Exclusive! “Hawaii Girl” Confirms Her Parents’ Race — and I Crack the Actual Entries, Confirming that Arpaio’s Codes Don’t Match the Hawaii Codes, Either.

This Birth Certificate, Revealed by Jerome Corsi Last Fall, Shows that the Posse's Claimed Codes Aren't from Hawaii in 1961, Either

This Birth Certificate, Revealed by Jerome Corsi Last Fall, Shows that the Posse's Claimed Codes Aren't from Hawaii in 1961, Either

Today I talked to “Hawaii Girl,” the owner of the birth certificate posted by WorldNetDaily last year which destroyed their claim that President Obama’s birth certificate number was “out of sequence” and therefore “proof of forgery.”

You can get a sense of the kind of person someone is by talking to him or her. I was extremely impressed with “Hawaii Girl.”

Let me ask of persons reading this blog: If you should know who “Hawaii Girl” is (and a few people do) please do not publicly mention her name, or contact her about her birth certificate.

She does not want to be a part of any controversy, and she doesn’t want or need any disruption in her life. She is busy with her work and her family. She frankly does not know much or care much about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. She has no “dog in this race.”

She was willing to have one conversation, and gave generously of her time to do so. But she does not want to talk any further about her birth certificate. And at the moment she has some additional personal things that require her time, attention and emotional energy. So please respect her privacy and emotional space.

If you must call me a liar and claim that I never spoke to her, then go right ahead. Attack me, but please leave this nice woman alone.

In fact, after talking to “Hawaii Girl,” I debated about whether I should mention the conversation at all. In the end, I weighed the odds of other people contacting her if I said nothing — based on questions already raised — versus my making public that I had spoken to her and asking people specifically to respect her wishes. After my conversation with “Hawaii Girl,” I am hoping that everyone will honor that request. It is really her request, and I am supporting her in it.

If you absolutely must contact someone about this birth certificate, then contact Jerome Corsi — and ask him to release an image of ONLY the small section of that birth certificate that shows the parents’ race — without disclosing any further personal information about “Hawaii Girl.” We will be able to tell based on the image that I present here whether what Corsi releases is authentic or not.

Why Nobody Actually Needs to Bother “Hawaii Girl,” In Any Event

In this article, I will also give good evidence as to why nobody needs to bother “Hawaii Girl” at all.

I think we have plenty of information to authenticate that her birth certificate does not say “Indian,” or anything that would be classified “Indian,” as would be the case if the Posse’s codes matched those from Hawaii in 1961.

You see, both sets of codes from the Posse (which are really 1968 and 1969 federal codes, and of course not from the 1961 manual that they claimed) say that “3″ means (American) “Indian.”

If “Hawaii Girl’s” parents aren’t Indians, then, it’s clear that the race codes presented by Arpaio’s posse can’t be the Hawaiian state codes for 1961 either.

Before moving on to the evidence: I also want to go on record as saying that I completely believe that what “Hawaii Girl” did in making her birth certificate available to Corsi (and therefore through him to WorldNetDaily) was 100% honorable, admirable and commendable. I wholeheartedly believe that she acted completely in good faith, having no partisan agenda, in order to honor the request of a friend, and to provide some useful information to someone she had no reason to think she couldn’t trust.

I can also tell you that it did not sound to me like she expected any portion of her certificate to be published. She has not followed the issue and seemed surprised to hear from me about it.

The Extreme Unlikelihood (1 out of Almost 1,500) that This Certificate Would Have Listed the Parents as “Indians”

It’s already been proven that the codes presented by Sheriff Arpaio’s posse were NOT the federal codes that they claimed they were. So let’s entertain the idea instead that the codes they showed were accurate for the State of Hawaii. Yes, I know that’s unlikely, given that we know where they came from — 1968 and 1969 federal codes, nowhere near 1961 — but let’s entertain the idea anyway.

This would mean (according to their chart) that “Hawaii Girl’s” parents, both with a penciled code of “3,” would’ve both had to be “Indians.” And she would’ve had to be Indian, too.

The US government reported (Table 2-4) that a grand total of 12 children — out of 17,616 born in Hawaii in 1961 — were “Indian.”

Therefore, given a random Hawaii birth certificate from that year — such as “Hawaii Girl’s” — we could expect only 1 chance out of 1,468 of getting one in which the parents’ race was “Indian.”

But a glance at this enhanced image extracted from the WorldNetDaily image of the back of “Hawaii Girl’s” certificate — and showing the subtle bleed-through — shows that whatever the her parents’ race entries is, they are quite long in both cases. They are not short and sweet, like “Indian” or even “Navajo.”

The mother’s race is the bottom line of text; and the father’s race is the top line, mostly obscured by the seal. Can you read it? I tried last fall, and couldn’t make it out.

Still, based on what we can see on the certificate itself, it does not appear at all likely that her parents were Indians. Certainly, neither race says “Indian,” or any obvious Native American tribe that comes to mind. Both are way too long.

Jerome Corsi: Please Give “Hawaii Girl’s” Birth Certificate Back.

“Hawaii Girl” mentioned that she had loaned her birth certificate to Jerome Corsi last year, at the request of a friend. This was with the understanding that Corsi was going to use it to compare to other known birth certificates, and that she would be getting it back.

She has twice requested its return — probably through her friend who asked her if she would loan it — but Mr. Corsi has not returned the certificate.

This is the only copy of her long form birth certificate that “Hawaii Girl” possesses. It is her valuable personal property, and Hawaii Department of Health rules now make it very difficult to get a replacement. It is an intensely personal document, and I would expect it has some emotional value to her.

“Hawaii Girl” herself seemed rather resigned to the fact that in spite of Corsi’s promises, and in spite of the fact that the certificate is hers, she won’t be getting it back any time soon.

Now I don’t want to create any hassles whatsoever for “Hawaii Girl.” But I do think that “Hawaii Girl’s” friend should quietly get Mr. Corsi to return the certificate to “Hawaii Girl,” without “Hawaii Girl” having to be at all further involved.

So why am I telling you this? Mostly to let you know why I was unable to obtain an image of her parents’ race. I think “Hawaii Girl” would probably have been willing to provide that for us, but Corsi has her certificate.

I Previously Identified “Hawaii Girl’s” Mom as Having Hawaiian and Korean Roots, and Her Dad as Having Hawaiian and Chinese Roots.

Actually, I had also identified an Anglo ancestor in her mother’s background as well, but I didn’t mention that publicly, so we won’t count that.

In any event, “Hawaii Girl” was able to be even more specific. She stated that her mother’s background was “Hawaiian / Korean / German / English,” and her father’s background was “Hawaiian / Chinese / Portuguese.” I had not known about the German and Portuguese parts.

Cracking the Race Entries on “Hawaii Girl’s” Certificate

Even armed with this knowledge, I must confess that the race entries eluded me for a little while longer. What “Hawaii Girl” had told me seemed even longer than what was there. And the father’s race in particular had always seemed virtually hopeless, being obscured by the seal except for the last few letters.

I had already decided, even before speaking to “Hawaii Girl,” that the last word of her mother’s race (bottom line) was likely to be “Korean.” And it almost looked as if the first part was “Hawaiian,” except… that just wasn’t right. It certainly looked like there was an “ian” before the presumed “Korean.” But for the first part to be “Hawaiian,” the letters simply did not fit.

And there seemed to be no “German” or “English” in the mix at all.

And then, staring at the certificate, it hit me.

“German” is much more of a nationality than it is a race. And generally speaking, Germans are…

Caucasian.

Using a fixed-width font (since that’s what the typewriter had) to check the spacing on the letters, and assuming that what looked like a very short word starting with “H” was an abbreviation for “Hawaiian” (since spelling out all three words would run the typist completely out of the box) gives us:

Bingo! Compare it, letter for letter, white versus black. This very clearly appears to be the correct solution to the puzzle.

Cracking the Father’s Race

I immediately surmised that if I had reached the correct solution on the mother’s race, then her father’s race would likely have been recorded as “Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese.”

The obvious test was to type that phrase, using the exact same fixed font and spacing, and see if the letters fit.

Being careful to align the left edge, this gave:

And the puzzle is busted! The race entries on “Hawaii Girl’s” certificate almost certainly say “Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese” for her father, and “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean” for her mother.

Does This Mean the Cold Case Posse Lied About the Hawaii Codes?

In my previous article, I quoted Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator Michael Zullo as having said: ““The number 9 for the federal code, and the number 9 per the State of Hawaii’s own statistical code, means ‘information not provided’ or ‘information not stated.’”

The short answer is: The evidence presented is not enough to establish conclusively that the Posse lied about the Hawaii codes.

However, they have made a clear claim that “9″ in the Hawaii codes meant “not stated.” And we know at this point that they did lie about the federal codes.

We have also established that the 1968/ 1969 federal codes they presented are not, overall, an accurate representation of the 1961 Hawaii codes. If they had been, then the codes on “Hawaii Girl’s” certificate would have both been “6″ (Hawaiian/ part Hawaiian) rather than “3.”

Finally, we know that they have claimed to have received pretty much zero cooperation for their birther investigation from the authorities in Hawaii. And we also know that they did not produce any set of codes claimed to be from Hawaii.

Given that they flat-out lied about the federal codes, I’d say it’s pretty clear at this point that they can’t be trusted regarding any Hawaii ones.


Note: I originally referred to this person as “New Girl.” I have edited the article to reflect my newer name for her — “Hawaii Girl.” If you see “New Girl” mentioned in some of the comments below, it’s all the same person.

This entry was posted in Birther Scam, New Information, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, What's Happening. Bookmark the permalink.

351 Responses to Exclusive! “Hawaii Girl” Confirms Her Parents’ Race — and I Crack the Actual Entries, Confirming that Arpaio’s Codes Don’t Match the Hawaii Codes, Either.

  1. gsgs says:

    when Zullo speaks about Hawaiian codes, I think he only means box 12b
    He said box 9 were federal codes and box 12b were Hawaiian codes.

    I never heard “Hawn” before.
    Could “Hawn” be “Arian” ? This was “the” German race in ~1940
    when maybe the parents were born.
    But they would not have coded that at all, let alone as 3.
    Presumably 1=White,2=Japanese,3=Hawaiian , according
    to Ethicity sizes in Hawaii when the System was established.

    • John Woodman says:

      No, “Hawn” could not be “Arian.” It’s just an abbreviation. No one would’ve used the term “Arian” in the US.

  2. Northland10 says:

    I had thought that, if Hawaii used their own codes, Hawaiian would be further up the list than you see the on various Federal codes. This would appear to confirm that. It is also my understanding when there are multiple races, part-Hawaiian takes precedence.

    Good job in showing also that the parents race is fully self-reported and not from a list. This is one more nail in the Birthers, “African would not be entered as a race” argument.

    I did not realize that Corsi could find a way to lower himself even further but his treatment of “new girl” is especially rude.

  3. Congratulations on an excellent piece of work.

  4. Nice work John! How so like Corsi to take her only birth certificate copy and not return it.

  5. kimba says:

    She probably needs to get a modern replacement or maybe two, no matter what happens with the one she loaned Corsi, and a US passport if she doesn’t already have one. When she gets the original back from Corsi, she should put it away and treat it like a collectible. Is there a way to communicate that to her, John?

    In the meantime, I think we should mount a campaign to shame Corsi and Zullo into giving it back. If they were really on a search for the truth, they wouldn’t have to resort to trickery and taking advantage of innocent people.

  6. Jerome Corsi: Please Give “New Girl’s” Birth Certificate Back.

    This gives a whole new meaning to WND’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” campaign doesn’t it.?

  7. Jim says:

    Good work John! Corsi also shows another way original birth certificates can get lost, loan it to a so-called reporter and never get it back! At some point, someone is going to locate the Hawaii Department of Health Annual Report for 1961 which will list all the race designations that we see coded. But, all that it will be is another nail in another already buried CCP theory.

  8. john says:

    John Woodman,

    Why should we believe you? Your recent blog entries make it sound like your angry. Perhaps the sale of your book is tanking and your not getting the money you hoped to get out of it. Are you mad at the CCP for having failed to talk with you or use you which would have given good credibility to your book and would have allowed you to make quite a profit. Perhaps your 600 hours of time you devoted to Obama’s birth certificate wasn’t as profitable as you had hoped.

    • John Woodman says:

      Ah, yes. We can always count on someone like john to show up to mount an attack on the messenger.

      You truly don’t have a single decent bone in your body, do you, john?

      • woodman doesn’t make money from this, a least not much. for him i believe it’s a labor of love.

        but in all fairness john (woodman) i think you are a nice guy, but i never thought of you as unbiased. you have developed an ideology that comes through, some may even say an agenda.
        plus you have michael jordan retirement syndrom (mjrs).

        i’d like to see more, and i think we are.
        but looking at these comments i see more agression on the part of the antibirthers, notwithstanding mr. woodman who is gracious and benevolent. (mostly).

        • John Woodman says:

          To this point, I have made no money from this at all. From a financial perspective — and we honestly needed and hoped for some financial benefit — it was a very bad decision to become involved in this.

          i never thought of you as unbiased. you have developed an ideology that comes through, some may even say an agenda.

          I began this whole thing as unbiased as a person can be. In fact, I was biased against Obama, and I was quite prepared to find his birth certificate a forgery if that’s the way the evidence went. That I have reached conclusions along the way based on the evidence does not negate that.

          I frankly don’t know how anybody on earth could have approached this much “less biased” than I was.

          plus you have michael jordan retirement syndrom (mjrs).

          Guilty. But I would plead in my defense in the sentencing phase that a) after retiring on the forgery issues I was immediately challenged on the natural born citizen issues, and b) if I hadn’t spoken regarding Arpaio’s recent press conference, then birthers would’ve accused me of having been unable to refute Arpaio’s “indisputable proof.”

          but looking at these comments i see more agression on the part of the antibirthers, notwithstanding mr. woodman who is gracious and benevolent. (mostly).

          And why not? The birthers came out with all of these serious criminal accusations. Out of something more than SIXTY such accusations, ALL have turned out to be invalid or outright scams.

          And I’m only counting the most significant bogus claims made by birthers, not all the “sub-claims,” which have to number in the hundreds.

          Even as of last August, Jerome Corsi had publicly backed — by the count in my book — at least 23 different claims to have “proof” or “evidence of “forgery” — not a single one of which stood up to scrutiny.

          How would you like it if Jerome Corsi stood before the public and said, “Scott Erlandson is a rapist,” and then proceeded, over months, to put forth 23 different allegations all claiming to prove that you’re a rapist?

          Don’t you think it is right to point it out when people create frauds and scam others?

          Finally, I do try to be as charitable as I can. I must confess that after 15 months, during which I myself have been falsely accused of many different horrible things, that I am not always as patient and charitable toward people who come on here espousing the birther position as I was to start with. But I do try.

          • great, now everyone will think i’m a rapist.

            usually it’s racist.
            this gets crawled by google you know…
            (with my luck)

            of course i think it ok to point out frauds and scams, that’s why i’m here. (and i certainly don’t mean you). i think mr. obama is hiding stuff.

            plus i never sought the presidency, that would be the other difference i guess…

            and hopefully no one is making you do this.

            • John Woodman says:

              Depending on your statement of which instrument(s) you play in your band, Scott, I may be able to tell the world that as far as I know, you’re only a bassist.

            • Suranis says:

              You could also be a Pracist.

  9. richCares says:

    are birthers sad that Zullo lied, all except john that is, john the least credible blog commenter on the net used the word “credible” and so broke 399 irony meters.

  10. Jim says:

    john says: “Perhaps the sale of your book is tanking and your not getting the money you hoped to get out of it.”

    Now John, you really should pay attention. It’s Zullo’s book that’s been tanking. It’s Zullo who was caught breaking rules. It’s Zullo who’s been forced to give up the profits he thought he’d get. It’s Zullo who’s been caught in lies…over and over and over again. Shouldn’t you be calling Zullo and giving HIM a hard time about the sloppiness of his investigation?

  11. i’d like to see if any other certificates have “negro” instead of “african”.

    i hope to see about a hundred certificates and compare them side by side with mr. obamas.

    i’m guessing it will continue to be unavailable, then finally obama will say “yes ! let’s do the side by side comparison and let’s lay this issue to rest once and for all”.

    then savannah guthrie will spill grape juice on it before she can “snap” a picture.

    the issue will be laid to rest and no one will ask about mr. obama’s history at all ever again.

    • ehancock says:

      Since Hawaii did not have a list of races you could chose from and no one stood over you and told you what to write, some birth certificates undoubtedly do say Negro. Others may say black. Some people who were black might have said white and vice versa. Some listed their race as “American.” One person who has posed on a Web site said that his parents listed their race as “Italian,” and that is the way that it came out.

      People from Africa, where the black people were at the time referred to as “Africans” had the ability to write African. So you see a birth certificate filled in by a man from Africa who describes himself as African.

    • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

      And I want a pony Scott. I’m sorry you don’t just get to make demands and violate people’s privacy just because you have a curiousity.

      The issue has been laid to rest but you crazy birthers will continue making unfounded claims

      • there wouldn’t be any point to demanding anything. because he’s president i think that makes it not a private matter, but a point of national security. once he posted the second version it became everyone’s business.

        transparency is a double edged sword. i’d like to see it run through the house judicary (lamar smith).

        when there is enough evidence for a trial, if the end result was to open the safe, which obama should do anyway, i think that will happen someday given his view on transparency.

        thanks kenneth

        • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

          Sorry Scott it doesn’t work that way. Even though he’s president you don’t get to demand every single record because you’re curious. Just as you can’t demand records from any public figure. The same laws protect you and I that protect them.

          He has been transparent. More so than say the Republican nominee. More so than any previous president before him.

    • Scientist says:

      Obama has no authority to release anybody else’s birth certificate. You are welcome to go to Hawaii and stand on the street and ask people for theirs if you want. So far, all the ones that have come out haven’t helped the birther cause, but you are welcome to keep trying.

      Set up a scam website with a Paypal button like all the other birther crooks and go for it.

    • jtmunkus says:

      Those certificates will say ‘African’ every time an African parent self-identifies that way when filling out the application.

      Idiot.

      Too arrogant to accept simple, logical explanations based in fact. Too much of a birther coward to debate RC on BlogTalkRadio.

      John Woodman is to be commended on his fact-based analyses, despite his dislike of President Obama.

      • chuckle, gafaw gafaw…

        fogbow punks people too…

        • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

          Actually Fogbow knows what the definition of punking is something you still haven’t. Personally arranging a debate and then chickening out is not punking.

          • Suranis says:

            Oh that’s who this Scott Guy is, that clown who chickened out of a debate on RC radio and then tried to pretend he was doing some big troll or something. Thanks, I was wondering who in particular he was.

            At least Jerry Collette, for all his faults, has bigger balls than this guy.

      • do you dislike obama john ? would that make you a racist ? or is that reserved for all birthers ?

        • John Woodman says:

          I dislike many of Mr. Obama’s policies, and his big-government approach. As for the man himself, I’ve never met him. I certainly can’t say that I trust him.

          I think the problem some people are having with you, Scott, is that a great abundance of real evidence has emerged that shows that every single birther allegation is complete and utter nonsense, and a good deal of it goes well beyond being “nonsense” into the region of being “absolute scam.”

          We have dozens upon dozens of claims made by birthers. Those who have processed those claims rationally and logically and in a reasonably objective manner have concluded that there’s not a single valid allegation in the bunch. I myself am in that category.

          It therefore becomes very difficult for such people to understand why you continue to cling to theories and claims that have been — I will go ahead and use the word — conclusively shown to be utter horse manure. The same, extremely solid evidence is available to you, and yet you continue to believe in the fairy tales, even when it’s as obvious to others that they are about as false as claiming that eating a tomato will kill you because tomatoes are deadly poison.

          So people look for an explanation for that.

          What are the possible explanations? What are a few possible theories?

          • Scott is simply not a logical thinker. He is incapable of discerning truth logically, and relies solely on what he “feels.”
          • Scott is so biased that he is blocked from discerning truth.
          • Scott knows what the truth is, but prefers to deny it anyway.
          • Scott is a racist.

          All of these are plausible theories. Perhaps there are others. Perhaps you can explain to us which one it is.

