truly believe them. Of course, if someone repeats a lie, it’s still a lie; just a repeated one.

          I’m not convinced that every falsehood began as a lie. I think some began as mistakes and misconceptions. For all these reasons, while I understand the “lie” label, I personally prefer to refer to such things as falsehoods and invalid claims.

          So far, I have not found a single significant birther claim that didn’t turn out to be a falsehood, an invalid claim, or a speculation without sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            There’s a claim or meme that the Governor supposedly failed to find the birth certificate, and/or admitted that he had failed to find a birth certificate.

            To complicate things further, radio personality Mike Evans publicly stated that Governor Abercrombie had told him there was no birth certificate in the records for Mr. Obama.

            Mr. Evans statement was what started the meme.

            The actual truth of the matter turns out to be a lot different than the impression many people got. As far as I’ve seen, I’ve been about the only person to track down and publicly identify exactly what happened there.

            It was thoroughly debunked by Doc C at the time (and probably on the Fogbow as well). I sincerely doubt that you can find a single birther claim that has not been thoroughly and publicly scrutinized and shown to be meritless.

            And this is what I’ve seen again and again and again. You have two sides of the issue. One side makes literally dozens of the claims. And in every single instance, when I’ve tracked down the facts, those facts have been different from the claim.

            And yet you don’t think the people that endlessly repeat these claims are liars? I am at a loss for a better word to describe someone who continues to disseminate baseless falsehoods in the face of repeated debunking. Sorry, but you yourself have shown that anyone who looks at the matter objectively cannot find a credible birther allegation.

            Thomas calls such things “lies.” To me, a lie technically implies knowledge of falsehood on the part of the person who speaks it.

            At best, anyone who’s still birfing after all this time is willfully ignorant–as you’ve discovered, no birther can refute debunking of any of their claims.

            While I’m convinced that some certain people in the birther movement ARE flat-out, bold-faced liars, I think that much of the spread of such factually false statements is done by deceived people who truly believe them. Of course, if someone repeats a lie, it’s still a lie; just a repeated one.

            And when someone repeats a lie and it is explained to them exactly why it is a lie and they keep repeating it–what do you call that?

            I’m not convinced that every falsehood began as a lie. I think some began as mistakes and misconceptions. For all these reasons, while I understand the “lie” label, I personally prefer to refer to such things as falsehoods and invalid claims.

            I would point out that they are also baseless accusations of serious crimes with absolutely no evidence (as you yourself have shown).

            So far, I have not found a single significant birther claim that didn’t turn out to be a falsehood, an invalid claim, or a speculation without sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.

            What does that imply about people who have been spreading those falsehoods, invalid claims, and unsubstantiated speculations for over 3 years now?

            • John Woodman says:

              Mr. Evans statement was what started the meme.

              I’d say what started the meme was the article that Evans read, mischaracterizing the Governor’s statement and claiming that Abercrombie was unable to find a birth certificate.

              And when someone repeats a lie and it is explained to them exactly why it is a lie and they keep repeating it–what do you call that?

              I call that a lie; and if someone knowingly spreads a lie, then I will certainly agree with you: that person is a liar.

              I’m simply trying to be charitable and give the benefit of a doubt to some who repeat things without really understanding or believing that what they’re repeating is false. I don’t think everyone who repeats the birther memes is a liar. But as you’ve noted, some quite definitely are.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              I stopped giving birthers the benefit of the doubt on April 27th of last year. Ignorance is only an excuse for those who have recently learned of the issue and I don’t think that describes any of the birthers (certainly not the ones who have been posting lies all over the internet for years). Respect is something that is earned–unknown people do deserve the benefit of the doubt, but once a group has shown that all of their vocal members, far from deserving respect, have earned nothing but an enormous amount of contempt, I feel that to treat them with anything less than the scorn they richly deserve at this point is unfair.

  5. John Woodman says:

    I covered the Abercrombie incident in the book, revealing what really happened in that incident.

  6. John Woodman says:

    Note: I first approved an annoyingly-written anti-Obama comment that really didn’t have anything to do with this post or the comments here (freedom of speech and all that), but then decided it was really just a spammy-type effort on the part of the poster to get people to visit his web site (URL included).

    So the policy is: I’ll approve most comments, but one does have to draw the line somewhere.

  7. Ellen says:

    Paul Smith said:

    Why? Eligibility in this case does not hinge on where Barry was born; it hinges on his father who wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

    Answer. Sorry, it hinges on where he was born. And, by the way, the eligibility of Rubio and Jindal hinge on their place of birth as well. NOT their parents. Why? Because the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen, the one that was used at the time that the US Constitution was written in AMERICA (not Switizerland) refers to the place of birth.

    Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

    Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”

    And here is an example of how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    Moreover, the Minor v. Happersett case did not rule on what makes a Natural Born Citizen. To be sure, it said that there was never a doubt that a child born in the USA with two citizen parents is a Natural Born Citizen. But that turns out to be all the possible ways to be a citizen at birth. Because of that fact, logically a person born of two citizen parents in the USA must be a Natural Born Citizen. But the Minor decision did NOT say that that was the only way to be a Natural Born Citizen. And then it said that it was not going to rule on the matter. So, it is not a decision. It is not a ruling. It is not a precedent.

    However, the Wong Kim Ark decision is a precedent, and it stated that every child born in the USA (other than the children of invaders and foreign diplomats) is NATURAL BORN. A Natural Born Citizen is, duh, a citizen who was Natural Born.

    Re: “BTW, the fact that the Hawaiian governer’s search came up empty is all the proof I need that something is really rotten and it ain’t in Denmark.”

    Answer: The explanation to this is that it is not true. The governor DID NOT search for the birth certificate and not find it. What happened was that WND said that he said that he had said that he had searched for the birth certificate and did not find it. But WND made it all up. Abercrombie never said any such thing.

    Moreover, two Republican-appointed officials stated in writing that they had found the original birth certificate in the file, and that it showed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Subsequently the Democrat current head of the DOH of Hawaii stated that she had seen the original birth certificate in the process of being copied onto the security paper, and that the copy was accurate. In addition to this, there are the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which could not have been placed by relatives because the newspapers only took birth announcements from the government of Hawaii in those days). Could the government of Hawaii have been fooled by lying relatives? No. Why not? Because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital Hawaii insisted on a signed witness statement.

    • John Woodman says:

      Some good commentary there, Ellen.

      Do you have sources for the following points?

      “Subsequently the Democrat current head of the DOH of Hawaii stated that she had seen the original birth certificate in the process of being copied onto the security paper, and that the copy was accurate.”

      “the newspapers only took birth announcements from the government of Hawaii in those days).”

      “whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital Hawaii insisted on a signed witness statement.”

  8. Ellen says:

    Re: “Would you like to attempt to explain why they didn’t post the long form certificate in the first place? ”

    Because the short-form birth certificate is the official birth certificate, and it was the birth certificate that Hawaii sent to Obama. They thought that this should be sufficient, and in fact it IS sufficient (thousands of people use their Hawaii short-form birth certificates to get their US passports every year). Obama was the first, and so far the only US president to have shown any birth certificate—and so far not one of the Republican presidential candidates has shown her or his birth certificate.

    Re: “Or why no hospital in Hawaii has any record or witnesses to a very unusual birth for that time?”

    Hospitals are not required to keep patient records that go back 50 years or so. If they do have those records (which, as I said, they may not), they CANNOT disclose them. Why not? Because of patient privacy laws.

    But, if they had records, and if there were no patient privacy laws, why should they disclose the facts in any case? The official document is the birth certificate of Hawaii, which must be accepted by any court unless there is actual evidence that it is wrong. Self-described “experts” will not be admitted to testify in the court. Why not? Because there are rules requiring expert witnesses to show actual expertise, and the “experts” that birthers have cited are not members of any accredited document forensic organization.

    • I meant to type: I thought Doug Vogt was ….

      He hits the BC numbers and everything in this craziness. I really cannot stomach all of it.

    • John Woodman says:

      I saw that. It does kind of appear that he isn’t too busy with his scanner business either to appear and testify in Georgia, or to be interviewed by the Rev. Manning.

      Mr. Vogt comes across as quite convincing. Unfortunately, all of his other significant claims to date are known to be without merit (I gave a brief version of why in a previous post on Dr. Laurie Roth). This adds up to a fairly long list. I haven’t listened to his Georgia testimony, but I’ve heard the interview with Manning, and noted nothing new in it except for the claim that the AP document has a halo as well, which is supposed to be an indication of some kind of tampering. Thus Vogt (and Paul Irey) appear to be putting forward a theory now that both the PDF and the AP document are forgeries, or at least tampered with.

      Aside from the sheer unwieldiness of the theory — which as far as I can tell requires two separate-but-alike forgeries, a supposition which in itself is fairly preposterous — the claim of a “halo” in the AP document does not even appear to be quite true. There is certainly an effect around the letters, but I think to call it a “halo” is a misnomer. It seems to be a combination of chromatic aberration from scanning and JPEG optimization, both of which are definitely present. Neither of these is at all surprising; in fact, we would expect to find both.

      The white portion of this effect, which is undoubtedly the “halo” they are referring to, only exists on the top and left of items. This indicates to me that it’s probably part of the chromatic aberration from the scan. So the bit of evidence they are claiming is extraordinary does not appear to be so. And once again they are trying to build some very large castles out of only slightly-moist sand… without the benefit of actually having any rocks or cement.

      Sand castles can look fairly impressive. But they just don’t hold up.

Comments are closed.