Genuine, World-Class Computer Expert Evaluates Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF

Opinion Solidly Addresses the Second of Two Major Claims Made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Press Conference in July.

If You Want to Know What A Computer Process Really Will and Won't Do, Ask a Genuine Expert... Like Professor Ricardo de Queiroz of the University of Brasilia.

If You Want to Know What A Computer Process Really Will and Won't Do,
Ask a Genuine Expert in the Field --
Like Professor Ricardo de Queiroz of the University of Brasilia.

On July 18, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona (“America’s Toughest Sheriff”) stated, at a press conference, that President Obama’s birth certificate was a “proven” forgery.

In doing so, Arpaio relied almost entirely on two things. The first of these two major claims has been examined here.

The second was the opinion of two individuals — Garrett Papit and Tim Selaty, Jr. — that the characteristics of the birth certificate PDF simply could not be innocently explained.

Mr. Papit’s report was published by Arpaio’s office. But although the Sheriff’s office mentioned Mr. Selaty’s name, they didn’t publish his report or give him much prominence. Instead, Mr. Selaty had to post the report on his own web site. That seemed odd at the time. However, it seems to me that this was probably for two reasons.

First, Selaty didn’t reach all of the same conclusions that some of the other individuals quoted by the Posse did. It appears that publishing Selaty’s report would have raised questions about why this was the case.

In other words, the testimony of their “experts” was not consistent (!)

Secondly, Mr. Selaty is approximately 22 years old. One might easily wonder — with no disrespect intended to Selaty, who seems to have decent enough general computer skills for someone at the beginning of a career — why, exactly, was Arpaio’s Posse relying on a 22 year old for an “expert opinion” regarding the birth certificate of the President of the United States?

Personally, if I were accusing the President of the United States of having a forged birth certificate, I would rely on real, recognized experts in the appropriate fields. And most certainly, no 22-year-olds would be in the mix. Unless, of course, they were legitimate, indisputable, widely recognized, certifiable geniuses who had finished their first PhD by, say, age 18.

Again, no disrespect intended to Tim Selaty. But this is not the case here.

Garrett Papit Claims to Have “Proven” that Obama’s PDF File Has Been “Tampered With.”

Garrett Papit, Quoted by Arpaio's Posse

Garrett Papit, Quoted by Arpaio's Posse

It didn’t take long for Garrett Papit, the more prominently-showcased individual, to show up at this blog and proclaim with confidence that he had proven Mr. Obama’s birth certificate PDF file had been “tampered with.”

He was very emphatic about that point.

For any readers who are unfamiliar with the background of the issue, my own technical evaluation — published just over a year ago after some 500 hours of completely independent investigation — was that every single characteristic of the PDF file that was known at that time could easily be explained by innocent processes. The most prominent of these was optimization (or compression) of the file.

In fact, I found the technical evidence to be overwhelming in that direction. In other words, not one of the significant birther allegations — and I examined all of them — stood up under honest and competent scrutiny.

And going beyond those to test Obama’s PDF in every additional way I could come up with, I was unable to uncover any other genuine evidence that would demonstrate any manner of “forgery.”

Garrett Papit, of course, claimed that I was absolutely wrong about the technical evidence. In fact, he went further than merely disagreeing with me technically. Bizarrely, Mr. Papit publicly and falsely accused me of having “lied” about myself “on multiple occasions.”

Challenged to prove his charges, Papit could not do so. He eventually retracted his false accusation and apologized. However, it took several days for him to do so.

The Essence of Garrett Papit’s Technical Claims

Garrett Papit Claimed that an Optimized File Can Have Only One Text Layer.

Garrett Papit Claimed that an Optimized File Can Have Only One Text Layer.

The gist of Mr. Papit’s paper — the one publicized by Arpaio’s office — was that there are really only two forms of file optimization or compression — and that the characteristics of Obama’s file most assuredly fit neither.

Probably most importantly, he claimed that “mixed raster content” compression never produces more than one bitmap layer. Since Obama’s PDF file has 8 bitmap layers, this claim — if true — could raise some legitimate questions.

After reviewing Mr. Papit’s paper, I personally found his technical claims to be dubious — especially in regard to “mixed raster content” file compression. They seemed to be more assertions on Papit’s part than solid statements backed up by any documented technical evidence. And there were other strong reasons (perhaps a topic for another post) to doubt Papit’s claims.

Nonetheless, I did not have at my hands any immediate and concrete proof that would categorically show his technical claims to be wrong.

In fact, while I have broad experience in many different aspects of computer technology dating back more than 30 years, I am not an expert in the specific field of mixed raster content (MRC) compression.

Neither, by the way, is Garrett Papit.

Papit is basically a computer programmer for JC Penney. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Information Systems, and an MBA with a concentration in Managerial Information Systems.

In his paper, he states that he is “also familiar with the methodology involved in PDF optimization and compression.”

I’m sorry, but “familiar with” doesn’t cut it for the type of blanket claims that Papit has made in his paper — and on this site as well. I’m “familiar with” carburetors, but I can’t give you a definitive opinion of what one is and is not technically capable of. And if I were to pretend to do so, I would be far exceeding my level of expertise regarding carburetors. That would be unprofessional… at best.