        • John Woodman says:

          I tend to attribute a lot of it to the first cause, by the way. But then I am assuming, until I find out differently, that you are sincere.

          I would be very interested to see your Myers-Briggs personality test. I would not be surprised to find that you are an extreme F on the T/F scale.

          Tell me something, Scott: How did you do in math?

    • nbc says:

      i’d like to see if any other certificates have “negro” instead of “african”.

      Obama’s situation is somewhat ‘special’ as his father was indeed African in origin and would certainly not have considered himself to be a negro. Then again, even the 1961 suggests that the term negro is reserved for US born blacks.

      Combine this with african being a valid descriptor for race in Kenya (see Kenya’s census document) and the mystery resolves itself trivially.

        • nbc says:

          Indeed, understand and apply the newly gained knowledge. It’s quite refreshening to be able to have independent thought and reasoning.

          If you cannot understand why I used the term ‘special’ then all you need is to ask.
          But again, you are unable to take your own position because deep down you know that you are incapable of defending it.
          And yet you let your ignorance and fear cause you to repeat many a nonsense? Wonderful, have you no self respect?

          Wong Kim Ark? You have yet to defend your position, or even explain why you asked these questions? Are you intending to read the actual decision? Have you read the lower court’s decision? Have you read the briefs from the government and Wong Kim Ark? Have you read the cases WKA referenced?

          I have…

          Have you researched the PDF? Have you researched mixed raster compression? I have.

          You on the other hand have nothing more to offer than ignorance and an inability or unwillingness to take a stand other than to insult our President and our sense of logic and reason.

          You do not understand that science is speculative/tentative.

          You have so much to learn but you have shown you so incapable of doing so.

          That saddens me.

  12. gorefan says:

    From wnd’s original article:

    “Irey worked from a non-redacted copy of the 1961 comparison birth certificate on which all information originally typed on the certificate was available for analysis.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/

    If Mr. Irey still has the unredacted copy, maybe he could get it to her so she would at least have a copy.

  13. Jim says:

    scott erlandson says: “i hope to see about a hundred certificates and compare them side by side with mr. obamas.”

    Well, Scott, you better get to work and contact a few hundred folks born in Hawaii in 1961 and see if they’ll let you look at theirs, if they still have them. Although, they probably won’t considering what happened to this young lady. State law prevents you from seeing the originals on file with the state.

  14. john says:

    “If you must call me a liar and claim that I never spoke to her, then go right ahead. Attack me, but please leave this nice woman alone.”

    John,

    would be willing to release your email communications with her, redacting her identity of course, to be absolutely sure that you had talked to her?

    • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Ah Yes so then you could harrass her. Corsi has the original certificate why wasn’t he honest from the get go? He’s the one who tried hiding information.

    • John Woodman says:

      Any reasonable person can tell from the details given that I’ve talked to her. They can tell from the fact that I actually cracked her parents’ race entries on her birth certificate that I’ve talked to her. They can tell that I’ve talked to her from the fact that while falsehoods and lies by Corsi et all have been clearly and indisputably identified, no one has ever identified a single false statement I’ve ever made.

      Of course, “reasonable person” does not include you.

      I’ll tell you this: Jerome Corsi knows I’ve talked to her.

      I have no email communications with “New Girl.” At one point in the conversation, I actually said to her, “Look, here’s what I will do. If you’ll give me your email address, then I will run whatever I write by you for your approval before I release it.”

      She really did not want to deal with the issue at all beyond the one phone conversation. So she did not take me up on the offer. She just simply does not want to be involved or even to know anything about it. That’s why I went to such length in my statements above that other people should not disturb her. “New Girl” even stated that she was not going to go out on the internet and search for whatever I had written.

      I have tried to represent her interests fairly and in the best way possible, for her sake, and hope and believe that I have done so. I have not corresponded by her by email, and I do not have an email address for her.

      So if you want to call me a liar, go ahead. Corsi and at least one other person (if that person reads this article) will know from firsthand knowledge that what I say is the truth. Most other people will be able to identify it as the truth as well. As for you, well, your mileage may vary.

    • John Woodman says:

      Again, if you want to pester somebody about that certificate, pester Corsi. He has it.

      But there’s really no reason even to pester him. I think it’s quite clear from the comparisons that we know what her parents’ race entries are. And they are NOT “Indian.”

      • gorefan says:

        “Again, if you want to pester somebody about that certificate, pester Corsi. He has it. ”

        He won’t return it to her until he’s milked the birthers for all they are worth.

        Her certificate number would foil his plan.

  15. Dave B. says:

    This retired version of John Woodman kicks ass.

  16. john says:

    If you feel I am needlessly attacking you and your credibility, don’t feel bad. I am simply giving you a taste of the absolutely shameful media attention that was given to Arpaio and Zullo at the last press conference.

    • Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Shameful? The press is telling the truth about these smut peddlers. If Zullo and Arpaio didn’t act like two pieces of shit sticking together then the media wouldn’t have anything to say about them.

    • John Woodman says:

      So you find it “absolutely shameful” that the press called out this bunch of incompetents and proven liars? And you somehow find it “equitable” that another person — who has been entirely, 100% truthful, and who has provided a service to the country by telling the truth when others were telling lies — should be harassed?

      You’re a despicable person.

    • jtmunkus says:

      It is absolutely shameful that the local Phoenix press weren’t more aggressive about demanding that Arpaio conduct a legitimate investigation.

      Yes. Shameful media.

      It’s the media’s fault that the CCP had to doctor & manufacture ‘evidence’ about federal both certificate codes.

      It’s the media’s fault that Arpaio hasn’t been able to turn his bullshit charade into a full-blown media circus – as he intended.

      It’s the media’s fault that Corsi and Zullo had to publish a book to personally profit from the investigation. It’s also the media’s fault that Zullo defended his violation of the MCSO Code of Conduct, by pretending that he’s giving his personal profits to a church.

      If the media would just lie for Corsi and the huckster Zullo, Obama would be de-eligibilified. So it’s the media’s fault President Obama has been able to usurp at all.

      It’s the media’s fault that these partisan hacks can’t get anything right.

      So the first thing your press officer does in the press conference is to vilify and accuse the very media you hope will present your case. Good going!

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      Shameful? That is not the word I would use.

  17. john says:

    OK, let’s toss out the Race Field and the Code 9 as not being credible. Have you been able to explain why there is code 9 on the other field related to place of business or kind of industry?

    • John Woodman says:

      How about this? Let’s toss out Jerome Corsi and the Cold Case Posse as not being credible.

      Once again, you’re perfectly prepared to overlook and excuse proven liars, and cross-examine those who tell the truth. As I say, you’re a despicable person.

  18. john says:

    “Today I talked to “New Girl,” the owner of the birth certificate posted by WorldNetDaily last year….”

    Are you sure? It appears from this posting it was completed at 2:31am today. Assuming you live Missouri still, that’s the Central Time Zone. If “New Girl” lives in the CST or EST, it means you talked with her and typed this post up within 30 minutes or an hour. Very difficult to do. If “New Girl” lives in Hawaii then you talked with her “Yesterday” and not “Today”.

    • John Woodman says:

      You don’t know what time I started the article. I was up until 5 am finishing it.

      I frankly think you’re pretty much just a troll.

      • Jim says:

        Yeah, I don’t think he understands that the time he’s seeing on here is the time posted by HIS time zone, not yours, and it shows a different time for me. Sounds like a perfect candidate for membership in the CCP…totally lack of common sense.

      • Northland10 says:

        Troll John does not usually get into back and forth discussions. Normally he spews some love for his current birthers hero and runs. It looks like you have ruffled his feathers today.

    • Jim says:

      john says: “If “New Girl” lives in Hawaii then you talked with her “Yesterday” and not “Today”.”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That is absolutely PRICELESS! Why do you keep on insisting on showing your totally STUPID arguments? I’m am so interested to see when you finally put the CCP book selling through the same idiotic arguments you put John through. It would definitely be a scene of “Dumb and Dumber”!

      BTW, it was “Today” where John was sitting, and he was writing from his perspective. It’s a shame you didn’t pass the 6th grade like Jethro Bodine!

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    • John Woodman says:

      Just to clear up this burning scandal, I’m sure it was after midnight when I finally hit the “publish” button. This was after completing all of the writing, making and importing the images, going back and editing it a few times while it was still in draft mode, etc.

      If it’s 2:30 am and I still haven’t gone to bed yet, my day is not yet over. And as far as I’m concerned, anything that happened during that day happened “today.”

  19. kimba says:

    I think it’s interesting that based on the Hawaiian birth certificates we’ve seen, people often identified themselves by nationality or ethnic heritage rather than race. New Girl’s parents called themselves Hawaiian, Korean, Chinese, Caucasian. The only one of those that’s a race is Caucasian of course. The rest are nationalities or ethnicities. Alan Booth’s is that way: Mother’s race – Caucasian-Japanese. Father’s Race Caucasian-Hawaiian. If other people answered that way and no one in the hospital prompted them to look at a list of races from which to choose, why does anyone think there’s anything unusual about a mother or a father saying “African” when asked for race? The only thing that seems consistent is the use of the word “Caucasian”.

    New Girl, if you’re out there, give Corsi 14 days to return your birth certificate and then sue his ass for the return of your property.

    • John Woodman says:

      She will never do that. She doesn’t want any hassle out of this at all.

      I’m hoping that Corsi will actually voluntarily return the certificate to her, or that her friend will persuade him to do so. If this article results in no hassle for her, and the return of her property, then I would be very happy with that.

      • kimba says:

        If she wants it back as badly as you say, she might have to do more than ask pretty please. Especially from a jerk like Corsi.

        Something that I don’t quite understand though is how she thought she was honoring the request of a friend by letting the only copy of her birth certificate out of her hands. She didn’t ask or understand why someone wanted to see a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate? She’s that out of touch with current events that she didn’t realize it had something to do with the President?

        • John Woodman says:

          She would like it back, but at this time she doesn’t want it back badly enough to suffer for it, or get into some big hassle or confrontation.

          It’s the only copy of her long-form birth certificate. She does have a copy of the short form. And I’m sure she probably knew it had to do with checking President Obama’s birth certificate. But many people had asked questions and had doubts. In fact, to this very day — due largely to the drumbeat of birther propaganda — 20% of Americans supposedly believe Obama was born outside of the country, and another 25% aren’t sure. That’s 45% of the country.

          “New Girl” was told that the request was so that her certificate could be compared with others, and that she would be getting it back. I absolutely believe at this point that she acted completely, 100% innocently and in good faith. I would even say, from my point of view, that her loaning her birth certificate to someone she had no apparent reason not to trust, in order to answer questions that people were asking, was commendable.

          There was also a friend involved in making the request. And having talked to “New Girl,” I fully believe that she is the kind of decent person who would wish to be helpful to a friend. I have only ever talked to her on just the one occasion, but she came across to me totally as a good and decent American.

          • so fogbow confirmed that corsi said he definately wouldn’t give it back.?? that doesn’t sound like jerry.

            • Suranis says:

              You trying to troll that john Woodman gets all his opinions from the fogbow?

              And “Jerry” is a lying crook.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’ve heard no intimation from Corsi that he wouldn’t give it back. I do know that as of my conversation with “New Girl,” he had not done so.

            • no i didn’t suranis, but i think you just did.. why so hostle ??

            • i was reading fogbow’s forum and dr. conspiracy and it sounded like a forgone conclusion, was the reason i mentioned it and it just didn’t sound right to me.

              i just don’t know if it’s an assumption that he refused, that was all.
              it’s not outrageous to point that out since the three sites have common players. (crossposting, etc.) i know you all visit with each other from time to time. but that’s good !, in my mind.

            • John Woodman says:

              This all may be a matter of semantics.

              I’m not aware that Corsi has ever stated he would never give “New Girl’s” birth certificate back. I think he probably will. “Someday.” One he’s done with it.

              But he hasn’t given it back — despite the fact that she has asked for it back, twice.

              I think the answer back to her (from what I understood) was more along the lines of that it was important for him to hang on to it, it was being used as “evidence,” blah, blah, blah, and that she would get it back someday.

              But from my understanding, I don’t believe that getting it back “someday” was the basis she understood she was loaning it out on.

              I hope that clarifies things a bit.

            • Northland10 says:

              It would be safe to assume that the Fogbow folks and others have little no trust that Corsi will do the right thing. This maybe the where you understand the “will never give it back” mentality. Corsi has been shown as nothing but a liar and a con-man. Why should any anti-birther believe he will do the honorable thing.

              That being said, I would be perfectly willing to be proven wrong. For many of us, it is not about being right or wrong but finding and upholding the truth. It is not about us. It is about the Constitution, it is about truth and it is about honor.

              Dr. Corsi, if you are watching, prove us wrong and return the BC.

            • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

              How doesn’t it sound like Jerry? Jerry has promised lots of things in the past and then failed to deliver and hoped you guys would forget about it. Take for instance the name of the forger last year or the documents from the Kenyan ambassador supposedly questioning the kenyan government about Obama.

            • Suranis says:

              And his boss Joe Farah promised Kaapiolanni Hospital $15.000 which he collected donations for and then never delivered. There’s a name for that… oh yeah. crook.

            • John Woodman says:

              To avoid any confusion on the American side of the pond: Using US-style notation, that’s $15,000.

            • Suranis says:

              Whoops. *blush*

            • John Woodman says:

              Nah. You’re not expected to know exactly how we denote thousands over here.

              We would write: $15,000.00. ;-)

            • gsgs says:

              get it internationalized, normed.
              It’s a pain to convert US-tables
              into computer-readable with commas
              also used in comma-delimited-csv

              And BTW. billions = milliards = trillions
              is even worse
              Ahh, Fahrenheit,barrels,ounces ….

            • this is the kind of thing that perpetuates the controversy. it seems to me that if fogbow itself was squeaky clean that would be a better platform to cast aspersions.
              but in any good spy versus spy story there are elements of character conflict. i come here because i like john, his forum doesn’t have the gritty edge and hostility of dr. goldcoins or fogbow. but that seems to be changing, giving way to character assassination and abject cynicism.
              i even noticed some team excoriation on amazon. so the orchestrated efforts haven’t gone un noticed. and you guys, haven’t for some reason been able to end this controversy, neither has mr. obama. it’s hard to operate when you are blinded by hate, which is quite transparent. your alinsky is showing, and i wonder why, if your collective hand is so pat, tit for tat.
              i’m sorry if dr. corsi’s work doesn’t please you, but i’m real glad he does what he does. i wish the msm had been engaged from the begining, but in this country the liberal mainstream favors democrats especially in the case of obama, which he uses skillfully to his advantage.
              kimba’s post for instance “maybe we should mount campaign to shame corsi into giving it back”. it seems contrived and trivial to come here to trash corsi in terms of character and not content. if you are privy to the arrangement and new hasn’t stated specifically to you that he said he wouldn’t is one thing, but i think fogbow and goldcoin are getting ahead of themselves to create controversy, seems unecessary to me.
              remember my interest in all of this is the performance of the players. it’s fascinating to me that this war eages on. and i think the answer still is that obama has used the office to cover up some things in his past.

            • To avoid any confusion on the American side of the pond: Using US-style notation, that’s $15,000.

              It doesn’t matter since Kapi’olani Hospital will never see one pence ($0.01) of that money anyway.

            • Suranis says:

              The only people who, by their own admission, operated by Alinsky tactics were Breitbart and co.

              You desperately want to have been defeated by an organized and paid division of the white house rather than having been defeated by… random people doing this as a hobby. How humiliating.

              Which also explains your constant ranting at John Woodman about how much money you want him to have REALLY made.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              I believe everything should be done in the FFF (Furlong, Firkin, Fortnight) system of measurement.

            • random people doing this as a hobby. How humiliating.
              Which also explains your constant ranting at John Woodman about how much money you want him to have REALLY made.

              ” ************ ”
              surannis i’ve never seen anyone mix tenses the way you do, it’s interesting.

              i don’t remember giving john a hard time about making money, publicly or privately, perhaps you could point me to an example, or john could remind me.

              i have a hard time separating “serious/credible debunking fogbow fellowship” from the “rambunctious fun loving brilliant prankster society”.

              so why if the cause is so pure, all of the sabotage and subterfuge ?

              i know you despise me and any birther, that’s fine, but i think both sides have been tactical and sometimes presumptuous.

              i also said from the start, if nothing has been hidden or covered there should be nothing to worry about. and i’m glad people are still researching 44.

            • Suranis says:

              What sabotage and subterfuge?

              And I’m not wasting my time going back over your posts to where you quizzed John about how much he got for his book just for you to ignore my proving you wrong, same as you ignored my pointing out your lie about Alynsky tactics. That’s what you are doing, trying to waste everyone’s time proving your accusations are false, which means you don’t have to waste any time proving them true.

              Remember, Innocent till proven guilty. not guilty till they prove themselves innocent by the standards of their accusers who do not have to provide any proof of their accusations. That’s the American way.

              And by the way, I’d never heard of Saul Allynsky till tea party people started screaming about him and Brietbart started using his tactics.

            • good, because i really don’t recall constant ranting at John Woodman about any money matters either public or privately, but i don’t think john needs defending here, he’s capable.

              i was thinking of bomford and such.

              with alinsky, you haven’t missed much. ayers is much more interesting to me, as a former criminal, traitor, terrorist.

            • Suranis says:

              Yep, which didn’t stop all of the politicians in Chicago associating with him, including Republicans.

              Or as Michael Kinsley, a longtime critic of Ayers, said

              If Obama’s relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others—including Republicans and conservatives—who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children’s issues … Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama’s relationship with them is absurd.

              And as William C. Ibershof, the lead federal prosecutor of the Weather Underground case, wrote to The New York Times on October 9, 2008:

              I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child. Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.

              So, what other smear are you going to drag out next? The 2 seconds of Rev White that were repeated 78,437,404,730 times maybe? Cut out of a a speech where he was describing how doctors as an experiment refused treatment to and let 12 black men die of Syphilis just so they could prove that Black men went through the same symptoms as White men? The context of which was repeated 0 times.

              Or maybe the smear that Obama is just too damn “foreign” Or that no-one knew him in college, that’s always a good one for you to ignore when its debunked.

          • i didn’t care for the weather underground as a grade schooler in chicago during the war era.

            i don’t wish they could have done more.

            i think you’re quick to judge me. a good
            example of that would be your saying that i’ve ranted about the money i wish woodman would make. and such. of course we now all know that isn’t true. so there is your foundation. makes me wonder about the rest of your “logic”.

            • Suranis says:

              http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/09/in-a-not-remote/

              It’s impossible to get to be my age and not have plenty of regrets. The one thing I don’t regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.

              “During the Vietnam war, the Weather Underground took credit for bombing several government installations as a dramatic form of armed propaganda. Action was taken against symbolic targets in order to declare a state of emergency. But warnings were always called in, and by design no one was ever hurt.

              “When I say, ‘We didn’t do enough,’ a lot of people rush to think, ‘That must mean, “We didn’t bomb enough s—.”’ But that’s not the point at all. It’s not a tactical statement, it’s an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, ‘we’ means ‘everyone.’

              “The war in Vietnam was not only illegal, it was profoundly immoral, millions of people were needlessly killed. Even though I worked hard to end the war, I feel to this day that I didn’t do enough because the war dragged on for years after the majority of the American people came to oppose it. I don’t think violent resistance is necessarily the answer, but I do think opposition and refusal is imperative.

              And like I said, plenty of Republicans are radial leftists by their association with Bill Ayers according to you, since that’s all it takes seemingly.

              And wow, now you are sitting there saying that an accusation without evidence means the person is innocent. How strange that you are applying a different standard in your silly crusade.

              Logic indeed.

              By the way, how come you are only replying to me? One could never accuse YOU of chickening out of responding to Slartibartfart’s deconstruction of your reply…

  20. Suranis says:

    John, Something strikes me about this and maybe you could clarify.

    If you are enhancing the image to see that is on the other side of the paper, which is what I understand you are doing here, wouldn’t the writing on the other side be in reverse? It’s turned over so from the perspective of the viewer the letters are now in mirror order, much like if you put down a piece if clear plastic the wrong way round.

    But you are interpreting these letters as being written the correct way round.

    I’m sure I’m just being dense here, but what am I missing?

    • John Woodman says:

      You’re missing the fact that I also mirror-imaged it.

      • Suranis says:

        It would be the stupidly simple answer that makes me feel like a complete dumnass, wouldn’t it. DOH! :D

        • John Woodman says:

          :lol: Well, I probably wasn’t explicit about that particular point in this article. I think I did mention it in the original article back in September, when I revealed the certificate number.

  21. here is a dumb question. about “indian”. native americans, cause columbus was lost when he discoverd “india”.

    or how did they refer to indians.

    • Suranis says:

      Indicos

    • John Woodman says:

      That’s not a dumb question, Scott.

      We have not yet seen 1961 State of Hawaii race classifications. We know that through the 1960s, the US federal government confusingly — by today’s standards — used the word “Indian” to refer to what we now more accurately call “Native Americans.”

      In this classification, during 1968 and 1969 (and probably some other years too, but I’m not going to go check for the sake of this minor point) they included Aleuts and Eskimos. In 1961, Aleuts and Eskimos had their own code.

      They had no separate classification for actual, genuine Indians — the kind who come from India. Any such persons would have been classified as “other nonwhite.”

      • gorefan says:

        “In this classification, during 1968 and 1969 (and probably some other years too”

        1964 first year.

  22. Slartibartfast says:

    Scott E. said:

    this is the kind of thing that perpetuates the controversy. it seems to me that if fogbow itself was squeaky clean that would be a better platform to cast aspersions.

    You can debate the ethics of tactics by Fogbow members, but you cannot give a single example of where the birthers were right and the Fogbow consensus was wrong on the facts (whereas its hard to know where to start with things that the birthers are wrong about…)

    but in any good spy versus spy story there are elements of character conflict.

    Any good spy vs. spy also needs to have villains with at least some competence. A very few birthers have demonstrated a limited amount of competence at grifting money from the gullible–nothing more.

    i come here because i like john, his forum doesn’t have the gritty edge and hostility of dr. goldcoins or fogbow. but that seems to be changing, giving way to character assassination and abject cynicism.

    When confronted with a group of bigots, the most honorable of whom are the willfully ignorant (as opposed to the stupid and dishonest), it doesn’t take long to start feeling the need to point out that the lying liar is lying again…

    i even noticed some team excoriation on amazon.

    kewl.

    so the orchestrated efforts haven’t gone un noticed. and you guys, haven’t for some reason been able to end this controversy, neither has mr. obama.

    Might that have something to do with people who knowingly tell lies to support a partisan agenda? Or is it just a coincidence that Corsi was part of the “swiftboating” of John Kerry?

    it’s hard to operate when you are blinded by hate, which is quite transparent.

    Which is one of the reasons that the birthers are so pathetically incompetent–their hate of President Obama leads them into making a false assumption (that he is illegitimate in some way) which renders any reasoning they apply impotent (you can logically prove anything from a contradiction)

    your alinsky is showing,

    This has got to be one of the stupidest birther memes–like the “war on terrorism” (really a conflict with muslim extremists), it confuses the opponent with the tactics. Have you ever read Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals? Are you aware that many on the right use his tactics as well? Or are you just interested in a scary-sounding term that you can smear liberals and the president with?

    and i wonder why, if your collective hand is so pat, tit for tat.

    Tit for tat? That would imply some equivalence (or at least parity) to the two sides that just doesn’t exist. No birther can have a discussion in good faith without admitting that they are prejudiced against President Obama and either willfully ignorant, lack the intelligence to understand the facts, or dishonest. Which is probably why no birther is willing to discuss things in good faith.

    i’m sorry if dr. corsi’s work doesn’t please you, but i’m real glad he does what he does.

    You are glad that he tells demonstrable lies in an attempt to smear the President of the United States? That speaks volumes about your character…

    i wish the msm had been engaged from the begining,

    They were–they looked, saw there was no “there” there, and moved on, occasionally noting a particularly spectacular birther epic FAIL.

    but in this country the liberal mainstream favors democrats especially in the case of obama, which he uses skillfully to his advantage.

    “Liberal mainstream”? We’ve got one network with an admitted liberal bias (and a few legitimate conservative voices) in MSNBC, one network that claims to be unbiased but instead displays a centerist bias (CNN), and one network that is the propaganda arm of the right wing (I don’t know how else to describe a network which would get the daily talking points from the Bush White House and read them verbatim on the air…). Here’s a hint: if your conspiracy theory requires FOX to somehow be “liberal” then you are probably delusional.

    kimba’s post for instance “maybe we should mount campaign to shame corsi into giving it back”. it seems contrived and trivial to come here to trash corsi in terms of character and not content.

    Corsi has adequately demonstrated his lack of both character and content–the only problem with kimba’s comment is that it didn’t take into account his lack of shame…

    if you are privy to the arrangement and new hasn’t stated specifically to you that he said he wouldn’t is one thing, but i think fogbow and goldcoin are getting ahead of themselves to create controversy, seems unecessary to me.

    Yes, I’m sure you’d rather see these liars build up some momentum so that more people will believe their baseless smears.

    remember my interest in all of this is the performance of the players. it’s fascinating to me that this war eages on.

    It is hard for bigots who have been gulled by liars with agendas and grifters to give up their hate.

    and i think the answer still is that obama has used the office to cover up some things in his past.

    I’m assuming that is based on nothing but your prejudice against President Obama, considering we know more about his past than any prior president or presidential candidate. I’m sorry, but the opposition research people on the Clinton and McCain campaigns were good–I’m sure they found all the dirt on President Obama that was available.

    i have a hard time seperating “serious/credible debunking fogbow fellowship” from the “rambunctious fun loving brilliant prankster society”.

    so why if the cause is so pure, all of the subterfuge ?

    [reference to anti-birthers using the o-word deleted to respect John's wishes] aren’t the homogeneous group that birthers are. Because the facts are on their side, they have no need to mirror the prejudice of the birthers with blind loyalty to President Obama–something amply demonstrated by Mr. Woodman.

    i know you despise me and any birther, but as long as there is a mystery, that’s fine, but i think both sides have been tactical and sometimes presumptuous.

    Can you give me an example of a birther who isn’t prejudiced against President Obama (for whatever reason) and either willfully ignorant, dishonest, or incapable of understanding the facts? In my opinion the truth is never presumptuous.

    i also said from the start, if nothing has been hidden or covered there should be nothing to worry about.

    A highly naive opinion given the current rancorous partisan politics . Millions, maybe hundreds of millions are going to be spent on lies smearing President Obama by superPACs. How would you feel if people were telling viscous, baseless lies about you to everyone you know? Somehow, I don’t think you’d say it was “nothing to worry about”…

    • gsgs says:

      how about, that there is zero chance that it’s a forgery ?
      (consensus at fogbow)
      there is always some chance – the mathematician/physicist
      in here will confirm

      • Arthur B. says:

        That’s very funny, gsgs. So far you have completely failed to show the possibility of a forgery based on any evidence. If you’d like now to make an argument based on mathematical physics, I’m sure we’d all be delighted to see it.

        Especially me — I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, and I’d love to know how my specialized knowledge will help me to understand why I should not have confidence in a document that’s been verified by the state agency that issued it.

        • nbc says:

          That’s very funny, gsgs. So far you have completely failed to show the possibility of a forgery based on any evidence.

          Instead gsgs wastes his time on foolish arguments about probability. of course he is totally unable to make a case that the document shows evidence of a forgery.

          Funny really…

      • John Woodman says:

        As someone who studied both mathematics and physics, yes, I will confirm that.

        But the chance appears at this point to be quite small.

        In fact, I have personally investigated every single significant allegation in depth, and found the birth certificate to pass every single test anybody could ever throw at it. And the tests have been about as exhaustive as possible. I exhausted every test I could come up with. The creativity of some thousands of people has produced a few more tests (including the pencil-codings test) and to date, it has passed every single one of them.

        One would tend to think that a forger would make at least some small mistake that would be detectable by this extensive of an examination. Partly because of this, in the end, my own conclusion is that the chance the document is a forgery appears to be small enough, that — in the lack of any new compelling evidence to the contrary — “zero” would appear to be a fairly good approximation.

        Kind of like your odds of running down to the convenience store this afternoon, popping $1 on a lottery ticket, and winning $300 million. Not zero, but pretty darn small.

      • nbc says:

        how about, that there is zero chance that it’s a forgery ? (consensus at fogbow)

        That is not the fogbow consensus my friend. Any mathematician would understand that a 8 out of 8 is, given the small sample size not evidence of 0%. Furthermore, you presume that the ’8′ represent the fogbow consensus? Poor gsgs… Logic, reason and math are again not on his/her side.

        You really should familiarize yourself a bit with statistical procedures, and try less to get ‘even’ with the Fogbowers who gave you an intellectual ‘beating’…

        • Slartibartfast says:

          As I recall, the complaint from the Fogbow was that the phrasing and available choices in your poll biased the outcome–a deficiency which you were apparently unable to address (or didn’t understand). As a mathematician (I have a PhD) and a scientist (I’m starting a company to provide modeling services to biological research labs) I would say that your question is meaningless because you haven’t properly specified it. To help you understand what I mean, here is an example of a methodology to empirically estimate the probability:

          What does being a “forgery” mean? Presumably that the information on the pdf does not match the information contained in the files of the Hawai’i Department of Health (meaning the data fields in the computer file, not a piece of paper) since the DoH is the agency charged with maintaining and verifying those records and the ultimate authority as to who was born in the state. Since their official acts are entitled to full faith and credit in any state or federal court, we can assume that no information regarding who was born in the state of Hawai’i which has been verified by the Hawai’i DoH has ever been found to be a forged (there is no existing evidence of this and the burden of proof is of the accuser, but it is inconceivable that there was an instance of this happening without the birthers having found it–unless, of course, they are totally incompetent). So, taking the number of times Hawai’i has verified a forgery as correct (zero) and dividing by the number of times the state of Hawai’i has officially verified that an individual was born there (at least one since they verified President Obama’s birth in Honolulu) we get an empirical estimate of a 0% chance that the BC is forged. Of course, if the birthers had stopped to think for a second, they would have realized that the complete absence of any motive for forgery in this case makes it a non-starter from the get go.

          What do you think is the probability that every single birther will change their minds and vote for President Obama? I think it’s a lot higher…

          * By the way, it’s interesting how frequently birthers call themselves Constitutionalists and how infrequently they show proper respect by capitalizing it–not to mention continually calling for its violation (on issues like judicial standing, full faith and credit, etc.)

          • gsgs says:

            Slartibartfast, that “is it a forgery” was taken
            from the most common wording that others used
            here. the posse, the Woodman etc.
            It was the best question to address the
            issue that come to my mind. Those people use
            that expression, they must have a meaning in mind, so they should give an expression about how
            strong that statement is meant.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              If you want a scientific estimate you need to specify what you are estimating –which is a problem for you because anything you accurately specify will have probability zero because forgery of the long form pdf is a ridiculous “crime” for which there is no motive, no evidence, and no opportunity. To dispute President Obama’s Hawai’ian birth, you must dispute the word of the Hawai’ian DoH and the full faith and credit act of the Constitution. Your propensity to waste time on trivial banalities is pathetic.

        • If I have ever seen a poll designed to obtain the desired outcome it was the idiotic poll by gsgs at the Fogbow. gsgs was after a result that showed that even on the antibirther Fogbow there was just a little doubt about the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate. So how did he achieve that? By not offering a choice that was zero. Finally, people quit voting an said the chance was zero in the comments. IIRC he even changed the choices midway through the poll. How is that for scientific method? What a joke.

          • gsgs says:

            how then do you explain that I ran the exactly
            same poll at a birther forum ?
            If there were changes then they were minor.

            I did similar polls at (pandemic) flu-forums before
            showing how those people are often influenced
            by the common “whisdom” or don’t say what
            they really think.

            (Also at Atheist and catholics forum)

            • nbc says:

              how then do you explain that I ran the exactly
              same poll at a birther forum ?

              That ignorance is not easily cured? And that repeating the same expecting a different outcome is hardly scientific. You really do not understand what makes a scientific poll now do you?

            • gsgs says:

              ——————-
              how then do you explain that I ran the exactly
              same poll at a birther forum ?

              That ignorance is not easily cured? And that repeating the same expecting a different outcome is hardly scientific. You really do not understand what makes a scientific poll now do you?
              ——————–

              RC had accused me of having designed the poll specially for fogbow purposes.
              So, nbc,tell us about your background in statistics.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs said:

              I did similar polls at (pandemic) flu-forums before
              showing how those people are often influenced
              by the common “whisdom” or don’t say what
              they really think.

              I’m guessing that what they really showed is that you don’t know how to design a scientific poll…

              nbc says:

              July 31, 2012 at 12:23 am

              gsgs says:

              how then do you explain that I ran the exactly
              same poll at a birther forum ?

              That ignorance is not easily cured?

              *snort*

              And that repeating the same expecting a different outcome is hardly scientific.

              In fact, it’s pretty much the exact opposite–science is about repeating the same experiment and getting the same results.

              You really do not understand what makes a scientific poll now do you?

              No. No he doesn’t.

              gsgs says:
              July 31, 2012 at 12:32 am

              RC had accused me of having designed the poll specially for fogbow purposes.
              So, nbc,tell us about your background in statistics.

              I believe you were accused of having a poorly designed poll intended to illicit a particular response which could then be used to mislead people (you know, what Mark Twain was talking about when he said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics)

              I don’t know about nbc, but I have a phd in math and I’ve had a year of basic graduate probability and statistics as well as one more semester of probability and one of financial math taught by the probabilist who prove the Mandelbrot conjecture and I haven’t seen anything that would make me suspect that nbc doesn’t know what he’s talking about on the subject. What about your credentials?

          • nbc says:

            gsgs: RC had accused me of having designed the poll specially for fogbow purposes.
            So, nbc,tell us about your background in statistics.

            So you repeated the same ignorance on other sites. And it’s not my background in statistics which is relevant, it’s yours. And so far you have shown little evidence that you have any.

        • o percent chance it’s a forgery sounds like a cheexy “fact” to me. what’s empirical about that. are they talking about the one in the safe ? how do they know. that’s not science to me. sorry, it’s sounds more speculative.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Scott,

            The official record is not in a vault–it’s on a hard drive (plus other secure backup, I assume). In other words, the official record is data not a document. If you disagree with my methodology then explain how it is incorrect–otherwise I have described how one can arrive at the estimate of 0% empirically. What you or anyone else feels about it is of no significance whatsoever. Science isn’t about who proposed a theory or what others think about it–it’s about whether or not the theory is logically correct and stands up to an experiment with the potential to falsify it.

            • John Woodman says:

              I actually disagree with the methodology, because I think it gives a “0%” chance for something that in the real world has a nonzero chance.

              This is a fairly minor quibble, though, as I have already said I think that the actual chance is close to zero.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              I was just fishing for a serious objection–it’s more fun to argue with you anyway since you discuss things in good faith and accept reasoned arguments…

              If

              A = the group of “forged” Hawai’ian birth documents

              and

              B = the group of birth documents whose information has been officially verified by the Hawai’i DoH

              and

              x = President Obama’s birth documents.

              Then the question at hand becomes: What is the conditional probability that x is in A given that x is in B? If there is no known case of x being in B, then I don’t see how you can make any other reasonable estimate for the probability besides zero based on that information.

            • John Woodman says:

              The problem is that we have no idea the size of A; nor — given the facts that we do not have access to many Hawaiian birth certificates and that presumably some unknown number of forgeries might be so good as to avoid detection — can we really get a count.

              Nor do we have an authoritative, proven relationship between A and B. We might, for example, have a rogue worker in the Hawaii Department of Health who — for fun — changes the information on 10% of the birth certificates from what actually happened. ;-)

          • nbc says:

            Scott: sorry, it’s sounds more speculative.

            Science is speculative my friend. Educate yourself before sounding a little bit foolish.

            • what crap you are peddling. it’s pitiful. you are all enchanted with your own brilliance…

              science is speculative….

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scott,

              How do you think that scientists come up with hypotheses if they don’t speculate?

              Also, what are your scientific credentials? (I have a PhD in math and have spent the last decade doing scientific research in biology, by the way…)

            • nbc says:

              science is speculative….

              It indeed is. If you do not know this then you do not understand how science works.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc,

              The speculative part is the best part of science… the rest is hard work–satisfying, yes, but not as fun. I really don’t understand how you can come up with a hypothesis if you don’t speculate…

            • nbc says:

              too bad the schools fail to properly educate people on how science works. Thus we experience such foolishness as people rejecting global warming, evolution and embracing such myths as 9/11 or Obama’s ineligibility. Sad…

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc,

              I have a theory that it stems from (or at least began with) the decline of the custom for layman to attend technical talks around the turn of the 20th century. I think this was due to things like Einstein saying that only 6 people in the world could understand his theory–which was true if you are talking about people who could “do the math”, so to speak, but laymen have no problems understanding the idea of general relativity (and no one understands more than 10-20% of technical talks unless they are in a field closely related to the topic of the talk). Making itself seem esoteric and incomprehensible to the general populace may not have been the best idea science has ever had… We end up with people like Scott who pals around with racists and repeats lies but couldn’t demonstrate critical thinking skills to save his life.

            • nbc says:

              Making itself seem esoteric and incomprehensible to the general populace may not have been the best idea science has ever had… We end up with people like Scott who pals around with racists and repeats lies but couldn’t demonstrate critical thinking skills to save his life.

              Sure, science can be complex and string theory for instance is way above my pay level but that does not mean that I do not understand how science works and how hypotheses become theories. I do not confuse theories with facts, I understand that science always remains tentative and I understand the value of peer review.

              In the case of the birthers, they appear to be unfamiliar with the foundational cases, the relevant data, the history, the reason and logic and instead focus on a small ‘tribal’ knowledge with which they have aligned themselves. And, since they need authority to comfort their uncertainties, they will accept anything the ‘authority’ proclaims with little doubt.
              You see it in the conservative churches, you see it in fascist and ‘communist’ societies and you see it amongst many of the birthers.
              The funny part? These tendencies are likely evolved. Conservatives then to dislike change and ambiguity and need order, a tribe and an authority while liberals tend to invite ambiguity, look for inclusion, sometimes as much to a fault as the conservative.

              As to who Scott’s friends are, I have no data nor do I really care.

        • gsgs says:

          here is the “intellectual beating”:
          http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=7866&start=122
          insults by the board-owner !
          Claiming that I didn’t understand that the pdf were
          meaningless in the first place in a thread with title
          “Woodman’s book” , how ironical.
          Woodman as well pointed out the pdf-forgery theory
          were meaningless since we have SG and AP, but
          still analyzed it at great length in his book, because
          the birthers did address it. And at least JW and RC
          should know why I came here in the first place and what my very first analysis here was.
          ———–
          and BTW. I often meet some nbc in forums,blogs
          with unfortunate,agressive replies, is that all you ?
          could be natural born citizen, also a blog with that name.
          or national broadcasting corporation

  23. gsgs says:

    says John Woodman on page 216:
    > disproving the various claims of fraud cannot prove that
    > the birth certificate is genuine.

    and on page 193:
    > could easily mean … that I had actually found the kind of credible
    > proof of forgery …

    could it easily happen again ?

    What exactly means forgery ? I’m not sure about that.
    Suppose they just scanned the AP-document and added to it the security
    paper background from one of their own security papers.
    Forgery ?
    Or it turns out the 2008-COLB shining through was indeed the fake from
    Polland – forgery ?

    • nbc says:

      What exactly means forgery ? I’m not sure about that.

      Look at how the Bomford Kenyan birth certificate was shown to be a forgery for example or how Dr Conspiracy debunked “McCain’s birth certificate” as a forgery as to how one establish a forgery claim.
      When however one has confirmation from contemporaneous newspapers and two independent Hawaiian administrations, including the actual certified copy of the original on file, then the likelihood quickly approaches zero.

      When one subsequently looks at the so called ‘evidences’ of forgery and come to realize that most, if not all can be trivially explained through a workflow of scanning which includes MRC optimization and when one observes that no forger would separate the layers as found, then yes, one has quite a convincing foundation to reject the possibility of a forgery with 0.000001% certainty.