Evaluating Papit’s Claims

In order to evaluate Garrett Papit’s claims regarding mixed raster content file processing, I searched for US patents on the basic technology — and found well over 100 of them.

It seems that MRC compression is not quite as simple and cut-and-dried a process as Mr. Papit — in the half-dozen sparse pages he wrote about the technology — would have people to believe.

There were two possible ways to evaluate the truth of Papit’s claims. The first would have been to invest a great deal of time to really learn and understand the various possible ins and outs of mixed raster content (MRC) compression. And the second option was to consult a real, existing expert in the field.

I chose the second option, for two reasons. First, I’ve invested far too much of my time into this issue already. I didn’t want to invest the time to develop an entire body of knowledge about MRC compression, without any need or intent to apply that knowledge in my own profession. And secondly, I felt that the opinion of a recognized expert in this field would be of far more value than my own opinion anyway.

For These Reasons, I Contacted a Real Expert. In Fact, I Contacted One of the Foremost Experts in the World.

As I examined patents and technical papers written on MRC compression, one name in particular seemed to pop up again and again — that of Ricardo de Queiroz.

Ricardo de Queiroz is one of the primary fathers of this entire technology.

The very first “mixed raster content” patent in the United States was granted to Leon Bottou and Yann Andre LeCun… But the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 13th patents were granted to Ricardo de Queiroz and his team. That’s about half of the first dozen or so patents. And some of his team members and students have also gone on to further develop the technology.

In addition, Professor de Queiroz appears again and again as an author of the available technical papers on MRC compression.

Now there are certainly many other individuals who have contributed to the development of this technology; and several in particular have made really big contributions. But I decided, based on what I read in the patent filings and technical papers, that if I were going to contact one expert in the world on this particular technology, the person I would pick would be Ricardo de Queiroz.

So I contacted him. And Dr. de Queiroz was gracious enough to reply — for which I thank him. In clarifying what compression technology is capable of, he has rendered a genuine service to all who have held any interest in this controversy.

Before I present Professor de Queiroz’s response to my inquiries, we should briefly note a couple of other things.

1) Professor de Queiroz did not simply volunteer an opinion on Obama’s birth certificate PDF. His expression of an opinion was a response to being asked for an opinion.

2) American politics has little impact on a Brazilian living in Brazil. This being the case, it would be very difficult to attribute any political motive to a technical opinion expressed by Dr. de Queiroz.

3) In any event, a technical expert of de Queiroz’s stature, generally speaking, gives technical opinions, not political ones. And such an expert, generally speaking, would never risk the reputation he’s built up over decades by issuing an opinion that would be easily shot down by the other top experts in his field.

4) In terms of expertise in this specific field:

Garrett Papit is to Ricardo de Queiroz:

As high school football player is to Tim Tebow.
As Sunday golfer is to Tiger Woods.
As high school physics teacher is to Stephen Hawking.
As…

Well, you get the idea.

Now it’s very possible that Garrett Papit might well be a better banjo player than Ricardo de Queiroz. He might even be better at wood carving, or Volkswagen engine repair.

But when it comes to MRC compression, he doesn’t even approach being in the same league. (Nor, incidentally, do I — or virtually anybody else who’s ever previously commented publicly on the artifacts in the PDF.)

Professor de Queiroz’s evaluation was expressed in an email letter to me. I have boldfaced some of the most important points. I have also added a few notes of my own, in brackets.

Evaluation of Obama PDF File by Professor Ricardo de Queiroz

Dear Mr. Woodman,

There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not. The forgery can happen before being processed not to mention that the paper document itself could be forged, before the scanning. Thus, this is not the point.

[Note: This is very similar to what I said in my book on the birth certificate -- JW.]

The question is whether all these artifacts we see after rendering the PDF of POBC are signs of forgery. I do not see that. I see them more likely as a result of inadequate processing.

The document has poor quality and it has been aggressively processed, no questions about it. The question is whether the corruptive processing was individual with the intent of forging it, or if it was automated within regular MRC segmentation.

If it was a forgery it was a very sloppy job. Any photoshop-knowledgeable person, of the garden variety, can do a much better job than that. If it is automated, it is a lousy job too, but bear in mind that algorithms for these jobs are not trained on specific documents. They were more likely developed, trained and tested on magazine pages and books. A US birth certificate is unlikely to give good results because it may be an outlier in the big picture of all documents they had in mind when developed their MRC tool.

MRC is about separating the single-image document into multiple layers, hopefully each one with a given characteristic. This has to be done automatically, in what we call segmentation. What I see in the document are signs of MRC segmentation consistent with strategies in line with the techniques pioneered by DjVu. I (and my students) do not advocate doing the segmentation that way, but that is not the point either. In fact, I would not be surprised if the software which segmented the WH document was derived from some DjVu tool.

An Illustration From a Technical Paper by Prof. Ricardo de Queiroz Shows Multiple, Different-Colored Bitmask Text Layers. Hmmm. Didn't Garrett Papit Claim That Was Impossible?

An Illustration From a Seminal 1999 Technical Paper by Professor and Inventor Ricardo de Queiroz Shows Multiple, Different-Colored Bitmask Text Layers. Hmmm. Didn't Garrett Papit Claim That Was "Impossible?"