      When you do a survey, it depends on who you ask. The general public is far more gullible and ignorant than those who are familiar with the intimate details.

  24. gsgs says:

    and, really, we only investigated the forgery claims of the birthers,
    almost all of which require a stupid forger with few skills and care
    and time and resources put into it. But I think that makes not much
    sense in the first place. Having disproven birther claims gives you a
    “feeling” that it’s genuine. But that’s not justified.

    Now, after the book was written, Hawaii repeatedly confirmed that the
    information on it matches. But is it complete ? And does the outfit match as well ?

    is the subjective probability that it’s a forgery really less than 0.0000001% as 8 out of 8 Fogbowers
    voted and many more of them saying verbally it’s _exactly_ zero ?
    I’d make it >99% that fogbowers were lying here.
    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=7842&view=viewpoll

    • Suranis says:

      Theres about as much chance that that BC is forged as the moon landings were Faked and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion proved that Jews were behind Communism.

      You are not David Hume, and that form of skepticism attacking the very basis of knowledge has no place in a rational discourse. In short, yes the fact that its rained downwards every day up to now does not prove we absolutely know it wont start raining up in the next 5 minutes, but that does not change the fact that that standing on your open umbrella “just in case” would be a stupid thing to do.

    • Arthur B. says:

      @gsgs — ‘Having disproven birther claims gives you a “feeling” that it’s genuine. But that’s not justified.’
      __

      That’s a pretty silly statement. The laws concerning the validity of official documents don’t depend upon “feelings” of genuineness. Neither do they depend upon proof to a mathematical certainty. Neither of your straw men comes close to capturing the way conclusions are reached in the real world.

      It is established to a legal certainty that Barack Obama was born when and where he says he was. That is a matter of neither feelings nor mathematical physics, but rather of evidence and of law. Calling people liars because they speak of probabilities in a context-appropriate sense is foolish, and I’m surprised that you would stoop so low.

      • nbc says:

        It is established to a legal certainty that Barack Obama was born when and where he says he was.

        Until one overcomes the prima facie nature of the document and so far, little that the CCP or others have done even gets close.

        I address a few claims on my blog again as Mara was arguing that no algorithmic process would scale the two different layers differently, even though a simple checking of the MRC process shows that the background is sampled down to half the resolution of the foreground in typical applications.

        Such a fail. And there are countless more. The only argument remains is that they have been unable to repeat the exact workflow. This would require them to have access to an ‘original’ copy of the birth certificate and the exact scanner and software and settings used.

        Not a trivial endeavor especially since so many commercial scanners use their own embedded software.

      • gsgs says:

        Arthur B.,
        how then does it come that this “legal certainety”
        is often interpreted differently by lawyers,judges ?
        In the real non-axionatic world it’s all about “feeling”,
        lawyers can usually “prove” both, the statement
        and the opposite.

        • nbc says:

          how then does it come that this “legal certainety” is often interpreted differently by lawyers,judges ?

          Not really, it’s called precedent. And the courts are relying strongly on US v WKA and Ankeny, all across our great Nation.

        • Arthur B. says:

          It is a legal certainty because there is prima facie evidence stating it is true and not a single piece of legally admissible evidence on other side. That is sufficient in the eyes of the law to draw a conclusion that the information is legally correct.

          That situation could change if competent contrary evidence were brought forward. It could also change if the Constitution were amended , or if certain laws were revised or certain court decisions overturned.

          That’s one of the reasons that legal certainty is understood to be different from mathematical certainty.
          Try to understand the difference, it’s a weak area for you.

    • nbc says:

      You have to understand how scientist approach this issue. Zero probability is just offensive to anyone but a mathematician, but luckily one can approach the problem by comparing competing hypothesis and show that one is far more likely than the other.

      Your overly simplistic attempt to smear the fogbowers, shows a level of maturity on par with an 8th grader. You must still be suffering from the intellectual ‘beating’ you received there.

      I understand…

    • John Woodman says:

      That would be one out of a billion. I personally wouldn’t put the probability anywhere near that small, but let’s say it’s even one out of a thousand. Or five thousand. In practical terms, that’s still pretty close to zero.

      If it’s even one out of a thousand (and frankly I think I’m probably being generous here in terms of putting the probability on the “large” side) — and we had a thousand Presidents with the exact same questions raised as Obama — we would expect that 999 times out of that thousand, there would be no forgery involved.

      So if we take those odds (which I think may be generous to the birthers) and given that the average President lasts a bit over 5 years, if we were to assume that the United States of America had existed for over 5,000 years, from the time of the earliest cunieform writing by the ancient Mesopotamians, until now, and had a constant stream of Presidents like the last 44, and every single one of them had the same questions regarding their birth certificate as Mr. Obama —

      Then we might expect that out of all of those Presidents over the past 5,000-plus years, we might find one of them with a forged birth certificate.

    • Scientist says:

      Of course, merely disproving claims of forgery doesn’t guarantee a document is real, if the forger is skilled enough. But documents don’t exist in a vaccuum. When considering the veracity of an object, one also needs to know the chain of custody and other facts surrounding it. If I claimed to have a daVinci in my attic, even if I presented the painting and the experts couldn’t prove it was a fake, many would (justifiably) doubt it unless I had a story that made sense as to how I came to have it.

      Here, the birth certificate was not found in a flea market in Singapore-it came from the Hawaii DoH and is vouched for by them. John’s estimate of 1:1,000 is thus very, very low in reality. It’s possible that 1:1,000 birth certificates floatinng around out there might be fake. But not 1:1,000 vouched for by the head of the issuing agency. In fact, of the 300,000,000 birth certificates in the US, I am not aware of a single one that was fake and yet vouched for by the issuing agency. So the odds are closer to 1;100,000,000.

      Now consider the odds of a Kenyan birth, the supposed event that would motivate the forgery (unless you honestly think they are covering up a heart in Ms Dunham’s signature). The trip is so unlikely, one would have to put it at somewhere around 1:1,000,000 or so. Certainly, even today when travel is much easier, no one has been able to identify a single case of an American woman travelling to Kenya to give birth (as opposed to a few expats living in Kenya who might give birth there).

      And when 2 events are required to produce a given result, the odds of the reslut are found by multiplying the odds for each event together. That would be 1:(100,000,000 x 1,000,000). You do the math.

  25. nbc says:

    is the subjective probability that it’s a forgery really less than 0.0000001% as 8 out of 8 Fogbowers

    Given the evidence so far, I would say indeed that the probability of the document being a forgery is that small compared to the probability that it was not a forgery. The argument is simple: You look at how a forgery is established versus the evidence that it is not and observe that most arguments that it is a forgery can be explained trivially through algorithmic processes, while those claiming a forgery cannot explain why the layers are so randomly constructed, with some letters part of the background and some part of the monochrome bitmap.

    Certainly, the claims by the Cold Case Posse that they have made a convincing and legally defensible argument that the document is a forgery, is easily dismissed given the known facts and the application of logic and reason.

    I have updated my website with some other examples of the Cold Case Posse overlooking a much simpler explanation that ‘forgery’.

  26. gsgs says:

    at any time I would bet 1:10000 or even 1:1000 (but not 1:10)
    that it will be proved and Obama and Woodman will admit that it was a forgery.

    • nbc says:

      at any time I would bet 1:10000 or even 1:1000 (but not 1:10)
      that it will be proved and Obama and Woodman will admit that it was a forgery.

      Relevance? This is not about you my friend, you have shown yourself to be easily manipulated by silly rumors and unable to defend your position.

  27. gsgs says:

    how about Ann Dunham teaching herself how to leave a secret message in her
    signature ? Some political or philosophical or religious symbol.
    Or just a little heart – girls do such things.
    And now Obama didn’t want it to show up and deleted it.
    forgery ?
    And Hawaii confirming that the information matches what they have.
    incorrect ?

    • Arthur B. says:

      Your thinking is growing truly bizarre.

      I believe you are saying in your wagering example that you see the probably as being greater than .001 but less that .1 that the birth certificate is a forgery, to include things like purging the document of a little heart in Ann Dunham’s signature.

      Now tell us, what do you see as the probability that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii or on a date other than 8/4/61? From an eligibility perspective, of course, that’s all that matters.

      • gsgs says:

        my subjective probability of Obama being born in Hawaii
        is currently 97%

        • nbc says:

          my subjective probability of Obama being born in Hawaii is currently 97%

          So the controversy is over…

        • John Woodman says:

          I would like to point out something significant here.

          Guenther has not by any means leaped forward to embrace Mr. Obama as eligible. In fact, he’s taken some heat for that.

          He has also patiently sifted through quite a bit of evidence.

          I think it’s fairly significant for Guenther to say his “subjective probability” of Obama having been born in Hawaii is “currently 97%.”

          In general, I think Birtherism is eroding. That’s the long term trend. It has been a mob-mentality myth, but some people, at least, are realizing that’s pretty much all it ever was.

          • gsgs says:

            > Guenther has not by any means leaped forward to embrace Mr. Obama as eligible.

            what does that mean ? (you forgot one more negation ?)
            I’m not much advocating his eligibility (less than other typical posters here,OK)
            Considering it possible, though unlikely that he is illegible. Critisizing how he handles the debate.
            I’m almost neutral for US-policy, Reps vs. Dems

            yahoo translates this to:

            “Guenther hat keineswegs vorwärts sprang, Herr Obama als zugelassener umarmen.”

            and back to:

            “Günther has by no means forward jumped, Mr Obama when browsing embrace.”

            • John Woodman says:

              I mean you’ve been pretty much of a total eligibility skeptic, and yet even you give the chance of Obama being born in Hawaii a 97%.

            • nbc says:

              I see… still some left over residue… No worries…

    • nbc says:

      how about Ann Dunham teaching herself how to leave a secret message in her signature ? Some political or philosophical or religious symbol.

      Just like the smiley face on Mars. Some people who refuse to see the obvious let their imagination run wild down paths not supported by logic or reason.
      Such is the birther mind.

      Poor gsgs…

    • nbc says:

      And Hawaii confirming that the information matches what they have. incorrect ?

      Still unable to make any positive arguments? Figures.

    • Suranis says:

      Yes because everyone signs their name with “I luv Marx” on their hospital forms…

    • Slartibartfast says:

      So you are suggesting that a document which was only produced at the special request of the President of the United States (which was not required for any official purpose was forged because Dr. Dunham drew some kind of commie symbol in her signature? Do you ever think about any of these inane arguments before you make them? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it…

      • nbc says:

        Uh… is that a serious question :-)

        • who is dr. dunham ?

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Dr. Stanley Ann Dunham–a very impressive woman who the birthers smear and disrespect at every turn. If you learn about this amazing woman it becomes less and less surprising that her son grew up to be POTUS. As a birther, you probably can’t even show enough common respect to use her proper title (it’s probably another shibboleth).

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc,

              This sort of casual disrespect by birthers just shows how classless and pathetic they are.

          • nbc says:

            Follow the trail. Hint: President Obama’s mother.

            Ever thought about using Google for your education and enlightenment? It’s called research, something scientists do…
            Scary isn’t it… No spoon feeding.

            • gsgs says:

              she was not Dr., when she signed the document. Just an 18 year old student.

            • nbc says:

              she was not Dr., when she signed the document. Just an 18 year old student.

              Neither was Obama President when he signed his selective services document and yet we still refer to his proper title.

              Sigh…

            • john this used to be a nice website, now it’s just nasty and condescending and tainted by personal attacks, like kevin’s.

              good luck amigo. don’t let the [deleted] spoil you !

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scott,

              So you feel that you should be able to repeat despicable lies aimed at smearing the president, but when someone points out the logical consequences of your own words you complain about them being mean to you and run away. Well, at least that means one less liar on this blog…

  28. Slartibartfast says:

    Scott E. said:

    this is the kind of thing that perpetuates the controversy. it seems to me that if fogbow itself was squeaky clean that would be a better platform to cast aspersions.

    You can debate the ethics of tactics by Fogbow members, but you cannot give a single example of where the birthers were right and the Fogbow consensus was wrong on the facts (whereas its hard to know where to start with things that the birthers are wrong about…)

    but in any good spy versus spy story there are elements of character conflict.

    Any good spy vs. spy also needs to have villains with at least some competence. A very few birthers have demonstrated a limited amount of competence at grifting money from the gullible–nothing more.

    i come here because i like john, his forum doesn’t have the gritty edge and hostility of dr. goldcoins or fogbow. but that seems to be changing, giving way to character assassination and abject cynicism.

    When confronted with a group of bigots, the most honorable of whom are the willfully ignorant (as opposed to the stupid and dishonest), it doesn’t take long to start feeling the need to point out that the lying liar is lying again…

    i even noticed some team excoriation on amazon.

    kewl.

    so the orchestrated efforts haven’t gone un noticed. and you guys, haven’t for some reason been able to end this controversy, neither has mr. obama.

    Might that have something to do with people who knowingly tell lies to support a partisan agenda? Or is it just a coincidence that Corsi was part of the “swiftboating” of John Kerry?

    it’s hard to operate when you are blinded by hate, which is quite transparent.

    Which is one of the reasons that the birthers are so pathetically incompetent–their hate of President Obama leads them into making a false assumption (that he is illegitimate in some way) which renders any reasoning they apply impotent (you can logically prove anything from a contradiction)

    your alinsky is showing,

    This has got to be one of the stupidest birther memes–like the “war on terrorism” (really a conflict with muslim extremists), it confuses the opponent with the tactics. Have you ever read Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals? Are you aware that many on the right use his tactics as well? Or are you just interested in a scary-sounding term that you can smear liberals and the president with?

    and i wonder why, if your collective hand is so pat, tit for tat.

    Tit for tat? That would imply some equivalence (or at least parity) to the two sides that just doesn’t exist. No birther can have a discussion in good faith without admitting that they are prejudiced against President Obama and either willfully ignorant, lack the intelligence to understand the facts, or dishonest. Which is probably why no birther is willing to discuss things in good faith.

    i’m sorry if dr. corsi’s work doesn’t please you, but i’m real glad he does what he does.

    You are glad that he tells demonstrable lies in an attempt to smear the President of the United States? That speaks volumes about your character…

    i wish the msm had been engaged from the begining,

    They were–they looked, saw there was no “there” there, and moved on, occasionally noting a particularly spectacular birther epic FAIL.

    but in this country the liberal mainstream favors democrats especially in the case of obama, which he uses skillfully to his advantage.

    “Liberal mainstream”? We’ve got one network with an admitted liberal bias (and a few legitimate conservative voices) in MSNBC, one network that claims to be unbiased but instead displays a centerist bias (CNN), and one network that is the propaganda arm of the right wing (I don’t know how else to describe a network which would get the daily talking points from the Bush White House and read them verbatim on the air…). Here’s a hint: if your conspiracy theory requires FOX to somehow be “liberal” then you are probably delusional.

    kimba’s post for instance “maybe we should mount campaign to shame corsi into giving it back”. it seems contrived and trivial to come here to trash corsi in terms of character and not content.

    Corsi has adequately demonstrated his lack of both character and content–the only problem with kimba’s comment is that it didn’t take into account his lack of shame…

    if you are privy to the arrangement and new hasn’t stated specifically to you that he said he wouldn’t is one thing, but i think fogbow and goldcoin are getting ahead of themselves to create controversy, seems unecessary to me.

    Yes, I’m sure you’d rather see these liars build up some momentum so that more people will believe their baseless smears.

    remember my interest in all of this is the performance of the players. it’s fascinating to me that this war eages on.

    It is hard for bigots who have been gulled by liars with agendas and grifters to give up their hate.

    and i think the answer still is that obama has used the office to cover up some things in his past.

    I’m assuming that is based on nothing but your prejudice against President Obama, considering we know more about his past than any prior president or presidential candidate. I’m sorry, but the opposition research people on the Clinton and McCain campaigns were good–I’m sure they found all the dirt on President Obama that was available.

    i have a hard time seperating “serious/credible debunking fogbow fellowship” from the “rambunctious fun loving brilliant prankster society”.

    so why if the cause is so pure, all of the subterfuge ?

    [reference to anti-birthers using the o-word deleted to respect John's wishes] aren’t the homogeneous group that birthers are. Because the facts are on their side, they have no need to mirror the prejudice of the birthers with blind loyalty to President Obama–something amply demonstrated by Mr. Woodman.

    i know you despise me and any birther, but as long as there is a mystery, that’s fine, but i think both sides have been tactical and sometimes presumptuous.

    Can you give me an example of a birther who isn’t prejudiced against President Obama (for whatever reason) and either willfully ignorant, dishonest, or incapable of understanding the facts? In my opinion the truth is never presumptuous.

    i also said from the start, if nothing has been hidden or covered there should be nothing to worry about.

    A highly naive opinion given the current rancorous partisan politics . Millions, maybe hundreds of millions are going to be spent on lies smearing President Obama by superPACs. How would you feel if people were telling viscous, baseless lies about you (as well as your mother, grandmother, and wife) to everyone you know? Somehow, I don’t think you’d say it was “nothing to worry about”…

    • Especially me — I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, and I’d love to know how my specialized knowledge will help me to understand why I should not have confidence in a document that’s been verified by the state agency that issued it.

      R U satisfied ??

      • nbc says:

        Theoretical physics. That explains a lot. From a scientific perspective there is little reason to doubt the veracity of the document.

        • Arthur B. says:

          In scott’s first paragraph, he was quoting me.

          In his second I have no idea what he’s talking about.

  29. When confronted with a group of bigots , the most honorable of whom are the willfully ignorant (as opposed to the stupid and dishonest), it doesn’t take long to start feeling the need to point out that the lying liar is lying again…

    prove i’m a bigot now alinsky….
    the whole world is watching……..

    john ?? this is your house…

    • a player in u.s. history, dr. corsi is. he reminds me more of ben franklin than you do. look, i harbour no ill will towards you guys at all. but you haven’t convinced me yet. tell me more…
      why isn’t this simple transparent part of american history going away ??
      i don’t know about john kerry and i have the luxury of really not knowing about any of this before 4/27
      after that is ignorance bliss ?? i’m going to maine for the rest of the summer, so maybe there’s a clue. (the first lady, west wing tv show)

      • nbc says:

        a player in u.s. history, dr. corsi is. he reminds me more of ben franklin than you do. look, i harbour no ill will towards you guys at all. but you haven’t convinced me yet. tell me more…

        What would you like to hear that you cannot research yourself with trivial effort?

        • i am not sure what you mean.
          hi nbc how are you ?…

          • nbc says:

            Then I have no idea what you mean. Hi Scott

            • “What would you like to hear that you cannot research yourself with trivial effort?”

              that they will show the real birth certificate, i guess. if there is one.

            • nbc says:

              that they will show the real birth certificate, i guess. if there is one.

              Oh such a fool…
              You still refuse to accept the facts. Is your ignorance and fear that great that you allow it to manipulate you into looking rather foolish?

      • John Woodman says:

        why isn’t this simple transparent part of american history going away ??

        Solely because there exists a critical mass of charlatans and willing sycophants. That’s the only reason.

        There’s certainly no factual basis for the continuation of the charade.

        • gsgs says:

          Obama could easily almost stop it (reduce it a lot)
          maybe he wants it to go on.
          Reps hate it to go on –> Dems like it to go on

          • nbc says:

            Obama has done everything to prevent this from dragging on but yes, it’s an embarrassment to the Republicans.

            But I doubt anything Obama would do, would change the minds of these foolish people, they have long since abandoned logic, reason and fact in favor of fear and ignorance. An all too common affliction amongst the ‘Tea Party’ republicans.

          • Arthur B. says:

            He’s taken some action to stop it. I’m not aware of any action he’s taken to prolong it.

            It’s not a pivotal issue in the campaign and it’s not an issue of national importance, so I think he’s smart mostly just letting it fail of its own idiocy.

            I doubt that he’s given it a great deal of thought.

        • yet the controversy rages on. yhis would be the best reason for investigation and a trial. i hope congree takes it up and i hope eligibility comes up in the supreme court to drfinr natural born.

          • nbc says:

            i hope congree takes it up and i hope eligibility comes up in the supreme court to drfinr natural born.