They first try to “lift” the text to another layer. They can find more than one type of text and place them in different layers. The rest is background and they compress with standard image compression methods. In the POBC
[President Obama Birth Certificate] I see lots of signs of that. It missed a lot of text, like the R in BARACK and in many other places. The missed text is aggressively compressed with JPEG for example, which justifies the damage to those text parts.

About the halos around some text: I am not sure why they do it, but it may be trying to suppress another halo problem caused by “lifting” scanned text that leaves some of the foreground in the background and vice-versa causing trouble to compress the layers. We wrote some papers about it. You can still see background through inside some “O” letters and inside the check boxes.

There might be morphological dilation around the text mask or the segmentation is block-based. The halo could be caused by the foreground in a dilated mask, or by processing the background. One plausible alternative is that the algorithm finds text as the letters with a bit of the surrounding background for safety. Some Adobe tools do that.

Furthermore, the text is lifted to the foreground and sharpened (nearly binarized) making the background surroundings to disappear. When the text layer is pushed back onto the background plane the letter surroundings become halo. There is also some grayish lifted text, which was perhaps found to have different statistics and was then treated differently. The mask is binary, the foreground (text) can have any color or texture, or even parts of the background around the text. All these are conjectures; different algorithmic choices might produce similar results.

I took a birth certificate which has a similar background pattern, scanned and compressed using an older DjVu tool. It has shown the same problems as POBC, like text letters that were missed and sent to background, and multiple text styles. It didn’t have halo, though, because its algorithm decided to obliterate the whole background pattern. Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now.

In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.

Sincerely

Ricardo L. de Queiroz

Questions and Answers

Professor de Queiroz was also gracious enough to answer a few questions I asked him regarding his opinion. Again, I have italicized his replies, and boldfaced the more important points.

1) I understand (and since initially writing you, I have also found an example of this in a paper you wrote) that MRC compression can have multiple bitmasks without necessarily having to have corresponding foreground layers. I also understand that there is no particular reason why a bitmask would need to be more than one color. And it seems to me that having multiple single-color bitmasks is likely a space-saving technique. Would you say all this is correct?

Yes and no. MRC can have a flat color for the whole foreground layer. This is equivalent of a mask without a foreground plane as a bitmap? Yes. But there is an implicit foreground plane, with all pixels at the same color. If there is a foreground plane/layer or not is a semantic question. Just to add to your confusion, these DJVu like algorithms do not necessarily follow the MRC standard. They are MRC-like. As for the space saving, it depends on what is done. Because of the redundancy of multiple layers there are many ways to generate the same rendered image. This question perhaps needs to be worked a little more before I can give you a good answer.

[Professor de Queiroz's comments above highlight a very fundamental problem with Garrett Papit's paper, and his claims. In Papit's world, there are only a couple of different compression algorithms, and every computer program in the world follows those 2 basic algorithms. In the real world, there are almost limitless possible variations. There are, for example, adaptive compression algorithms, algorithms that fully follow the MRC standard, MRC-like algorithms, similar DJVu algorithms, DJVu-like algorithms, and so forth.]

2) You referred to “multiple text styles.” What did you mean by that? (Another person claimed that different fonts were present in the document’s typed information; I earlier analyzed that at length and found no significant evidence this might be the case.)

What text styles you see in the document? As a human, I would wild guess the following: (a) title is one, (b) the typewritten data is another, (c) the boxes titles like “1a Child’s first name” is another, (d) the signatures are another, and same goes for the (e) handwritten stuff and the (f) stamped dates. Not sure I missed any other. But the segmentation algorithm apparently decided to divide the document into few types of text information.

First there is what it thought it was black text (a; b with mistakes like the R in BARACK; c with mistakes like the 1 in box number 10; parts of the signatures as the last letters of Dunham’s signature, some handwritten stuff in boxed 18b and 19b). Second, there are a few gray text or whatever quality it thought to make any distinction from the first case. Parts of the boxes 17a, 20 an 22 seems to be put in one pot. The stuff on the bottom is all placed in another pot, even though there are lots of different styles there. But there are a few sub-parts of that that might be yet another text color. I think this is a stamp. Thirdly, everything else is background, which includes a lot of the text and graphics.

3) I understand your overall conclusion to be that the things you see (including the bitmask layers, etc.) are explainable by MRC compression; and you do not see anything that appears to you likely to have been the product of manual manipulation. Is this correct?

Yes.

So there we have it. The bottom line? Not only is it NOT “proven” that the bitmap layers and other obvious artifacts in Obama’s PDF are the products of manual manipulation; one of the fathers of the kind of compression technology used in the birth certificate has now examined the file, and he sees no indication that the artifacts — including the multiple bitmap layers — are anything BUT the result of innocent, technological processes.

In other words: The Arpaio Posse’s most recent claims, just like their earlier claims, are worthless. And after a year and 5 months of literally dozens upon dozens of such claims by birthers, there’s still no real indication in Obama’s PDF of any kind of manual manipulation or “forgery…” at all.

Meanwhile, Joe Arpaio / Jerome Corsi / Joseph Farah / WorldNetDaily (and other birthers) continue to studiously ignore and brush aside all real and competent technical opinions in favor of whatever “expert” they can find — whether 22 years old or not — who will back the claims they want to promote.

This entry was posted in Conclusions, New Information, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Bookmark the permalink.

429 Responses to Genuine, World-Class Computer Expert Evaluates Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF

  1. John Woodman says:

    So there you have it.

    • Patrick says:

      Well done, Mr. Woodman.

      I have to say, although I followed the birther discussion since the inception, I was a little slow getting into the whole “FORGERY!” claim.

      This was actually for a couple of reasons:

      1) After seeing the birthers’ lateral arabesque from insisting on a long form birth certificate (never mind that they are both equal in a court of law) into “Oh, we just needed to see it to prove that his father wasn’t a citizen, so now we KNOW he’s not a natural born citizen,” I began to realize that birthers were going to lie about this, no matter what.

      A small digression but that argument is flawed for two reasons.

      a) First, there is the obvious reason that the citizenship of the parents doesn’t matter regarding a child born in the U.S.

      b) Second, Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t actually show that his father was never a U.S. citizen. To be sure, I’m not claiming that his father was ever a U.S. citizen (I don’t need to), but I’m merely saying that you cannot prove that by Obama’s birth certificate. It says that he was born in Kenya, but it says NOTHING about his citizenship at the time Obama was born. He was born in Kenya, but it doesn’t say that he wasn’t born a U.S. citizen or became a naturalized citizen.

      2) Of greater significance than the birthers’ now obvious determination to lie, Obama would be a natural born citizen no matter where he was born, due to his mother’s citizenship. 8 U.S.C. section 1401, paragraph (g) plainly states that if born outside the U.S. all you need is one citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for a total of five years, at least two of which were attained after the parent’s fourteenth birthday — a standard that Stanley Ann Dunham easily meets — and you’re natural born.

      So, with the readily evident birthers’ determination to cobble some contrived reason that Obama can’t be natural born, regardless, coupled with the fact that unless they can prove that Stanley Ann Dunham was NOT Obama’s mother, and in fact, Obama’s mother was not a U.S. citizen, the whole forgery claim is a waste of time.

  2. Slartibartfast says:

    John,

    First off—Tim Tebow? Really? Couldn’t you at least have gone with someone who’s managed to win a Superbowl? Or at least a starting job in the NFL? :-P

    Seriously, nice work—I see why you wanted to get this to the press… it nicely demonstrates just how incompetent Arpaio and company are. This would be invaluable for anyone on the other side if Arpaio or his birther minions ever testified in court (although we both know that wasn’t ever going to happen anyway). Once again, you have granted a boon to anti-birthers. Thank you—now I’ll see what I can do to publicize this…

    • John Woodman says:

      Hey, if you’ve got a better suggestion than Tim Tebow, I’m open.

      I’ll confess that football is not a big area of expertise for me. I have a running joke. Whenever Superbowl time of the year rolls around and someone asks me if I’m going to tune in, I respond… “Naah… I really don’t follow basketball.” ;-)

      As far as the article goes, I actually, originally, had intended just to skip over the “optimization can’t do that” claims and focus on the big picture. In fact, I had an article on the big picture nearly finished, which was set aside when Garrett Papit showed up here claiming to have “proven” that Obama’s PDF had been tampered with, on the basis of such claims as that optimization never produces more than one 1-bit layer.

      Maybe I’ll finish that article. We’ll see.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Better than Tim Tebow? No problem.

        If you’re a Bronco’s fan, then John Elway or even Peyton Manning or his brother Eli if you’re more of a New York kind of guy—unless you want to go old school, in which case I’d go with Johnny Unitas from the Colts and Broadway Joe Namath from the Jets. Or go with Joe Montana if you want an old school Joe, as old school 49er’s go, you can also go with Steve Young, who is descended from Brigham Young, which makes him pretty Mormon—not that there’s anything wrong with it—while if you wanted to stay more recent you could stick with Brett Favre or Bart Starr if you want an old school Packer—or Terry Bradshaw as a Steeler—and finally if you wanted to go with guys playing today (not named Manning), you couldn’t go wrong with Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Breeze, or Matt Stafford (hey, I’m a Lion’s fan—a term that for years has been implicitly prefaced “long-suffering”—so sue me! ;-). All of which would have been better (in terms of talent level) than Tim Tebow. Or you could have expanded the metaphor to a team and said that it was like a middle school basketball team against the Dream Team or… well that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, but here’s what I think you were trying to get across…

  3. gorefan says:

    Let us know if traffic to your site suddenly goes up.

    • John Woodman says:

      gorefan, thanks for helping me get my act together a bit on this. I actually had a brief press release pretty much drafted already, it had simply gotten stalled. I’ve kept things simple and sent it via email to a few folks who might be interested. Not many, but a few at least. That helps me feel that I’ve done something other than just post it, on getting the news out.

      Thanks to you guys as well for spreading the word. ;-)

      • gorefan says:

        No, thanks neessary. Happy to help out.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        What gorefan said. It’s the least we could do to thank you for the large and professional body of work you are leaving behind—not to mention the cherry on top!

  4. Slartibartfast says:

    John,

    I posted links to this article at Doc C’s, the Fogbow, and Squeeky Fromm’s. Hope it helps.