            They already have and the lower courts understand this. Furthermore, congress will never be that foolish as they understand the relevance of the evidence presented.
            Only a fool would still doubt the facts. But perhaps you can explain to me what your ‘objections’ are beyond a dislike for our President?

            So Scott, why do YOU want to continue this charade which only serves to expose you as ill informed, fact and logic averse and driven more by ignorance and speculations by others?

            Have you done any original research into these matters?

            I doubt it.

          • Jim says:

            scott erlandson says:”yet the controversy rages on.”

            Actually, it doesn’t. The last CCP book selling was a complete disaster. Every court has come down on the side of the President. The only people who seem to be worried about it are people who wouldn’t vote for the President…and the scam artists trying to rob those people for every cent they can get.

          • John Woodman says:

            yet the controversy rages on. yhis would be the best reason for investigation and a trial.

            Only because of the scam artists pushing false claims. And yes, I am all for an investigation and a trial at this point. Oh, wait. I mean for the frauds who’ve been fooling people such as yourself and selling this stuff.

            • gsgs says:

              he could have released it earlier.
              In the book you raised the question why he let Lakin go to jail.
              He uses the timing to increase the effect,
              he “plays” with the birthers, making them look badly.
              WH could explain how the pdf was created.
              Why only one reporter could make
              lowres photo with a cellphone, no cameras allowed
              Why the dismissing strategies instead of letting the Courts decide

            • nbc says:

              he could have released it earlier.
              In the book you raised the question why he let Lakin go to jail.

              Lakin would have gone to jail the moment he made his foolish video. Good riddance for his follies.

              The courts have decided: President Obama is natural born. The documents clearly show him to be such.

              Sure, blame the victim but President Obama had already released his COLB and some fools decided that was not enough and convinced Lakin that this was of any significance.

            • nbc says:

              Why only one reporter could make
              lowres photo with a cellphone, no cameras allowed

              Any evidence that no cameras were allowed? Or was she the only smart one who took a picture making fools of the cold case posse who ignored her photograph. Sure blame others for this incompetence. Personal responsibility is out is it not?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              Convicted felon Lakin was a coward who put the lives of American troops in very real danger (which would seem to be a violation of his Hippocratic oath and was a violation of his officer’s oath). He deserves far worse than he got–why should anyone who cares about this country give a damn about anything that yellow dipshit says?

            • gsgs says:

              nbs,
              I read it (no cameras) somewhere on
              the blogs, probably Dr.C
              Or Pfeiffer to the press on 2011.04.27
              slarty, (wrt. Lakin)
              I was just quoting from Woodman’s
              book (p.214)

            • nbc says:

              I read it (no cameras) somewhere on the blogs, probably Dr.C

              So nothing really to support your claims.

              Never mind.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs said:
              “slarty, (wrt. Lakin)
              I was just quoting from Woodman’s
              book (p.214)”

              Well, I suspect President Obama didn’t “let” Lakin go to jail–he probably didn’t know a thing about it (at least I hope he didn’t–the president shouldn’t be bothered with such trivial matters), but if he did know about it I’m sure he would have agreed that Lakin should be punished for his very serious crimes (which include either himself or his lawyer lipping off to one of the two active-duty medal of honor winners).

              It is, however, very difficult to tell when you are quoting. Try using the following:

              {blockquote}

              blockquoted stuff

              {/blockquote}

              {b}bolded stuff{/b}

              {i}italicized stuff{/i}

              Just replace the “{” and “}” with “less than” and “greater than”.

            • gsgs says:

              slarti,
              I had written:
              >> In the book you raised the question why he let Lakin go to jail.
              in obvious reply to Woodman. No ambiguity. I don’t know much about the Lakin case.
              The quoting and threading system is not very good here.
              How do you find the replies to your posts ?
              Also, some posts are followed by a “reply”-button and some not.
              How to find the reply button that
              belongs to those posts ?
              And when you partly filled the reply
              and then scroll to find the proper reference, it’s hart to refind the comment-box
              —————-
              nbc,
              you’ll find several sources independently saying that Guthrie was the only
              one who took 2 pics and no other pic ever appeared, afaik.
              Looks unusual/untypical for such events. Why was it ? What’s your explanation ?
              ———————-

            • Suranis says:

              You were told the explanation on the Fogbow. The press were asked not to take photos. Guthrie took a photo on her mobile anyway and stuck it on her twitter feed. That’s why the resolution of the photo sucks.

              And by the way, You didn’t prove your innocence on the Fogbow either. Even RC, who invited you over there, stuck you on ignore. Sheesh.

            • nbc says:

              gsgs: you’ll find several sources independently saying that Guthrie was the only one who took 2 pics and no other pic ever appeared, afaik.

              Any specific sources?
              So now we have pictures that put to rest the assertion that the document only exists as a ‘forged’ pdf.

              What does that mean to the Cold Case Posse’s assertions?

    • Suranis says:

      I’ll just repeat this

      i think you’re quick to judge me. a good example of that would be your saying that i’ve ranted about the money i wish woodman would make. and such. of course we now all know that isn’t true. so there is your foundation.

      You know, after making my point about you suddenly clinging to lack of evidence = innocence when it involves you, I decided to give you some “evidence”

      Here are simple steps to finding the evidence

      1, click on Search feature on top of the page
      2 Type in your name
      3 Select second link

      Took me 3 seconds.

      And you will see a long page of you doing just what I accused you of. Oops, it seels that what I said was the truth. It was on may 1st. And before you cast aspersions on my ability to read your lilly white intentions, lets just quote John Woodman on his impression of the reason for your incessant questioning of how much money he got.

      And I’ll tell you something else, Scott: I get really sick of you intimating that I must somehow be on somebody’s payroll or part of a conspiracy. It’s frankly rude, and I’m frankly tired of it.

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/americas-first-legal-text-subscribed-to-by-george-washington-john-adams-and-james-madison-reveals-the-meaning-of-natural-born/

      So, I guess we both know it is true. Certainly stronger evidence than you have been able to claw together of your stupid conspiracy theory despite 4 years of trying.

      3 seconds if my life proving my case > 4 years of yours failing to prove your case. I’ll take that.

      Now, do something positive today and donate some money to John Woodman for the time you have taken amusing yourself crapping over his blog. And an apology to him would be good too if only for your soul. No need to apologize to me.

      • that’s your example of me ranting a bout woodman making money ? got anything else? note the word intimating. show me something concrete.
        here’s what i said up thread:
        “woodman doesn’t make money from this, a least not much. for him i believe it’s a labor of love.” before this broke out. try again.

        the conversation:

        You have no idea how much doing this has cost me, at least in terms of time and effort, with — after expenses — no financial recompense at all for my time.

        And I’ll tell you something else, Scott: I get really sick of you intimating that I must somehow be on somebody’s payroll or part of a conspiracy. It’s frankly rude, and I’m frankly tired of it.

        Reply

        scott erlandson says:

        May 8, 2012 at 3:34 pm

        what’s the point of having a blog, you’re the one that put yourself out there. i don’t think you’re on the payroll. you told me you weren’t.
        i do think you’re pals with fb and dr. goldcoin. sorry, i don’t mean it in a bad way. what’s the fun of having a conspiracy (theory) if you can’t take a few chances. stand your ground amigo. when your right you have nothing to hide.

        and scott erlandson says:

        May 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm

        what about your book ?? you must be getting royalties…

        i know what you mean though, it’s an expensive hobby/advocation

        maybe ranting the the operative word..

        people should read the entire text. but as far as making money from this ? who knows. i john says he’s gotten no help from obots i believe him. i said that a long time ago, publically and privately. it’s a big mess. we need more time and distance and perspective.

        • Suranis says:

          Who dont you wquote the rest of the page and the pages previous to that? YOu dont seem to think that was the only time you game out with that Bullshit, which provoked John into his outburst

          And as I said, YOu dont have to believe me. As I quoted and you ignored, John Finally lost it with your constant barbs that went on for days, and HE SAID You were doing it, not me. I’m not wasting my time going back and quoting pages of your crap just for you to do the standard birther tactic of not replying to it ever again and pretending the conversation never happened.

          And as for

          note the word intimating.

          I don’t know why you said that. Here’s the dictionary definition;

          in·ti·mate 2 (nt-mt)
          1. To make known subtly and indirectly; hint. 2. To announce; proclaim.

          Which is what I was saying you were doing, and what JOHN said you were doing. Thanks for indicating that I should note that. It makes you even more wrong.

          So don’t try to arrogantly shew (yes that’s a word) that you are cleverer than me. Indicating that you don’t have any idea what words mean in the English language is counter productive.

          • John Woodman says:

            Ah, I’m remembering some of this now. Sorry Suranis that I haven’t paid that much attention to this thread of the conversation.

            I think it had a lot to do with Scott implying that I was on somebody’s payroll. More that than that I was making big profits off of the book, which I (manifestly and unfortunately) am not.

            But yeah, I got pretty tired of those hints from Scott, to the point that if he didn’t knock it off I was about ready to pull the little “whoosh” handle on him. ;-)

            • Suranis says:

              Yeah one of my problems is a near photographic memory, so I remember these little details. Kinda makes me seem a little unpredictable.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Scott,

      Every birther displays prejudice regarding President Obama (note: I make no assumptions about why birthers have already made up their minds regarding President Obama, I just note that they have somehow reached the conclusion that he is ineligible despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary–to me this demonstrates prejudice and a person who exhibits prejudice is a bigot. Therefore every birther is a bigot. I even have a shibboleth for determining whether or not someone is a birther–if you can say “President Obama was born in Hawai’i and is eligible for his office” you aren’t a birther as no birther is able to type these words. Can you?

      Having established that any birther is a bigot, we get to why people might believe the birthers regarding President Obama despite all of the credible evidence saying that he was born in Hawai’i. The most obvious possibility is that they are ignorant. There is nothing wrong with ignorance (although it’s nothing to be proud of, either), but once someone has been in the birther movement for any length of time, they, of necessity, move into willful ignorance–which isn’t so innocent. Then there are the people who have misread the evidence (or been duped by grifters or true believers)–those who have failed to understand an issue on which the evidence is so one-sided that when the birthers finally got their day in court to present their case they lost–to an empty chair. Maybe I should use a more politically correct term than “stupid” for those that display this woeful level of critical thinking ability, but given the birther penchant for wrapping themselves in the flag whilst denigrating the Constitution and everything it stands for (with unquestionably racist arguments*, I think that calling those that exhibit a lack of intelligence stupid is hardly out of line.

      Now we get to those who have seen the evidence and understand the evidence but continue to peddle falsehoods in order to smear the president and/or grift money from the stupid, ignorant bigots. Seeing as how its been well documented on this blog, I don’t see how anyone could reasonably object to calling Mario and Corsi and their ilk liars.

      It’s pretty simple: if you don’t want people to justly call you an ignorant, stupid or dishonest bigot, then don’t birf.

      * Arguments that come directly from the holding of the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision are clearly racist by any reasonable standard.

      • why would i dignifty this racebait?

        makes you sound archaic and ignorant, and like one of the weaker [word not allowed].

        incidentally, replacing “f” for th is a colloquial affectation of speech, know who it mocks genius ?
        i’ll give you a clue axe for ask. you guys always miss that. loser

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Scott said:

          why would i dignifty this racebait?

          What racebait? Calling you a bigot is not calling you a racist and saying that you spout racist arguments is the simple truth. The Vattel quote (or, rather, the poor [and late] translation of Vattel that the birthers like to quote) that birthers are so fond of was used by the majority in the holding in Wong Kim Ark in exactly the same manner as the birthers try to use it. Do you question that the argument used to deny citizenship to freed slaves was racist?

          makes you sound archaic and ignorant, and like one of the weaker [word not allowed].

          I don’t care about how I sound. I care about smearing you with your own words and their logical consequences. Have I said anything untrue? Are you not biased against President Obama? Do you have any rational reasons for this hatred? Have you not mentioned the quote by Vattel? You seem to think that smearing President Obama with lies is okay but smearing you with the truth isn’t. I feel differently.

          incidentally, replacing “f” for th is a colloquial affectation of speech, know who it mocks genius ?
          i’ll give you a clue axe for ask. you guys always miss that. loser

          I wasn’t replacing “f” for “th”. I was using the correct adjective form of “birther”. Is complaining that the name that we give the actions of a group of stupid, ignorant, and dishonest bigots who spout racist arguments and are silent about the racists in their midst the best you can do? Try putting together a cogent argument for once.

          • lol…. ok, if you say so.

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              Scott, I am not one to call people racist, but you cannot doubt that at least a portion of the birther movement is fueled by racist hatred for the President. Have you ever been on a pro birther site and denounced the racists on the board?

              I gave Garrett Papit the same opportunity yesterday, he seemed to think that I was being ridiculous. Tell me, is it ridiculous to ask you to denounce the racist element of your movement?

              What about right here, right now, do you denouce that element of the birther movement that is clearly and obviously racist?

  30. Rambo Ike says:

    Northland10 says on July 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm:
    “…….For many of us, it is not about being right or wrong but finding and upholding the truth. It is not about us. It is about the Constitution, it is about truth and it is about honor.”

    Thank You! Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that satire or else I’d have a major mess on my desk to clean up, but it was funny and I do appreciate good humor.

    In the real world my own personal experience on that propaganda site Dr. Con calls his blog, to McKinnion’s Smear Machine and Woodman’s FantasyLand “Truth & Honor” was in short supply.

    I don’t begrudge Woodman trying to make some money on writing a book, it’s a capitalistic venture and there is nothing wrong with that, but pleaseeee, it should be listed in the fictional category where it belongs.

    Besides the numerous errors I’ve recently pointed out to Woodman on his fiction there is a Bottom Line to all this. A couple months back over a question I presented to Dr. Con he agreed with my original position from 2008 that there was noway it could be determined if a copy of a birth document was genuine or not without having the original to compare it to. After some hee-hawing around by Woodman he too eventually said “it would be best”. Isn’t that what Sheriff Joe & The Donald have been calling for? And what has been the response from the Obamaites to that?: “State law won’t allow it.”

    Watching what has been ongoing with the birth certificate issue reminds me of how palaeontologists, scientists that study fossilized remains, operate. For over a hundred years they’ve been studying dinosaur bones and every so many years after finding new bones on a particular dinosaur they revise their theory of what it looked like and what its habits were. Unless by some quirk they actually find a preserved specimen they’ll always be operating on theory. But with Obama’s original birth certificate which is alleged to be on file, we can end the ongoing insanity of all these theories. This does nothing for the “natural born Citizen” issue, but at least we can clear up the division that exist over a birth document.

    So we’re left with both sides spinning their wheels by coming up with all kinds of theories and playing ‘Got Ya Politics’ when we all know what the Bottom Line is. Obama has to be laughing and saying “what a bunch of dupes, I’m picking the pockets of the American people for $millions to keep my records sealed and my useful idiots are covering for me.”

    • Jim says:

      Rambo Ike says: “So we’re left with birthers spinning their wheels by coming up with all kinds of theories and playing ‘Got Ya Politics’ when we all know what the Bottom Line is. WND has to be laughing and saying “what a bunch of dupes, I’m picking the pockets of the birthers for $$$ to keep this lie going and they don’t even realize they’re being scammed”

      There you go Ike, FIFY.

    • Suranis says:

      Tell it to the Judge.

    • nbc says:

      But with Obama’s original birth certificate which is alleged to be on file, we can end the ongoing insanity of all these theories.

      This has been done more than once only resulting in more insanity. Why would you believe the next time will be different? The birthers have already convinced themselves that nothing is going to convince them anymore. Isn’t ignorance wonderful?

      The simple fact remains that the long form, COLB all confirm President Obama’s native birth, making him a natural born citizen by any logical and legal standard.
      Birthers insist that the document is somehow forged but provide no relevant evidence while ignoring straightforward explanations where common workflow involving Mixed Raster Content explains most of what was considered to be indicators of forgeries.

      It’s the continued ignorance which indicates to me that the birthers are not interested in the facts, there goal is to continue a non-existing controversy. And sadly enough there are enough fools who are willing to blindly follow.

    • John Woodman says:

      Okay, that’s it.

      Northland10 made a frankly 100% true statement. I find your attempt to ridicule that true statement by characterizing it as “humorous” to be well beyond any bounds of good taste or basic human decency.

      In the real world my own personal experience on that propaganda site Dr. Con calls his blog, to McKinnion’s Smear Machine and Woodman’s FantasyLand “Truth & Honor” was in short supply.

      Just as I have, Kevin Davidson has been pretty longsuffering with fools. Perhaps both of us have been too longsuffering.

      I had wanted anybody to be able to come here and be able to engage in civil dialogue. I make it a policy to try and give everybody the benefit of the doubt.

      Unfortunately, some people are simply not worthy of one’s efforts to be accommodating.

      To call Kevin Davidson’s site a “propaganda site” is simple defamation.

      While I personally disagree with Mr. Davidson’s politics, I have not found any writer anywhere to be more careful to substantiate his facts, more open to fact-checking by others, more honest, or more accommodating to allowing those who disagree with him to speak on his site.

      Davidson has quite definitely earned my respect, while others — Jerome Corsi, Mark Gillar, and Mario Apuzzo come to mind — have progressively lost any bit of respect that I might at first have granted them.

      Yes, there’s a smear machine. And right now, on this blog, Rambo Ike is the one running it. But not for much longer.

      I don’t begrudge Woodman trying to make some money on writing a book, it’s a capitalistic venture and there is nothing wrong with that, but pleaseeee, it should be listed in the fictional category where it belongs.

      And yet, nearly a year after the book was published, neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to identify even ONE substantial point — out of an estimated 120 such substantial points that I made in the book — that is factually inaccurate. As far as I can recall, the ONLY bit of content that I have ever had to retract or correct in that book was my inadvertent use of the term “Democrat Party” when I meant “Democratic Party.” And that was because I attempted to look up the correct name, and the source I consulted was itself wrong.

      I would hardly call that “fiction.”

      Only in the hallucinatory delusions of your warped, twisted little conspiracy theorist birther fantasy-loving mind, Ike, can such a thing, validated by nearly a year of being “out there” in a very hostile environment without one single significant criticism ever managing to “stick,” be considered “fiction.”

      And to bald-faced lie about both me and my book, and to blatantly smear me — as well as others — at my own site, when I have gone to extraordinary lengths to be as factual and as accurate in every single point as humanly possible, certainly far exceeds the expected politeness of one who has been welcomed as a guest as warmly as was humanly possible.

      Besides the numerous errors I’ve recently pointed out to Woodman on his fiction there is a Bottom Line to all this.

      I gave you free rein on this site — without even moderating your posts like all of the birthers do. And both I and everyone else who frequents this blog have put up with many thousands of words of your drivel, on pretty much every topic discussed. Every single point you have ever made here (and believe me, there were way too many of them) has been patiently and factually answered. Some by myself, a great many by other honest persons who frequent this blog.

      To my knowledge, NOT ONE of your endless stream of assertions, claims and smears ever turned out to be true.

      You’re done here, Ike.

      Go find somebody else’s blog to whiz all over. Or maybe you can go back over to Mario’s, since you fawn all over that two-bit phony like a schoolgirl in the presence of Indiana Jones.

      It’s too bad you didn’t have the civility to make it to the end of this blog. I had hoped that in this blog’s entire 15-month history, MichaelN would be the only person I ever felt the need to throw out.

      And if Arpaio’s posse hadn’t come out with their latest round of malarkey, that would’ve been the case. But enough is enough.

      I will now pull the plug and allow other readers the satisfaction of watching “Rambo” Ike circle around the drain, and then disappear.

    • nbc says:

      What racebait. Scott, learn to properly quote… I provided you the link….

      blockquote tags and cut and paste the part to which you are responding to or at least the author.

      Give it a try.

      Funny, you deleted your posting… Interesting.

      • no, it was under the wrong comment (see above)
        i don’t think you called me a bigot or racist, most of you are pretty good about that. a few exceptions

        • nbc says:

          While racism is a component of relevance amongst some birthers, I find the accusation to have little relevance in a discussion based on facts. My biggest objections to your position is that you reject clear factual evidence in favor of myths, rumors and innuendo and do not shy away from repeating the foolish assertions of others.