    Thanks again,

    Kevin

  5. Pingback: A World Class Computer Expert Examines The Long Form Image!!! « The Birther Think Tank

  6. Slartibartfast says:

    Just cuz’ it don’t hurt nothin’ to add a link… Here’s an article you might be interested in from Squeeky Fromm ;-)

  7. This is an important article. Professor de Queiroz really is the “gold standard” in experts if there is such a person on Mixed Raster Content Compression and similar compression techniques. John and I independently contacted Professor de Queiroz about six weeks ago. He gave me similar answers. I contacted John and found he had also emailed the professor and received a reply. I deferred to John to write an article since he is a better writer and would take the time to do a good job with it. I have contacted an expert in DJVU but I have not heard back from him. I think we can say after this article that Garrett Papit’s claims have been destroyed

    • John Woodman says:

      I think we can say after this article that Garrett Papit’s claims have been destroyed.

      Honestly, I would say his credibility is gone as well. In addition to the claims referenced in the article above and shown to be false, Mr. Papit has made multiple other (birther) claims in the past that did not check out against reality. We could make a list, along with the evidence. If he shows up here to dispute the matter, I probably will.

      I think it’s well worth noting that both Reality Check and I had the same idea: Find the best expert in the world we could think of to evaluate the technical claims regarding image / document compression. And we entirely independently came up with the exact same name of who to consult.

      RC and I have been in touch on occasion via email. Last month I hinted to him in an email that I had asked someone else about the technical claims. He wrote back, saying, “I also emailed a person I found who seems to be an expert in scanning and compression algorithms.” When I asked him who, he replied, “Dr. Ricardo de Queiroz.” I wrote back expressing my opinion (just as he had independently concluded) that Professor de Queiroz seemed to be a “gold standard” in the compression field.

  8. David Farrar says:

    As I am reading this article, and Squeeky’s, and in listening to Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona (“America’s Toughest Sheriff”) — video presentation a couple of questions kept occurring to me: “Instead of making all these ‘assumptions’, why not simply examine the record itself? In addition, let’s examine Obama’s natal hospital records as well to put the final nail in this coffin.” How much can it hurt if it proves out to be exactly as you believe: that Obama is fully qualified to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States?

    Sure, some may use it to gather even more evidence to suggest that Obama isn’t qualified, but that isn’t so far from where we are at present. So no real harm can come from actually examining Obama’s natal records, whereas a lot of good may be accomplished in settling this matter.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • ehancock says:

      No harm can come from examining Mitt Romney’s natal records, but I notice that you do not suggest examining them. If you did, do you think that Romney would let you?

      The bottom line is that both Romney and Obama has shown the official birth certificate of a state, and that is legally sufficient. In addition, Obama has the confirmations of the officials of both parties in Hawaii (Romney doesn’t) and the Index Data (ditto) and the birth notices in the newspaper (ditto) and the fact that Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country (not true for Michigan) and the government of Kenya says for sure Obama was not born there.

      Yet birthers seem to think that their claims about the birth certificate being forged mean something.

      • David Farrar says:

        “Yet birthers seem to think that their claims about the birth certificate being forged mean something.”

        Birthers think this way because they are applying the same logic judges should be using to apply the correct judicial notice of the evidence presented, i.e. all we we are seeking is a confirmation of the truth of the matter; the worse that can happen, should we be proven wrong by an examination of the record, is that Barack Obama is proven qualified in the absence of two state issued birth certificates that have no probative value.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast says:

          David “out of breath” Farrar,

          In truth, for everyone who respects the US Constitution (including the entire US Judicial branch), both the COLB and the LFBC are prima facie evidence of the information they contain (I am aware that you have no idea what that means even though it must have been explained to you hundreds of times). In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which this article helps show is completely non-existant), it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny that President Obama was born in Hawai’i.

          Why do you oppose the Constitution David?

        • NBC says:

          the worse that can happen, should we be proven wrong by an examination of the record, is that Barack Obama is proven qualified in the absence of two state issued birth certificates that have no probative value.

          They have probative value, are prima facie evidence and are admissible in court.

          Sorry David but your foolish notions have no relevance to reality.
          Of course you will never be satisfied… But who cares…

          • gorefan says:

            It is easy to see where David’s delusions would take him next. If the hospital records were produced, he would say that there is no way to know if President Obama is the same child as listed in the records, we need DNA testing.

            • The Magic M says:

              … or that the hospital needs to “confirm” its records are “true and accurate”, or Hawaii needs to “confirm” the hospital records “match what’s on the BC”, or the hospital needs to “confirm” the BC “matches what’s on our records” or Congress needs to “confirm” that Hawaii is a state and that the hospital really is a hospital.

              Been there, done that. David, the “if we just get to see X, it will all be over” ship has sailed a long time ago. You birthers said that about the BC, then about the “long form” BC, then about the Hawaiian verification thereof. You have no credibility left for your concern trolling.

        • jayHG says:

          Dude, you skipped the part of his question where he noted you DID NOT ask for any papers from Romney.

          Just saying….

    • Suranis says:

      According to the US constitutions Full Faith and Credit clause, the certified copy of the records has exactly the same as the originals. And no president in the history of the universe has ever had to dig out the original records of his birth so don’t pretend this is a reasonable request.