          The facts are simple:

          1. President Obama released his COLB which shows him born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen.
          2. People claim that his long form would show him born at home, reported by his grandparents, supporting their foolish Kenyan birth argument
          3. He releases his Long Form birth certificate and during a press conference provides a printed copy as well as a highly compressed PDF. The document shows him born in a hospital and is signed by the attending physician.
          4. Savannah Guthrie is amongst the attendees and reports that she has touched the seal and releases photographs that support her claims
          5. People confuse compression artifacts and workflow artifacts with evidence of forgery.

          So on the one hand we have two certified, verified documents that properly show President Obama was born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen. We have two independent administrations supporting this, we have contemporaneous birth announcements supporting that the document was indeed filed soon after his birth.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          I said that all birthers are bigots due to their prejudice against President Obama and you have clearly demonstrated yourself to be a birther, so I certainly implied you were a bigot (if you disagree, refute my hypothesis and I will apologize, but if you can’t falsify my argument I don’t see why I should avoid saying something that is true. I didn’t even speculate about the cause of your bigotry nor anyone else’s–I did, however, note that birther arguments that could have been lifted verbatim out of the Dred Scott majority opinion were still as racist now as they were then. If you have a problem with associating yourself with racist arguments, you might want to think twice about being a birther.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            July 30, 2012 at 4:21 pm

            “I said that all birthers are bigots due to their prejudice against President Obama and you have clearly demonstrated yourself to be a birther, so I certainly implied you were a bigot”

            i would say again prove i’m a bigot. so far no one has ever shown an example.
            what you have is racebaiting and conjecture and libel. you don’t know me to make that claim. you’re just weak and despicable. it’s easy to call names.

            you’re not the first to try to smear me as a bigot/racist. it’s shows your ignorance not mine. it make liberals look bad.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              You mean that you don’t think you are biased against President Obama? I would dispute that based on your unwillingness to recognize the clear evidence that he is eligible for the presidency. If you can’t dispute that point, then my reasoning shows that you are exhibiting bigotry. Based on what little I’ve seen here, I have no desire to know you any better.

              The truth is an affirmative defense against libel.

            • Suranis says:

              Gosh, so there is another reason you feel the need to pal around with and defend Liars, smear artists, fraudsters? There is another reason why you suddenly unlearn what you were taught in Highschool and convince yourself that law is something different so that a Black man is not really the president? There is some other reason that you cling to this despite bieng shown over and over that this is false and the evidence you have been shown is simply not true? There is another reason you cling to this despite watching this Legal argument fail in a court of law 150 times? There is another reason why you wont even learn how to put blockquote in front of something you want to quote, simply because of who is telling you how to do it?

              Please tell us this other reason, because frankly you being a bigot is the least contemptible conclusion one could draw from this.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Suranis,

              I think the blockquote thing really stands out–clearly reasonable advice offered in a spirit of amity (and having nothing to do with President Obama). For the birthers, arguments are true or false depending on who is making them rather than their merits, therefore the suggestion had to be bad or a trick since an ob-t made it…

            • Slartibartfast says:

              i would say again prove i’m a bigot. so far no one has ever shown an example.


              bigoted |ˈbigətid|
              adjective
              obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
              • expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

              prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
              noun
              1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience : English prejudice against foreigners | anti-Jewish prejudices. See note at bias .
              • dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior formed on such a basis : accusations of racial prejudice.

              Do you deny having a preconceived opinion regarding President Obama which is not based on reason or actual experience? Because you have certainly demonstrated such an opinion in your comments. From that observation one can reach the logical conclusion that you are, by definition, a bigot.

              what you have is racebaiting

              Racism is merely one form of bigotry and all I have said is that you favor racist arguments (which you do).

              and conjecture

              No, empirical observation and logical reasoning.

              and libel.

              It can’t be libel if it is true.

              you don’t know me to make that claim.

              I’m basing my claim on what you’ve said on this blog.

              you’re just weak and despicable. it’s easy to call names.

              Project much? It might be easy for you to call names, but I back up what I say with explanations and I’m willing to admit when I make a mistake–however nothing has convinced me that I’ve made a mistake in your regard…

              you’re not the first to try to smear me as a bigot/racist.

              Yes, I am trying to smear you with an accurate label (bigot, not racist). Glad to hear that others have tried to do likewise. You and other birthers, on the other hand, like to smear people with lies. Do you see the difference?

              it’s shows your ignorance not mine. it make liberals look bad.

              I very much doubt anyone reading this will have any trouble determining which of us is ignorant. Unless they the have the cognitive dissonance of a birther…

          • Thomas Brown says:

            Arguments over the relative amounts of ordinary partisan animus vs. racism in Birfers is like the tedious conversations about table sugar vs. corn sweetener.

      • Give it a try.

        no i don’t think i will give it a try.

        • nbc says:

          Scott: no i don’t think i will give it a try.

          I understand. It’s tough to change one’s ways once so thoroughly committed. Even though the position is illogical.

          Consistent at least.

          • if you say so. you are always teaching something.

            • nbc says:

              I would be more impressed if you were actually showing some indication of learning something.

            • and i’ve never seen such a vivd superiority complex as you nbc. probably insecurity.

            • nbc says:

              and i’ve never seen such a vivd superiority complex as you nbc. probably insecurity.

              I do not feel superior, it’s just that I see such foolish notions or ignorance and I am trying to help. But I doubt that my efforts will make much difference. How could I feel superior to you? I do like a challenge but at least present me with one.

              If you had taken my advice, you might even have been able to properly quote the comment to which you were responding.

              The instructions were simple and you still cannot follow them? Unwilling or unable to learn or revise his ways. What a marvelous specimen we have found here.

            • Thomas Brown says:

              You feeling intellectually superior to Scott would be like me patting myself on the back for being a better driver than Stevie Wonder.

            • nbc says:

              clever ;-)

          • Slartibartfast says:

            I believe he was referring to using blockquotes or other html tags to highlight the quotes he was responding to. Not that refusing to display that level of common courtesy is wrong, just rude. Par for the course for a bigoted birther spewing racist arguments, I’m afraid.

          • if john wants to upgrade to those features, i’ll use them.

            • nbc says:

              Scott: if john wants to upgrade to those features, i’ll use them.

              You can use them just like everyone else. Just at the tags. Let me give you step by step instructions as you appear to be a somewhat slow learner.

              1. Copy the text. Highlight it using your mouse and then hit ctrl-c.
              2. Hit reply and place the cursor in the comment box
              3. Hit ctrl-v to paste
              4. Now at the blockquote tag as follows

              <blockquote>text text text</blockquote>

              If this is too complex then I cannot help you any further.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scott said:

              if john wants to upgrade to those features, i’ll use them.

              Presumably referring to my saying:

              I believe he was referring to using blockquotes or other html tags to highlight the quotes he was responding to. Not that refusing to display that level of common courtesy is wrong, just rude. Par for the course for a bigoted birther spewing racist arguments, I’m afraid.

              These aren’t features that John needs to install–they’re features that work on just about every blog in existence.

              To use the following tags, just replace “{” and “}” with “less than” and “greater than”.

              {blockquote}Blockquoted stuff{/blockquote}

              {b}Bolded stuff{/b}

              {i}Italicized stuff{/i}

  31. mr. obama ……. open that vault please….

    • Suranis says:

      He canna doe ih Captahn…. HE DOH HA DE POWER!!

    • nbc says:

      You are asking the wrong person. President Obama has done anything to get the content of the vault shown to the world. But the DOH of Hawaii holds the keys. Surely you believe in States Rights?
      Why people are so foolish to fail to comprehend this is beyond me. Unless they are trolling?
      Why people fail to accept the long form birth certificate is beyond me, there exists only one reasonable explanation I can think of.

      Why do you reject the facts?

      • because it’s all theory. not hard.

        • nbc says:

          Ah, also confused about ‘theory’ and ‘fact’, a common phenomenon amongst tea party conservatives. You may want to read ‘The Republican Brain’ to understand why people who are anti-science also tend to believe in other conspiracies and are likely candidates to be birthers. It’s the ‘conservative’ curse.

          But I have spelled out the facts, explain to me how these facts still allow you to deny his eligibility, other than through ignorance?

          PS: If you need some hints as to theory and fact, please let me know, I understand it is a common affliction amongst those who do not understand how science works.

          Look Scott, impress us with some independent thought, an argument, some logic or reason.

          • i could say the same for you. it’s not like you are all so gifted as to be able to end this simple argument after five years. there is/are a lot of politics mixed in. it should be easy for you, i’ve got time. like the pdf, your facts are virtual.

            • nbc says:

              Scott: i could say the same for you. it’s not like you are all so gifted as to be able to end this simple argument after five years. there is/are a lot of politics mixed in. it should be easy for you, i’ve got time. like the pdf, your facts a virtual.

              Of course the PDF is ‘virtual’ but remember that it shows that the President was born on US soil, in a US hospital. That some people have foolishly concluded that the pdf is a forgery just because they failed to consider the workflow and compression involved is sad.
              But that should not be a reason for you to remain ignorant as to these facts?

              So surprise us, show us some evidence of independent thought, reason, logic? Perhaps an argument you would like to defend?

              Anything? I am patient.
              It’s not that we are not ‘gifted’, it’s that some people are unlikely to let fact and reason change their minds. It’s part of the ‘republican brain’ where conservatives are shown to be more dependent on authority and less able to handle facts that contradict their group thinking.
              Of course there is also a lot of politics involved in miseducating these poor people, sending them out with factless information that exposes them as mindless fools.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scott,

              Can you give an example of a fact that is “virtual” or something that John (or someone else here) has claimed was a fact that you can dispute?

            • Scientist says:

              OK, I’ll end the argument. The voters will pick who they like best, regardless of where they were born or who their parents were. The ultimate authority lies with the people.

              Argument over.

          • nbc says:

            Can you give an example of a fact that is “virtual” or something that John (or someone else here) has claimed was a fact that you can dispute?

            I doubt that Scott is interested in a discussion of facts. He’d rather speculate as to what he refuses to acknowledge.

            I’d be more impressed if he could show some evidence of independent thought, or even a reasoned argument.

            Luckily I am a patient person.

            Would Scott be interested in discussing the ‘findings’ by the Cold Case Posse and the pdf? Perhaps he could present his best argument?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc,

              I would be impressed, too, but I long ago observed that no birther can ever afford to engage in a discussion in good faith, nor can they present their theories clearly–either insures the exposure of the lack of fact and reason in their arguments.

            • nbc says:

              I would be impressed, too, but I long ago observed that no birther can ever afford to engage in a discussion in good faith, nor can they present their theories clearly–either insures the exposure of the lack of fact and reason in their arguments.

              That is something I have come to conclude as well. Ask any birther to present his best argument and you quickly see a total failure culminating in total denial and often anger.
              It’s not easy for the average birther to abandon his or her deeply held belief, even it is totally at odds with logic, reason or the facts.

    • Scientist says:

      While Hawaii’s vault is not under Mr Obama’s control, Mr Romney’s tax returns for the last 10 years are unquestionably under Mr Romney’s control. Tax returns are something every serious candidate in recent times have released (including Mr Romney’s own father) , while NONE have sent people into the vaults of any state.

      So let’s start there. Fair is fair, after all. And yes there is real controversy about Mitt’s business transactions, not a phony ginned up one. He has in his own filings sworn to things that contradict what he has said in the campaign. We should start with the REAL controversies and then, if there is time, we can deal with the phony ones. Priorities.

      Mr Romney, release those returns!

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Scientist,

        You should have said: every serious presidential candidate starting with Rmoney’s own father… (who released 10 years because one or two years worth of returns could be a fluke). What is Mittens hiding by doing something his father would consider suspicious? I’m not going to vote for him, but I would think anyone considering it would want to know…

      • i don’t know why he wouldn’t, or maybe he will. i think they’re trying to build a quid pro quo for obama’s records.

        • nbc says:

          But in case of Romney there is evidence that he was less than forthcoming. Combine this with the fact that presidents have released their tax returns and we may wonder what Romney has to hide.

          President Obama did present his COLB showing him to be a natural born citizen and this should have settled the matter to any reasonable person.

          So what is Romney hiding?

          At CNN we find the following

          By announcing that he will release no further tax returns beyond his 2010 and 2011 returns, Mitt Romney appears to have exempted himself from the proud bipartisan tradition of presidential nominees displaying genuine financial candor with the electorate.

          What is more, his disclosure to date is in the wrong direction: It is the release of Romney’s past returns, not his current ones, that matters.

          Since George Romney inaugurated the practice more than 40 years ago by releasing 12 years of tax returns in his bid for the Republican Party nomination, presidential nominees have been transparent with voters about their personal finances. For this reason, we have not suffered a significant tax scandal involving a nominee or sitting president since President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the tax code.

          Source: Why won’t Romney release more tax returns?

          The part that really interests me is how he managed to pump $100 million into his IRA… There is a good explanation but it shows some tricky IRA stuffing…. There are so many indicators that it would make sense for Romney to come clean.

          Second, Romney’s $100 million IRA is remarkable in its size. Even under the most generous assumptions, Romney would have been restricted to annual contributions of $30,000 while he worked at Bain. How does this grow to $100 million?

          • i hope he does, i hope they all do, it’s better for us.

            • nbc says:

              Scott: i hope he does, i hope they all do, it’s better for us.

              Yes we all need to understand how his IRA got to $100M… Smells rotten would you not agree?
              Not to mention the various other indicators…

              Why is Romney not coming clean? Could he be ‘dirty’?

    • Just as I have, Kevin Davidson has been pretty longsuffering with fools. Perhaps both of us have been too longsuffering.

      like a mid summer night’s dream… me lord..

      this is the most shakesperion thing i’ve heard so far…

      you perfect 1600′s / 2400′s …….need to get over yourselves…

      • John Woodman says:

        Don’t hack me off, Scott.

        I’m still hoping to meet up for a beer with you somewhere one day.

        • yes… beer….
          you think rubio is eligible ?

          • nbc says:

            Why not? Born in Florida, which was as far as I can tell part of the United States in 1971.

            By any logical and legal standard, his birth on soil made him a natural born citizen. That’s at least what the Supreme Court told us in their ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark. Not surprisingly, the ruling is totally misunderstood or ignored by the average birther.

            • parent’s citizenship. i guess that’s the issue. natural born again.

            • Arthur B. says:

              Parents’ citizenship is irrelevant to natural born citizenship. The courts have been unanimous on this for over a century.

            • nbc says:

              Scott: parent’s citizenship. i guess that’s the issue. natural born again.

              Parent’s citizenship has no relevance to the status of the child. Birth on soil is, with minor exceptions, what makes one natural born.

              Care to listen to the facts? Start with reading the full US v Wong Kim Ark ruling, then read how the issue raised by the Government was “did the lower court err in finding Wong Kim Ark to be natural born” (paraphrased). Then read the dissent where the dissenting Judge laments how unfair it is that Wong Kim Ark can become President but not so children born to US citizens, while abroad.

            • so you defined natural born, that was easy.

            • nbc says:

              Scott: so you defined natural born, that was easy.

              It’s not that hard Scott, anyone who would spend a little time researching could do it as well.

              Want to give it a try? Surprise us.

            • why would wong kim ark need to be declared natural born ?

              you are so condescending, yet so commonly average.

              look just below here. you and john aren’t even in the same conversation. if your quote system is so great. doesn’t matter though you just keep right on preaching. that’s amusing to me because you are so arrogant. you remind me of arduini talking down to the little people from the high perch of knowledge. the difference of course is that he’s brilliant… and you’re…. well, not so much.

            • nbc says:

              Scott: why would wong kim ark need to be declared natural born ?

              To be declared a citizen.

              Now that was simple. Told you to read the case. Really Scott.

              You need to read beyond the conclusion to understand the situation. But let me first point out that the Government in it’s appeal argued that the lower Court was wrong in finding Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. In addition, the dissenting Judge lamented that under the majority opinion, Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President while children born abroad to US citizens could not.

              That by itself should have been sufficient indicators. But let’s explore the argument presented by the Court in more detail.
              The court observed that under the naturalization statutes, Wong Kim Ark could not have become a US citizen, but it observed that the Constitution discusses the term citizen as well as the term natural born citizen. The court observes that the term natural born citizen remains undefined in the Constitution and thus its meaning should be found in common law.

              The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

              The court then spends many pages outlining how the definition traces back to the term ‘natural born subject’ meaning a child born on soil.

              It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

              III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

              it rejected Mario’s position

              There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. [p668]

              Looking beyond

              V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

              The Court then ruled him to be a citizen, not by naturalization but by virtue of birth on soil.

              The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

              Concluding two sources of citizenship

              “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

              The ruling is quite simple and straightforward, as the Courts in Ankeny and beyond have observed.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scott said:
              why would wong kim ark need to be declared natural born ?

              Because, by law, he could not be naturalized and was therefore either natural born or not a citizen.

            • nbc says:

              Because, by law, he could not be naturalized and was therefore either natural born or not a citizen.

              You cheated, you actually read the case… Admit it…

              Sneaky…

            • nbc says:

              Some more rulings

              It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.

              For failure to preserve such a record for the information, not less of the Commissioner of Immigration and of the Secretary of Labor than of the courts, the judgment in this case must be reversed. It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.

              Kwock Jan Fat v. White – 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc says:
              July 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm
              Quoting Slartibartfast:

              Because, by law, he could not be naturalized and was therefore either natural born or not a citizen.

              You cheated, you actually read the case… Admit it…

              Sneaky…

              Actually, while I’ve read a few quotes, I’ve never read the case–I just listen to people who know what they are talking about* (like you… ;-) ).

              *maybe the problem of Scott and the other birthers is that they don’t understand how to identify competence…

            • Scientist says:

              It’s a fundamental principle of democracy that the voters choose their leaders. Not the dead Founders, judges, living or dead or bloggers, but the live voters. The US sends troops all over the world to support that proposition in other countries. That is the guiding principle here as well.

            • nbc says:

              the difference of course is that he’s brilliant… and you’re…. well, not so much.

              Wow, you are admitting that you are being outsmarted by some who you consider to be not that smart.

              That must hurt a bit, or does it? Perhaps it’s just a ‘flesh wound’ (apologies to Monty Python).

              Come on Scott, you made some foolish comments about WKA, repeating the birther nonsense and was shown where you were wrong.

              Now you resort to name calling rather than a reasoned response?

              I am shocked, truly shocked. I could not possibly have predicted such a response or lack thereof.

              or could I…

              Show us that you understand Wong Kim Ark and explain to us that if you do not, why you are so willing to trust those who now have caused you to look a little bit foolish?

              Does it not bother you that you allow yourself to be so easily manipulated by myths, falsehoods and worst of all, ignorance?
              I am still looking forward to you defending some of your quickly abandoned positions or admit to having been ill informed.
              But I do understand that both may be hard on the psyche.

          • John Woodman says:

            you think rubio is eligible ?

            Yes. Absolutely.

          • Suranis says:

            Yes, Birthers have been saying for the past 4 years that once Rubio runs all the libs will suddenly remember the “real” definition of Natural Born Citizen.

            Of course they are lying as usual. Yes, of course Rubio is eligible. Geez. He’s probably a decent GOP candidate for the presidency too. OH noes.

            Scott, in 1937 Congress passed an act that declared children born in the Panama Canal Zone to be Natural Born citizens if they were born to ONE American citizen Parent and Born in the zone. Before you ask, it didn’t apply to McCain as he was born in 1936. They act did make it retroactive but that’s always a dodgy legal area.

            So, can you please tell us your addled reasoning why Congress would make it EASIER for children born OUTSIDE the USA to be eligible for the presidency?

      • nbc says:

        Just as I have, Kevin Davidson has been pretty longsuffering with fools.

        You are a loner I presume?

        • John Woodman says:

          No. I write from the perspective of being the person who moderates this blog. I should’ve much more properly said ALL OF US have been pretty longsuffering with fools.

          • nbc says:

            I thought I was responding to Scott :-)

            As a blogger myself, I have found myself all too often suffering fools. Some occasionally visit my blog, others have shown themselves to be totally impervious to logic, reason or fact. They hate our President to such an extent that nothing will change their ‘mind’.
            That’s sad… I have no respect for those who use poor logic, reason and science to argue their conspiracies. Whether it was 9/11 or the Birth Certificate, these are clear examples where logic, reason and fact do not make difference to the core conspiracy believers. It becomes almost like a religion where neither logic nor reason can do much to convince the core believer, think ‘creationism’ for example.

            I could add global warming, the ozone hole or autism/vaccines as other examples where science has to be ignored for the conspiracy to continue…

            • John Woodman says:

              Yes, that occurred to me after I replied.

              Scott was quoting me, but didn’t italicize the quote or put it in blockquote tags. Or even quotation marks.

            • If you have any doubts about scott’s computer skills just check his website. That will remove all doubt. It is a wonderful parody of a 90′s Geocities website, complete with animations, green and purple on black text and oddly arranged graphics.

            • nbc says:

              Yeah his website is only outdone by Orly’s..

          • nbc says:

            Perhaps we should tell Scott how to properly add ‘quotes’?

            Look up blockquote in HTML

  32. John Woodman says:

    scott says:

    i’m sorry if dr. corsi’s work doesn’t please you, but i’m real glad he does what he does.

    Excuse me? Jerome Corsi is a fraud. This has been conclusively shown on multiple occasions when his claims have been put to the test.

    He made a blatantly false claim that Charles Bennett’s 1955 article specified the order in which birth certificates were stamped. He has never retracted this blatantly false claim, even though called on it publicly.

    An article by Corsi contained sections that were plagiarized almost word for word from the London Evening Standard. This was caught by Atlanta attorney Loren Collins. Corsi blamed the plagiarism on unspecified African sources.

    In my book, I documented that Corsi had publicly backed the following 23 claims to have “proof” or “good evidence” of forgery — not a single one of which stood up to scrutiny:

    • the nature of the layers
    • alleged editing of items on the certificate
    • the white halo
    • the duplicated characters
    • the date stamps
    • the “scanner with x-ray vision”
    • the altered PDF posted at archiveindex.com by Doug Vogt
    • the supposed kerning
    • comparison with the “African birth” forgery
    • the supposed lack of text curvature
    • the apparent lack of a seal
    • the alignment of Ann Dunham Obama’s signature
    • the supposed existence of “hidden text”
    • the idea that a different document exists
    • the supposedly “out-of-sequence” certificate number
    • Paul Irey’s theory of different typefaces
    • the supposed misspelling of the word “THE”
    • the supposed “smiley face” in the signature stamp
    • the supposed record of the forger’s initials
    • the supposed lack of hospital records for Mrs. Obama
    • the discrepancy in Barack Obama, Sr.’s age
    • the allegations by Tim Adams
    • and the idea that Governor Abercrombie had stated that no birth certificate existed

    The last of these, by the way, was made up out of thin air by Corsi himself.

    We have the testimony of “New Girl” (or “Hawaii Girl” as I am now calling her) who told me she loaned him her personal property, has asked for its return twice, and he has not returned it.

    The day before the March press conference, Corsi and Zullo were already selling their ebook giving an “inside scoop” on this so-called landmark “investigation,” with profits to be split between the two of them.

    You don’t see a problem with that?

    And now we have the latest — entirely conclusive — evidence that Corsi and the Posse falsified the evidence and lied to the nation.

    And you’re “real glad he does what he does.” ??!@?!!

    The evidence could hardly be more compelling that the man is nothing more than a fraud.

    And you’re glad that he’s out there pushing his scam.

    • John Woodman says:

      I didn’t even mention the quite literal cover-up of Hawaii Girl’s birth certificate number — a number which proved that his major “Obama’s certificate number is proof of fraud” claim was nothing more than additional hogwash.

      Did I mention that he knew about my videos from waaaaaaay back last summer — yet neither he nor Joseph Farah, his editor, ever bothered to even ONCE cover any of the evidence against any of their birther claims? Every single damn big of so-called “evidence” they have presented has been exactly and precisely whatever would allow them to push the conspiracy theory, on which they advertise and sell Corsi’s book and other “eligibility products.”

      Did I mention that Farah was one of the first people in the world to actually receive a copy of the book — literally the day before it was published?

      And here you are, rooting for a fraud.

    • well obviously i don’t think it’s a scam. i don’t think my website is a scam site either. (as far as the look, lot of people just use cookie cutter templates for their sites, i don’t) i’m having fun developing it.

      i was unaware that tim adams changed his story.

      i’ve heard jerry say he didn’t believe the certificate existed, i don’t either. mike evans changed his story. it appears on the web to be some documents that have senior born in 34 some in 36. the rest of it is virtual and i went around with arduini on this. how can you “prove it” authentic, if it cannot be proven forged. without the original.

      did i ever constantly rant at you about money ever, cause that’s what there telling people.

      i am glad jerry continues to do his research, just as i’m glad you do yours.
      i’m stunned that new things are coming ou still, like the literary brouchure and verna lee.

      did obama have records sealed is that true ? was it done for free as the [word not allowed] say.

      there is still a lot of conflict. did tom harrison and mara zebest come around to agreeing with you, it’s been awhile since that debate.

      i think obama is corrupt, we’ll see if that’s true or not.
      did new girl approach you ?

      as far as the money business, i don’t know what’s proper for who to make what profit from the birther issue but i know some people are. i think it’s ok. some people solicit donations, i don’t even do that. so i would have to keep the money for washamericom to be a scam site right, after selling a false bill. my site doesn’t have much birther, that’s not what i want it to be.

      no i don’t see this a being a dead or resolved issue. they have been saying it’s over for years, but i don’t see it that way.

      • John Woodman says:

        Scott, if you don’t understand that it’s a scam, you’re really not paying attention. That’s about all I can say.

        did i ever constantly rant at you about money ever, cause that’s what there telling people.

        To be fair, I do not offhand recall you ever constantly ranting at me about money. On the other hand, I seem to remember that at one point I was about an inch away from sending you down the MichaelN/ Rambo Ike tube. Right now I don’t recall exactly why, but I’m sure I had a good reason. ;-)

        • john i think there was a time, when you wouldn’t stand by and watch the [deleted] pile on me with the racism/bigot crap, i’d like to see you take control back, also in the interest of fairness. it’s still you forum with your good name on it. don’t let these people bring you down. when people are right they don’t need to act that way. you have always been a gentleman in my mind. cheers amigo.

          • John Woodman says:

            For what it’s worth, I can’t say that I have any particular reason to believe you’re a racist. Consulting the dictionary for “bigot,” it gives: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” I don’t know that you’re utterly intolerant. I do think you’re so stuck in your desired belief that you’ve been pretty much impervious to the facts.

            I must say that I find it a bit difficult to defend you from name-calling, when you persistently engage in name-calling yourself. The word “obot” is not allowed here. I would suggest you refrain from using it. It puts your posts into moderation, and I’m tired of dealing with them. Any future posts you make with that word in it, I’m just going to toss in the bin.

            I think that’s fair enough. Fair enough?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              My working definition of bigot is a person who displays prejudice (I gave a dictionary definition of both words around here somewhere). By that definition, I believe that Scott’s words (as with all birthers) show he has an unreasoned bias against President Obama which is the definition of prejudice (bigotry being the exercise of prejudice). As for his not being “utterly” intolerant–can you point to an instance in which he showed any tolerance towards President Obama? If not, wouldn’t the adjective “utterly” be correct?

              On the subject of racism, I’ve merely pointed out that the birthers use arguments which are unquestionably racist (unless you can argue that Dred Scott wasn’t a racist decision) and seem to have no intolerance for the obvious racists in their midst. I believe both of these things are true, although I am certainly willing to debate the topic with you or Scott or anyone else. I believe that actions should have consequences and someone being called a liar when they continually lie (as has regularly happened here with Mario) seems like an appropriate response.

              You don’t teach a dog by cleaning up their shit–you rub their nose in it first. I don’t know if the birthers have the learning ability of the average cocker spaniel, but, if not, people should be aware that they are covered in their own feces…

            • i guess so. i didn’t know [deleted] was still a bad name. i figured since this (link) was kevin’s website it wasn’t an epithet. sorry
              http://www.obots.org/

              i just thought it was part of the language of the controversy.

              i don’t mind birther, never have. i think “birfir” is racist, but that’s ignorance, no one took the time to think it through, so maybe there’s a clue. to me it seems presumptuous to base an attack on a personal unknown judgement.

              when people generalise and say all birthers are prejudiced, without evidence, what does that say for the science of the rest of their arguments (is it a speculative process of evolution ?). seems contradictory to me. i’ve seen the definitions some include race and religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

              anyway have a nice day.

            • John Woodman says:

              Slartibartfast,

              If “prejudiced” is a good synonym for “bigot,” then I must admit I’m going to have a pretty hard time defending Scott, as I do believe the fact that he seems completely impervious to any facts or reason on the issue.

              I’m kind of caught in the middle here. I want this site to be welcoming enough for anyone to come and comment here — including birthers, even if I am personally kind of tired of them — but I certainly don’t want to offend the reasonable folks such as yourself, either. It’s not really an easy tightrope to walk.

              Now that “Rambo” Ike has been offloaded, Scott’s about the only fairly regular birther we have left. They’re an endangered species around here. So I hope you’ll understand if I try to at least half-heartedly defend him. :lol:

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              I wouldn’t be a very good scientist if I didn’t follow your example and invite criticism of my arguments… ;-)

              In my thesaurus, “prejudiced” is the first listed synonym to “bigoted”, so I see them as more or less interchangeable.

              And don’t worry about offending me–as long as you invite debate in good faith and respect the scientific method, you wont offend me. This is your place, and if you ever feel that I’ve gone too far, a simple request will be all that’s necessary to bring me back in line. ;-)

            • John Woodman says:

              Oh — by the way, I don’t necessarily agree that birthers’ arguments, in and of themselves, are racist.

              I draw a very fine line on this.

              Yes, they quote Justice Daniel in the infamous and extremely ugly Dred Scott case, which was DEFINITELY a RACIST opinion in a RACIST case. And that case was totally and justly overturned through Constitutional Amendment.

              To be very specific, I think Daniel used a birther argument to make his racist point.

              I will say this, though: Birthers are restrictionists and exclusivists, and as restrictionists and exclusivists, yes, they have a great deal in common with both racists and sexists.

              So from that point of view, I think it is not at all a coincidence that the major cases they quote — Dred Scott and Minor v Happersett are racist and sexist cases (both of which were overturned, by the way).

              Nor is it exactly a coincidence that their single clearest authority — Alexander Porter Morse — was the government’s lawyer in Plessy v Ferguson.

              I do think that some birthers are racists. I think that’s clear. But from the overall persepective, I tend to view them as being more fellow-travelers with the racists, than necessarily racists themselves. It is admittedly a fine distinction.

            • Scientist says:

              John: I think the idea that Obama (and only Obama) must show a birth certificate and then, after showing not one, but two, must allow people to root around in the files is without a doubt prejudiced against him as person. nothing like that not asked of any of his predecessors, nor is it being asked todayy of his opponent. Sure, when you mention Romney, many birthers will say they don’t like him, but which birther has asked to see microfilm for him?

              Whether the fact that we see these demands is due to Obama’s race or his ideology-moderately liberal, but well to the right of FDR, JFK, LBJ (and close to Nixon, Reagan and Bush I on a number of issues), or is merely co-incidence, I leave for the reader to guess.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Scott,

            I’d like to see all of you birther bigots stop trying to smear the president by endlessly repeating baseless lies. You are the one who keeps lying Scott–it’s not me that had decided that a bigot who is either willfully ignorant, unintelligent, or dishonest is who you choose to be, that’s what your own words paint you as. It is people like you who act in bad faith that destroy civil and reasoned debate in this country–I can’t think of any way you could be more rude. If you are unable to participate in a rational debate (and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise), then is there any reason why John’s blog isn’t better off without your voice?

          • Ballantine says:

            I for one would be nicer to birthers if they would just quit lying and argue honestly. Normal people stop repeating something once he or she is shown such to be unequivocally wrong. For most birthers I have encountered, show them unequivocally that they are misquoting, or that a statement was retracted or a joke, and it has no effect on them at all. Months later they are still repeating the same debunked nonsense. I have never seen people act like this and it is really hard not to get nasty with such people.

  33. nbc says:

    As a side note, a bit late but:

    The court in Noonan v Obama has accepted the demurrer and the plaintiffs will have to pay cost.

    Quite a confederacy of dunces…

  34. this is interesting, i’ll like to hear what you and kevin and fogbow think:

    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2200/What-Does-the-Number-9-Mean.aspx

    • John Woodman says:

      Either Diana West doesn’t understand what she’s talking about, or she’s blowing smoke.

      The 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual — Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961 IS THE MANUAL that Corsi and the Posse clearly claimed to have.

      And it absolutely DOES NOT SAY what they CLAIMED it said.

      It could not possibly be more clear that they FLAT-OUT LIED to the American public.

      • nbc says:

        Why has Scott dropped responding to this? Did he really believe that Diane had a valid point to make?

        Sigh… He is a week behind the facts already but still willing to point to flawed ‘research’.

        Sorry Scott but I am not very impressed so far. Give us some indication that you can present and defend an argument or in the alternative, show us that you have properly researched a topic, such as US v WKA, that would allow you to draw reasonable conclusions from the case?

        Or is Scott a no-show now, just as with Arduini and RealityCheckRadio?

        • Slartibartfast says:

          nbc,

          I think Scott ran away because I was mean and pointed out the truth about him. Sorry, but I don’t think he was going to be able to demonstrate the willingness to debate in good faith you seem to be looking for… ;-)

    • nbc says:

      Can you not do your own research and thinking? Do you really need to be told? What intellectual laziness.
      Come on Scott, take a stand, make a claim, and learn about science being speculative.

  35. nbc says:

    Scott, speaking of Arduini, did you not chicken out on discussing him on Reality Check Radio?
    I fully understand. I myself observe a less that stellar ability to present a logical or reasoned argument or take a well supported position and defend it.

    To be clear Mr. Erlandson was the one who requested this debate. He specifically asked to debate Frank. The exchange I had with him began in comments at John Woodman’s blog and continued via email. Scott seemed very eager to engage Frank and signed off on the format and the rules last week. I believe he owes Frank Arduini and the folks who tuned in for the debate an apology. I thought the show was still interesting and I hope those who tuned in to listen found it worthwhile.

    Such bravado and then… he failed to show up.

    Oh Scott… You’re such a funny dude.

    Oh and Scott’s ‘explanation’?

    this from a guy who won’t tell me his name. “trust me” fogbow… this will be better for all of us.
    nobody wants to play in your acid catbox. fogbow is in the nasty business, and we’re at war now (actually we were before, you just didn’t know it).
    you got punked, get over it, but this is just the beginning.
    BTW your “radio show” was like “waiting for godot”. we were dying laughing at you assholes.
    hey, can you get me david alinsky’s autograph ??

    Very mature and so well reasoned. Sorry Scott but you have shown yourself to be utterly unable or unwilling to defend yourself and your position.

    Such brave soul…

  36. Slartibartfast says:

    nbc said:

    Sure, science can be complex and string theory for instance is way above my pay level

    Which doesn’t mean that you can’t understand the idea that matter is a string vibrating in howevermany dimensions (even if thinking about it makes your head hurt a little…).

    but that does not mean that I do not understand how science works and how hypotheses become theories. I do not confuse theories with facts, I understand that science always remains tentative and I understand the value of peer review.

    Unfortunately, I fear that you are in the minority.

    In the case of the birthers, they appear to be unfamiliar with the foundational cases, the relevant data, the history,

    I think they’re familiar with them*, or so they believe–that information is just completely distorted by their birther confirmation bias.

    * many birthers only seem familiar with (or at least to be actively pushing) one or two memes. I think that is because it is much harder to debate when you can’t use logic and reason as the backbone of your argument.

    the reason and logic

    Birthers have accepted a false axiom–one which contradicts other facts. The problem with this is twofold: First, anything can be proven from a contradiction, so it renders logical reasoning impotent; and second, it deprives them of any valid methodology to determine which theories are more reasonable since any such method will necessarily lead to conclusions which conflict with the false axiom.

    and instead focus on a small ‘tribal’ knowledge with which they have aligned themselves.

    I think of it as “cargo cult” knowledge–they try to replicate something (like filing a court case) but their superficial understanding of the form is useless given their total lack of understanding of how things really work.

    And, since they need authority to comfort their uncertainties, they will accept anything the ‘authority’ proclaims with little doubt.

    Hey, if an authority agrees with an axiom, then it must be right, right? Another consequence of having a fallacious assumption…

    You see it in the conservative churches, you see it in fascist and ‘communist’ societies and you see it amongst many of the birthers.

    Yup.

    The funny part? These tendencies are likely evolved. Conservatives then to dislike change and ambiguity and need order, a tribe and an authority while liberals tend to invite ambiguity, look for inclusion, sometimes as much to a fault as the conservative.

    Too true. Personally, I try to temper my liberalism with an empirical pragmatism.

    As to who Scott’s friends are, I have no data nor do I really care.

    My comment was just a reference to the fact that I’ve never seen a birther denounce the obviously racist fellow travelers in their midst. I don’t care about Scott’s friends (if, in fact, he has any) either.

  37. gsgs says:

    what about Dunham going by boat with an obstetrician to give birth outside the 12mile zone ?
    No trip to Kenya needed.
    That might fit her international ideology. Then she changed her mind, the parents were against it.
    There is still the problem with the hospital. Not very likely, but possible.

    • nbc says:

      There is still the problem with the hospital. Not very likely, but possible.

      Good for you. You are finally coming over to the side of facts and reason.

    • John Woodman says:

      “Not very likely” for that scenario is a rather extreme understatement.

      How about “wildly unlikely?”

      Reading this, I did wonder whether you had been partying lately with Leo Donofrio. :lol:

      On the other hand, I suppose we could say you’re being thorough in considering all the possibilities. ;-)

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Going with an obstetrician to give birth outside the 12 mile limit? Absurd–for what possible reason would Dr. Dunham do this? What obstetrician would have enabled their teenaged patient to do this? Why would a doctor at the hospital sign the birth certificate?

    • Scientist says:

      “what about Dunham going by boat with an obstetrician to give birth outside the 12mile zone ?”

      No, no, no. The truth is Ms Dunham was part of a secret space program. It is commonly believed by the public that the Soviets had the first woman in space, Valentina Terzkova, in 1963. Nope, it was the US in 1961 and she was the young Stanley Ann Dunham, in a secret launch from a secret base on Midway Island. And no way was she going to let her advanced state of pregnancy stop her. Moreover, her doctors supported her 100%, because the data on childbirth in zero gravity would prove invaluable for future attempts at interplanetary and interstellar colonization missions. So, on August 4, 1961, she was strapped into a Mercury capsule and blasted into space, even as the contractions were coming. On the tape of the cockpit communications, secret to this day, we here the shrieks of pain and the curses and the voice of the doctor at Mission Control, saying “Push, Stanley, push!” as the head crowns and the baby pops out as the capsule begins its re-entry into the atmosphere.

      Unfortunately for the birthers, the capsule was over the US at the time of the delivery on its way to a splashdown in the Atlantic. Some say it was crossing Stanley’s native Kansas at the time. Others say it was Arkansas and the glowing capsule was seen by a young Bill Clinton who was having sex with a young lady on the football field of Hot Springs High School on a warm summer night. It’s hard to say for sure. But it was definitely over US airspace.

      • Jim says:

        All right, the 1st “Spacebaby” President! :D

      • Suranis says:

        Yes, but upon reading the original handwritten copy of the constitution we can see that means he is Ineligible. You see the capital C in citizen is Latin for 100, which means that the US’s constitutional jurisdiction only extends for 100 Miles/yards/inches (delete as appropriate) into the air, so if he was born that distance in the air he is not inelibubble.

        Hah, you ******s with your trickery! Foiled again by proper research into the constitution!

  38. i don’t know if the nastyness here is helping the [deleted] cause, but i don’t think it’s helped john’s site. i’ll be at usmess and political forum if any of you care to continue in neutral territory. i’ll tell you my side of the story about rc frank and the debate. hope to see you there. cheers, no hard feelings.

    • nbc says:

      i’ll be at usmess and political forum if any of you care to continue in neutral territory.

      You call that neutral territory… Funny guy you are. I do understand however why you would refuse to continue the debate on this site.