      • David Farrar says:

        I can’t think of any president in history who could not prove with overwhelming, independent, corroborative evidence when and where they were born….let me stress in this regard the word ‘overwhelming’.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

          David,
          No president but Obama has publicly proven overwhelmingly that he was born in the United States. No president but him has done so publicly.

        • bgansel9 says:

          The evidence for Barack Obama being born in Hawaii IS overwhelming. Apparently you think paranoid schizophrenia allows you to think differently. Seek mental evaluation.

        • gorefan says:

          Everything we know about the past presidents is what they told us. You just choose to take what they say without question.

        • Scientist says:

          Really? We have proof of place and date of birth on virtually none of the 43 people who have held the job of US President. Obama is the only one to actually show his birth certificate to the public while in office. Reagan and Eisenhower obtained birth certificates well into their adult years and simply placed them in their presidential libraries after leaving office. The rest never showed doodly-squat.

          Why do you lie, sir? You think anyone really cares about this crap? You birthers spent the entire last 4 years prattling on and on regarding this topic. Now, there is an election and, frankly, everyone is sick to death of it. As strategists, you guys suck.

        • Suranis says:

          Eisenhower had to rely on the word of his brother which everyone accepted.

          Ex Animal
          Me

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Suranis,

            If I recall correctly, it was his younger brother as well…

            • sfjeff says:

              No- older brother- he was just under 2 years old when Eisenhower was born as I recall.

              Imagine relying on the memories of a 50 or 60 year old man of events that happened when he was 2 years old?

              But no one even blinked when that was the published proof of Eisenhowers place of birth.

        • D.Brock says:

          You state, “I can’t think of any president in history who could not prove with overwhelming, independent, corroborative evidence when and where they were born….”. Do you have “overwhelming, independent, corroborative evidence” that Abraham Lincoln wasn born on February 9,1809 in Hardin County,Kentucky? I would imagine that if Mr.Lincoln was asked of proof of his birth, the best he could produce would be a hand written entry in the family Bible, likely entered by father. Since before the 20th. century, most births were recorded this way. Hardly independent, overwhelming, corroborative evidence….

          • gorefan says:

            President Eisenhower’s birth certificate was created in 1952 and was signed by his brother.

            David accepts it at face value.

          • The Magic M says:

            > Hardly independent, overwhelming, corroborative evidence….

            And if all that Obama had was the word of his parents as to where he was born, birthers would cry bloody murder. Yet they seem fine with it with regard to previous (white) presidents. Why is that, David?

    • David

      Why are you suing Judge Clay Land?

      • NBC says:

        Why are you suing Judge Clay Land?

        Good question.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        David “out of breath” Farrar probably doesn’t understand just what his attorney, the lamentably yet-to-be disbarred Orly Taitz, has put him on the hook for (nobody can be as willfully ignorant as David appears—I think he is just incapable of understanding or any sort of critical thinking). Just like he doesn’t understand that this article puts an end to any (pipe) dreams he and his bat$hit crazy lawyer had about the Maricopa CCCP riding to their rescue… (not that they were anyway).

    • John Woodman says:

      So, in other words, you propose to demand:

      1) an examination of the original document, which multiple officials of the State of Hawaii, from both political parties, have repeatedly certified as being genuine, and
      2) an examination of Mrs. Obama’s hospital records.

      And the justification for this would be… what? That birthers have made more than 100 different claims to have evidence that Mr. Obama is ineligible, every single one of which has proven to be a false accusations/ a lie/ wrong/ witch hunting?

      Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me.

      While we’re at it, I’m pretty sure I heard that you raped and murdered a girl back around 2004. So I think we should send the police, with cadaver dogs, to dig up your back yard.

      I have multiple pieces of evidence, including a signed paper stating that you confessed to the crime. The signature is illegible, but it looks like it was from a guy who died last year. And I have a photograph that looks a lot like you, with an unidentified girl. And it looks like they are struggling.

      Plus, I think I heard that a former co-worker has described you as “creepy,” and says that you made a pass at her and wouldn’t leave her alone.

      Can you account for your whereabouts every night of July, 2004? If you can’t, then there seems to be a suspicious lack of candor on your part.

      If the police don’t find the body in your back yard, then they should be allowed to check under the floorboards and in the walls of your house.

      And if they don’t find the body there, then it may well be because you hid it somewhere else. In that case, I propose that you be outfitted with a tracking device. Sooner or later, the criminal returns to the scene of his crime.

      What? None of my evidence is any good? Well, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. And I have a 22-year-old psychology graduate who’s prepared to state publicly that your personality fits that of a rapist/ murderer.

      We also need to tap your phones (land line and cell) and install surveillance cameras in the various rooms of your house and in your car. Since you claim to be innocent, I’m sure you won’t mind. If you really are innocent, you should have nothing to hide.

      But due to the large number of allegations made against you, I’m pretty sure you’re not innocent.

      Be that as it may, as you said, how much can it hurt to get to the bottom of the matter? As you said, no real harm can come from such investigations, whereas a lot of good may be accomplished in settling this matter.

      Now if you think that’s ridiculous, it is. If you think that for people to stand up and seriously demand that those things be done tp you would be offensive, it would be. And if you think that using a limitless stream of false allegations as a basis for harassing you would be pretty much criminal in and of itself, you would be right.

      This is exactly what birthers such as yourself have done. This, and more.

      Not only have they done this, they have deceived others and pulled them into lobbying for their false accusations, which now number more than a hundred.

      A hundred.

      Not only have they done this, they have also witch-hunted those of us who’ve pointed out when their accusations didn’t hold water.

      Which is now more than a hundred times a row.

      They have publicly maligned innocent people, called them names, publicly made false accusations against them, in some cases even threatened them with violence.

      This is what your birther movement is all about. It’s all about snake oil, masquerading false accusations as ‘truth,” deceiving conservatives, and ripping our Constitution and our laws to shreds for the sake of the will of the lynch mob. It’s about publicly maligning those who stand up for truth and idolizing the con men and BSers who are popularizing themselves and peddling falsehoods for profit.

      I hope you’re proud to have been a part of that.

      • David Farrar says:

        I know of no Hawaiian state official who has repeatedly certified the information contained on Barack Obama’s birth certificate as “genuine”, simply that it represents the same information they have in their files…which none can be independently corroborated, and therefore, has no probative value.

        But my point is, since we are only trying to prove a positive — aren’t we? — the judicial notice required to 1) an examination of the original document, and 2) an examination of Mrs. Obama’s hospital records should not be set high.

        For example, Obama has just admitted and posted on his website, no less, the fact that he was “born to a single mother”.

        Secondly, Obama’s ‘authorized’ literary agent has stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This should be enough prima facie evidence to simply check the record to over come this evidence .

        The rest of your reductio ad absurdum argument I shan’t bother addressing

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Scientist says:

          Current Hawaiian law requires retention for 25 years past the child’s 18 th birthday, which would be 2004. And older laws required fewer years. Any birth records from 1961 no longer exist.

          Show me hospital records from your birth and then we can talk.

          • David Farrar says:

            Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital has stated they have all of the records they were legally required to keep, including the years 1960 & 1961.

            But why are you so desperate to prevent simply checking the record, if we are only trying to prove a truth?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • gorefan says:

              The truth has been proven by the proponderance of the evidence and the certified “verifications” from Hawaii.

              There is no logical scenario that puts Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in box 6c of the LFBC as verified by the DOH in hawaii.

            • Scientist says:

              They are not required to keep records from 1961.

              The solution for you is quite simple-don’t vote for Obama if you don’t like what he has released. Others can not vote for Romney if they don’t like what he has released. Let’s see who wins.

            • NBC says:

              But why are you so desperate to prevent simply checking the record, if we are only trying to prove a truth?

              Why are you so desperate that you refuse to accept the facts?
              Instead you try to get a Hospital to reveal information it cannot legally do so.

              All because of your foolish beliefs.

            • NBC says:

              Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital has stated they have all of the records they were legally required to keep, including the years 1960 & 1961.

              Where and when? Because there is no legal requirement to keep records that long…

            • Scientist says:

              Yes, where did the hospital specifically state they have bith records from 1961? They have all the records they are legally required to keep, and the law requires 25 years past the child’s 18th birthday, which is 43 years. So they are not required to keep birth records from before 1969.

          • John Woodman says:

            Frankly, I don’t particularly like the idea of living in a state where anybody can make unreasonable demands of other people based on false accusations. If that’s your vision for a more “patriotic” America, then I suggest you consider moving to North Korea.

            In terms of evidence that Mr. Obama was born in the United States, as others have noted, far more evidence of his being a natural born US citizen has been produced than has ever been produced by any previous American President. Quite possibly more than all previous Presidents combined.

            And it is abundantly clear for anyone who has done their homework, as I have, that NOT ONE of the now more than 100 claims of evidence of ineligibility is anything other than nonsense.

            So if a police state where people are free to make any accusation, no matter what the evidence, and have others rigorously and exhaustively investigated, is what you really want, again, I suggest you go apply for citizenship in North Korea.

            • David Farrar says:

              But I have just given you two prima facie reasons to allow the record to speak for itself.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Northland10 says:

              David, you have been told hundreds of times you do not know what prima facie means. All you have is prima fecal reasons and evidence.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              David “out of breath” Farrar doesn’t understand what you mean—he doesn’t understand what any of this means, as evinced by what he’s posted here and elsewhere. He has a cargo cult understanding of the law and believes that if he uses magic words like prima facie in his argument that it cancels out the use of those terms against him. He is truly one pathetic sap.

        • Suranis says:

          I know of no Hawaiian state official who has repeatedly certified the information contained on Barack Obama’s birth certificate as “genuine”, simply that it represents the same information they have in their files…

          Really.

          “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen,” Fukino said in a statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago.”

          Well there’s one. And you know of that as people have waved that in front of you 1000 times. But your superior brain cant handle it and immediately forgets it.

          This reminds me of the time you sneered to everyone about how much you enjoyed puttering about on your yacht, until someone mentioned that he had a boat on the same harbour and asced could he call over and have a look. Suddenly you shut up about it. Stunning.

          Ex Affligeniensis

          • Suranis says:

            Spot the statement that Dave skipped over in his rush to blather to everyone in sight. Yes, mine. I cannot imagine why.

            Ex Aeternus

        • gorefan says:

          “Secondly, Obama’s ‘authorized’ literary agent has stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This should be enough prima facie evidence to simply check the record to over come this evidence .”