      Thanks my friend

  39. nbc says:

    Interesting article by David Maraniss at the Washington Post:

    There are Obama doubters and haters out there who claim with righteous anger that they are “vetting” the president, something they say the mainstream media never did. Some of them have said that my new biography — unwittingly, they argue, for I am too dumb to understand what my research has unearthed — proves that Barack Obama’s defining memoir is phony and that his entire life is a fraud. My intent is not to defend Obama or his book; he can take care of himself, and I have my own questions about “Dreams From My Father,” which I make clear in my book. But when comparing the liberties Obama took with composite characters and compressed chronology — which he acknowledged in the introduction to his memoir — to the stretches his most virulent detractors have taken in building their various conspiracies, I believe that they are the frauds and fabricators.

    Not all of them are “birthers,” but the notion that the president was not born in the United States remains at the epicenter of the anti-Obama mythology. Here is the conspiracy that would have had to exist if Barack Hussein Obama II were not born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961:

    Concluding

    In the introduction to my book, I took note of a sick political culture where “facts are so easily twisted for political purposes and where strange armies of ideological pseudo-historians roam the biographical fields in search of stray ammunition.” That sentence is now cited on right-wing Web sites as evidence that I hold them in contempt. True enough, one of the few accurate things that I’ve read from them. I do hold some of them in contempt, not because of their politics, nor because of their dislike of Obama. Political debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of American democracy. No, I hold them in contempt for the way they disregard facts and common sense and undermine the role of serious history as they concoct conspiracy theories that portray the president as dangerous, alien and less than American.

    What drives them? Some of it can be attributed to the give-and-take of today’s harsh ideological divide. Some of it can be explained by the way misinformation spreads virally to millions of like-minded people, reinforcing preconceptions. And some of it, I believe, arises out of fears of demographic changes in this country, and out of racism.

    • John Woodman says:

      But when comparing the liberties Obama took with composite characters and compressed chronology — which he acknowledged in the introduction to his memoir — to the stretches his most virulent detractors have taken in building their various conspiracies, I believe that they are the frauds and fabricators.

      Okay, so a little bit of fabrication on both sides. But most of it on the side of the birthers. :lol:

  40. nbc says:

    Hi Scott, glad to see you know how to do a google search. Could you enlighten me as to your best understanding of US v Wong Kim Ark? You appeared somewhat confused as to why Wong Kim Ark would have been found to be a natural born citizen.

    I’d really love to understand what your thoughts are on this case especially as I have read quite a bit related to this case and would like to understand what confusions still exist.

  41. gsgs says:

    I don’t understand why is asking for microfilm or WH explanation a problem in USA ?
    Is it somehow being considered dishonest to even get asked about this ?
    Is it considered “insulting” or such to ask such questions ?
    Here most people would be happy to talk about their private life,
    childhood, show pictures and birth certificates (but others often get
    bored and don’t want to see it, ;-) )
    Now you compare this with Romney and other presidents, they also
    didn’t show some documents, release information.
    I think they should, when there is sufficient interest.
    But currently I haven’t seen so much interest.
    With the amazing decline of prices for DNA-analysis, I do see the
    request for general DNA-release of people in high positions.
    What do antibirthers think about this ?
    Can it even be prevented ? Someone stealing Obama hairs or shit and analysing it

    • nbc says:

      Is it considered “insulting” or such to ask such questions ?

      When you have been provided the short and long form certified to be accurate then yes, asking for more and more data to which you have no right is indeed somewhat ‘insulting’ to the laws of the State of Hawaii

      Now that was hardly that hard.

    • Scientist says:

      “Here most people would be happy to talk about their private life,
      childhood, show pictures and birth certificates (but others often get
      bored and don’t want to see it, )”

      Bullshit! I lived in Europe for several years and never once saw anyone’s birth certificate. In fact, people in France were far more guarded about revealing personal details than people in the US. By a wide margin. And I know enough about Germany to know it is similar. But go ahead and post your birth certificate. Right here. Go on, I dare you….

      “Now you compare this with Romney and other presidents, they also
      didn’t show some documents, release information.
      I think they should, when there is sufficient interest.
      But currently I haven’t seen so much interest.”

      You haven’t seen much interest in Romney’s tax returns? Are you insane? The President’s campaign has commercials mentioning them. The Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, just gave an interview yesterday in which he says he has spoken with a highly-placed person at Bain who has told him Romney paid $0 in taxes in some years. $0. Literally dozens of major newspapers and op-ed columnists who are household names (including many conservatives) have called for Romney to release more tax information.

      On the other hand, who is asking anymore about Obama’s birth certificate? Romney? Boehner? McConnell? Any newspaper except WND (which isn’t a newspaper)? No, just the same 10 birthers on the internet and a couple of shysters who are 0-150 in court. And don’t give me silly polls about people who claim they don’t know where the President was born. None of those people even knows what microfilm is nor would they care. You see the poll didn’t ask if they CARE where the President was born. Believe it or not, very few people CARE. That’s right, this site and the brither sites have tiny readerships (sorry John, but it’s true) and the rest of the world simply doesn’t CARE.

      You are a joke and not a funny one.

    • Northland10 says:

      Here most people would be happy to talk about their private life,
      childhood, show pictures and birth certificates (but others often get
      bored and don’t want to see it, )

      Isn’t it Germany that has the biggest issues with Google’s Street View, due to privacy concerns? In my day job, the information we can put on a report (or that we can get the European groups to even report) is far less due to the privacy expectations.

      I seriously doubt your claim.

      • nbc says:

        I seriously doubt your claim.

        And rightly so, the Europeans take their privacy extremely seriously and while within the confines of their homes they may share private information, getting access to privacy protected data from sources from the Government are extremely jealously guarded.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      gsgs says:
      August 1, 2012 at 12:01 am
      I don’t understand why is asking for microfilm or WH explanation a problem in USA ?

      The laws of Hawai’i say you don’t get to see microfilm, but the microfilm, if it exists, is irrelevant. The “vital records” of President Obama consists of neither pieces of paper nor microfilm. It is information stored in a Hawai’i DoH database. Since all of the relevant information has already been officially verified as correct by the DoH, even if the COLB and LFBC were made out of whole cloth they wouldn’t be forgeries as there is no possible intent to defraud. Furthermore, there is no higher authority on Hawai’ian birth than the Hawai’i DoH, so no additional verification (beyond that which is allowed by Hawai’ian law) is possible.

      Is it somehow being considered dishonest to even get asked about this ?

      Yes. Birthers have been repeatedly pushing ignorance, stupidity, and lies for 4 years now and anyone making birther claims no longer deserves any benefit of the doubt. If you don’t understand this, read the story of The Boy Who Cried “Wolf!”.

      Is it considered “insulting” or such to ask such questions ?

      Repeatedly asking the first African-American president to “show his papers” when he has, in fact, already shown them (something unprecedented in US presidential candidates) reeks of racism. Why should President Obama be subjected to an impossible standard? (especially when he’s met a higher standard than any of his predecessors already) Being German, I can understand if you don’t “get” this, but the image of a sheriff demanding, “show me your papers, boy!” is iconic (and not in a good way…) in this country and with people like Sheriff Arpaio around it is clear that figures in authority still like to violate the civil rights of people with brown skin…

      Here most people would be happy to talk about their private life,
      childhood, show pictures and birth certificates (but others often get
      bored and don’t want to see it, )

      So I could demand any documentation I wanted from you (how about your credit card numbers?), not to mention accuse you, your mother, your grandmother, your wife, and anyone associated with you in any way of serious crimes based on no evidence whatsoever and you would be okay with that? I doubt it.

      Now you compare this with Rmoney and other presidents, they also
      didn’t show some documents, release information.
      I think they should, when there is sufficient interest.

      Everyone, since George Romney–no, the name is not a coincidence–over 40 years ago, who was a serious candidate for the presidency has released multiple years worth of tax returns. Rmoney’s refusal to participate in an important step in the presidential vetting process–one pioneered by his own father–is very worrisome to me. I similarly found John McCain allowing a group of reporters (no medical experts) an only hour to review his 800 pages of medical records to be suspicious (especially for a cancer survivor asking us to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency). I can’t really think of any other types of records that are typically revealed, nor any records at all that are even occasionally revealed which have not been revealed by President Obama.

      But currently I haven’t seen so much interest.
      With the amazing decline of prices for DNA-analysis, I do see the
      request for general DNA-release of people in high positions.

      I think this is absurd.

      What do antibirthers think about this ?

      I can’t answer this without being impolite.

      Can it even be prevented ? Someone stealing Obama hairs or shit and analysing it

      Nor this. I think you will find that the Secret Service doesn’t approve of people trying to get the president’s DNA. I would note that the genealogy firm which recently traced President Obama’s ancestry back to the first documented slave in America was given a sample of his DNA–I expect that getting this was a big deal…

      • gsgs says:

        the shortform and longform were presented under strange circumstances.
        Dismissing lawsuits. 3 years delay. Political pressure (Trump,Corsi).
        No explanations. (forehead,pdf) Only one reporter could photograph it.
        nbc, laws can’t be insulted.
        Scientist, Northland10,nbc
        privacy of politicians or people of public interest are different. They owe their
        career to publicity. They reply to whatever people or journalists ask.
        If there are too many questions and repeats, then they make a “faq”
        on a webpage or let others respond for them.
        Where is Obama’s birther-faq ?
        google-view,government reading emails and listening to telefone calls,bank accounts,
        (industry) espionage are also different. Birth certificates are official documents, they
        are known anyway. I’m not aware of issues,forgeries with that.
        Instead we had some cases of politicians cheating with their phD thesis.
        Do illegal immigrants falsify a birth certificate in USA so to get a job, SSN, medicaid
        or such ?
        Scientist,
        my BC: http://magictour.free.fr/birthgs.JPG more details in the medical records
        and parent’s birth-diary. I haven’t followed Romney taxes so much. Is that insane ?
        Aren’t company taxes public anyway ? And what are tax-returns ? Maybe I’ll look into
        it, if Romney wins. Who is asking about Obama’s bc ? Strange that you ask.
        Arpaio,Corsi,Taitz,Apuzzo,Klayman,Kerchner,Lakin,Willmott,Gillar,Zullo,Trump,Jones,
        Beckwith,Butterdezillion,oryr,Zebest,Denninger,Harrison,Polland,
        As for the polls, feel free to show nonsilly polls with other results – I haven’t seen them.
        Slartibartfast,
        what exactly do the laws say about the microfilm ? I assume there is a way to show it while
        protecting the privacy of other records. Didn’t antibirthers also say the longform couldn’t
        be released for Hawaii-law reasons and then it was released ?
        Needed or not, birthers want it, so let them. Birthers don’t cry wolf, that was the flubies afair.
        Repeating is considered “unfine” we learned that in German lessons. But then came computers
        and repeating makes things easier, you already have the program.
        Unprecedented,racism – you must admit that his birth was unusual. Island in the big Ocean,
        just became a state 2 years ago, father an African in Hawaii, mother 18 .
        The DNA needn’t even be from Obama himself, can be relatives. You can’t prevent these things.

        • nbc says:

          the shortform and longform were presented under strange circumstances.

          Really? The COLB was presented because of rumors about Obama’s middle name. The long form was presented when some fools insisted that it showed he was not born in a hospital and President Obama, following your suggestion, petitioned the Hawaiian government to make an exception.

          You’re not very good at logic are you?

        • nbc says:

          Do illegal immigrants falsify a birth certificate in USA so to get a job, SSN, medicaid

          Including newspaper articles and the DOH of Hawaii confirming the birth?

          You’re so lost… Logic indeed is not your strongest suit. Have you even thought about the implications of your foolish suggestions?

          you troll

          Remember?

          Obama Lawyer Admits In Court Birth Certificate On White House Website Is A Forgery

          Stop pretending.

          • gsgs says:

            nbc,
            the content of your posts confirms me but the wording to me
            somehow appears the posts were intended to disagree ?!
            A question is not a “suggestion”. I was just trying to understand the
            meaning of birth certificates in American culture.
            Your link goes to another twitter account. I’m gsgs2 at twitter.

            • nbc says:

              A question is not a “suggestion”. I was just trying to understand the
              meaning of birth certificates in American culture.

              I see… Just trying to understand but somehow slow learned. That’s fine. A birth certificate is a document that is provided by the state in which you were born. In the age of electronic data, the document is nowadays not a copy of the original anymore but rather a document which certifies that the data on the document matches the original. Such as name, date of birth, location of birth and parents.
              In some states you can still get copies of the original but in Hawaii which is one of the states that has moved to computerized data as part of a an early ‘beta’ program, the only data available is the short form which does not show the hospital or the name of the doctor.
              Note that a typical birth certificate when filled out contains far more data, including data about the woman’s and baby’s health, smoking habits etc.

            • nbc says:

              Your link goes to another twitter account. I’m gsgs2 at twitter.

              Weird, to GSGS’s and both speak german.

            • John Woodman says:

              But only one of them was born in Germany.

        • Scientist says:

          “Scientist,my BC: http://magictour.free.fr/birthgs.JPG
          1. That isn’t a birth certificate, it’s a Geburtsurkunde. Completely different words. They barely even share any letters.
          2. How do I know that’s yours? Show me some proof.
          3. Where is the microfiche?

          “I haven’t followed Romney taxes so much. Is that insane ? Aren’t company taxes public anyway ? And what are tax-returns ?”

          Insane? No. Biased? Yes.
          Company taxes are not public, not for privately held companies like Bain. Anyway, the issue is Romney’s personal taxes.
          Returns are what you file every year. Germany takes them seriously, I think. I remember Steffi Graf’s father went to jail for hiding money.

          “Who is asking about Obama’s bc ? Strange that you ask.
          Arpaio,Corsi,Taitz,Apuzzo,Klayman,Kerchner,Lakin,Willmott,Gillar,Zullo,Trump,Jones,
          Beckwith,Butterdezillion,oryr,Zebest,Denninger,Harrison,Polland”
          I count 19 out of 300,000,000 people. And they don’t really care. They are lying scammers. I say 0 people really care. I challenge you to prove otherwise. You know they poll.
          Anyway, if asking means you are entitled to get what you ask for, then I ask for:
          $10 billion
          the 25 year old body of an Olympic medalist
          perfect weather every day

          I have a right to those and must be given them! Or I will cry!

          • John Woodman says:

            It’s fake. It isn’t even on safety paper. And did you see the supposed seal? It’s only a stamp. And what kind of official stamp uses a horse?

            And the supposed “signature” is only one word.

          • John Woodman says:

            Oh — and the title is all crooked. And did you see the supposed certificate number? 52/54. No official certificate would use such low numbers.

          • John Woodman says:

            Also, if you do a search on “Wald-Krankenhaus,” you will see that it ALWAYS seems to be spelled “Waldkrankenhaus” — with NO dash and NO capital “K.”

            This is indisputably a very amateur forgery he’s trying to pass off as his real birth certificate.

  42. Dan Crosby says:

    Your efforts are outstanding. Thank you for keeping the issue active in the public conciousness. However, the one aspect you haven’t discussed is that decadal Census coding protocols initiate vital statistics coding. Annual reporting of vital statistics (birth data) are primarily valuable in their ability to provide accurate annual population estimates based on their impact on Census data, which establishes municipal funding and public health development. Therefore, since Census coding revisions occur with the end of each decade, including the year before Obama was born, after Hawaii and Alaska had already become a state, the vital statistics codes for race would be the same in 1961 as 1962 through 1969, (see supplementary reports provided by the Census Bureau throughout the 1960s). Zullo is correct about the appearance of the #9. The 1968 coding standards applied in 1961 for race of parents. Recoding applied when independent coding standards were necessary for state demographic classifications. According to the 1960 Census coding, the number 9 for race of father indicates the value is “not stated” or “not classifiable”. You won’t find this in the VSIM or Hawaii’s Department of Health. Continued success!

    • I missed this comment by Dan Crosby. I have several questions for him:

      1. Why did you show a photo from a 1968 copy of the VSIM and claim it was from 1961?
      2. What sources can you cite that show the codes are static for a complete decade?
      3. How do you explain the code for “Hawaii girl”‘s race on her 1961 birth certificate that clearly does not match the codes published at the Daily Pen blog?
      $. Can you find any other example birth certificate from Hawaii from 1961 where the code 9 was used for “race not given”?
      4. Even if you are correct (and you are not) how does a pencil code invalidate a document that the State of Hawaii is valid?
      5. Why did you tell a complete fib at your blog when you claimed President Obama’s attorney said the LFBC was fraudulent in a hearing in New Jersey during a ballot challenge case?

      That is enough for now.

  43. Hi John Woodman!!!

    Have you seen the latest Jerome Corsi puff piece:

    ISRAELI SCIENCE WEBSITE: OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGED
    Award-winning, former Netanyahu adviser behind assessment

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/israeli-science-website-obama-birth-certificate-forged/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • John Woodman says:

      I saw it.

      Written over a year ago. It’s about a 30-minute examination (maybe an hour if you have to scrounge up the freeware to look at the birth certificate with).

      Utter garbage written by someone with a PhD in molecular biology is still garbage.

      • Scientist says:

        As a PhD molecular biologist, I know nothing about computers and I can tell the birth certificate is real. So that cancels out Mr Hanukoglu. Of course the real experts are the Hawaii DoH, compared to whom we all know nothing.

        • John Woodman says:

          Hang on — I want to be sure of this.

          Are you a PhD molecular biologist? Or merely a PH moleculr biologist?

          There IS a difference, you know. :lol:

          • Slartibartfast says:

            John,

            I can assure you that Scientist’s credentials in molecular biology are far superior* to those of Mr. Hank-coo-coo-ca-choo (or whatever his name is) and therefore, by birther standards, his authority on birth certificates is unimpeachable (unless a more distinguished birther biologist can be found). After all, we need to respect people with real sighuntiffuk authority over people who think that just because they did hundreds of hours of careful, well-documented, objective research that they know what they are talking about, right?

            * I’ve looked up his publications and they are pretty impressive—and I’m some guy posting on the internet so I must know what I’m talking about… :-P

            • John Woodman says:

              Well… obviously!

              I defer to your expertise, SGPOI. :lol:

            • Scientist says:

              Actually, Slarty, while I thank you for the complement, I looked up Dr. Hanukoglu’s publications and they are quite good. Papers in Cell and other first-rate journals. That doesn’t in any way make his cursory analysis of the pdf correct, nor does anything regarding a pdf pertain to the actual document.

              By the way, he has apparently removed the article from his web site.

            • John Woodman says:

              Looks like Dr. Hanukoglu is committed to truth and accuracy after all. Kudos to him.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scientist,

              Should we let facts ruin a good triple play? (a compliment, a backhanded compliment, and a dig at a birther)

              The answer, of course, is yes (one of the many reasons why we’re different than birthers), but I still stand by my opinion of your publications as impressive (I’d say as compared to my own, but that would be damning you with faint praise… ;-) ) and my backhanded compliment of John’s scholarship.

              John,

              I am not as willing as you to cut Dr. Goo-goo-ga-joob some slack—the article (which had been up for over a year, I believe) came down right after WND referenced it (which I’m sure sent the number of hits through the roof). I believe that he was afraid of letting any of his colleagues see what incredibly shoddy work he was trying to lend credibility to with the mantle of his scientific authority. I see the removal as little more than a panicked attempt to cover his own ass. Whatever his credentials as a scientist, in my opinion his integrity pales to insignificance in comparison to people like you.

        • John Woodman says:

          Oh — and do you have a web site? That’s very important. ;-)

          • Northland10 says:

            I must be credible then (regarding having a website.. the PhD thing, not so much). Then again, I suppose it might be expected that the website actually have content.

    • John Woodman says:

      It continues the birthers’ modus operandi, though: Find whatever “authorities” you can, whose names you can attach in order to do an “argument from authority.”

      What does a molecular biologist know about computer optimization algorithms? Probably not much.

      In any event, a careful and impartial 500-hour investigation is just a wee bit more reliable than looking at a document with a couple of freeware programs and proclaiming it “forged.”

  44. Pingback: Terry Krepel: Welcome to Jerome Corsi’s Cesspool | Blog Of The Year

Comments are closed.