          Sorry, but it is at best hearsay evidence. Which was diminished by the statement from the literary agent, herself

          Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

          “This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

          On the other hand the three verifications from the Hawaii DOH are prima facie evidence of the birth in Hawaii.

          The title of all three verification documents is “Verification of Birth”

          Under Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3(b) a “verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”

          So all three verifications are “for all purposes certification” of birth in Honolulu, Hawaii (Arizona’s verification specifically states, this while the others reference the place of birth and DOB on the white house pdf as matching the”original” file vital records on file).

          For Presidential eligiblity, nothing on a birth certifcate matters except DOB and place of birth.

          Furthermore, in the Arizona verification the hospital was specifically verified. There is no scenario in which President Obama could have been born anywhere but in the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

          There is no grandparents registered birth or late or amended birth scenario that gets Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital into box 6c.

          • David Farrar says:

            Look you guys…you are making my case. The more you swear Obama’s birth certificates are ‘genuine’, the easier it should be to simply double-check the record. As it stands now we are still left with simply taking somebody’s word for the truth when the truth can easily be discovered and independently verified for ourselves by an examination of Barack Obama’s natal records.

            When compared to this immutable fact, plus the fact that Obama’s literary agent’s statement, being an employee of Obama’s, is an exception to the hearsay rule, there is really nothing that should prevent such an examination.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • Scientist says:

              David: Nobody besides you and a few dozen of your pals cares.

              Don’t vote for Obama if you don’t like his birth certificate. Vote for Romney if you prefer his. End of story.

              It’s just politics and your side is getting trounced. You really ought to find a new hobby for after the election.

            • John Woodman says:

              Again, did you rape and murder a girl in 2004?

              And what other evidence do we have for that, other than your statement that you didn’t?

              Actually, to this point, I haven’t even heard you issue a denial. Now THAT is suspicious. Why haven’t you just come straight out and said you didn’t rape and murder a girl back in ’04?

              But even if you make that claim, well, we’re only going to be left with your word on the matter.

              So like I say, the truth can easily be discovered and verified if you will allow a team into your back yard and into your home to do an on-site inspection to search for the body.

              Will you allow that, David?

            • John Woodman says:

              I should add that, naturally, if a body is found, or evidence that a body was there (such as one of the dogs signaling a ‘hit”) you’re going to be in a spot of trouble.

              Do you have a lawyer yet?

            • Suranis says:

              I want to see your police records. The rumors of your police record, which you refuse to deny, only compound this slur on your good… well your name. And I need to see your college records to disprove the allegation, which you have never denied, that you only passed college by letting the entire college staff ride your virgin ass. Which is a terrible thing to do to a poor donkey.

              Ex Adultus

            • gorefan says:

              The record has been checked five or six times now. You didn’t accept any of those checks and you gave illogical and irrational reasons fro you refuse to accept reality, why should anyone believe you now?

              Didn’t you say you would be comfortable with however the Georgia courts ruled? Obiviously that was not true.

              You are simply anti-American, anti-Constitution. There is absolutely no other explanation or justification for your behaviour.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John said:“I should add that, naturally, if a body is found, or evidence that a body was there (such as one of the dogs signaling a ‘hit”) you’re going to be in a spot of trouble.

              Do you have a lawyer yet?”

              Maybe he could get Orly to represent him… :-P

            • NBC says:

              As it stands now we are still left with simply taking somebody’s word for the truth when the truth can easily be discovered and independently verified for ourselves by an examination of Barack Obama’s natal records.

              We already know the facts, that you insist on more foolishness and refuse to accept the facts of his birth on soil are deplorable. That you are abusing our legal system is worse.

              There is NO reason, legally speaking, as to why Obama should have to present his birth records, obtained from the hospital, assuming they still exist.

              There is no moral reason why our President should have to go through such silly acts, just because of your disbelief and dislike of our President.

              You sued, you lost and now you just whine on about nothing.

              What a proud example you make to your children…

            • The Magic M says:

              > plus the fact that Obama’s literary agent’s statement, being an employee of Obama’s, is an exception to the hearsay rule

              You should stop asking Orly for legal advice. Really. Neither she nor you have any idea about the law.

            • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

              The records have been double checked that’s what the verifications were. Full faith and credit clause

              Deus ex Machina
              Dr Ken

          • John Woodman says:

            Other information published around the same time stated very clearly that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obviously, one or the other must be wrong. He can’t have been born both places.

            The Kenyan birth theory has been pretty exhaustively considered, including at this blog.

            When faced with two bits of information, one of which cannot be true, one evaluates the evidence to see which is the credible, plausible, possible explanation. The Kenyan birth theory, particularly in light of all the other evidence, simply is not remotely plausible.

            Hey, if you want to try and get the original records, go for it. I doubt you’re going to have much success.

            • David Farrar says:

              “Obviously, one or the other must be wrong. He can’t have been born both places.”

              Precisely so. The way to resolve the conflict in these two statements is to allow the record to speak for itself, one would think — certainly as it pertains to the qualification of the President of the United States — and yet you, and the people here, seem determined to dream up excuses not to do what most independent observers already know what should be done..let the record speak for itself.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Scientist says:

              The record has already spoken, and the matter is resolved.

              The End

            • Suranis says:

              Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

              Ex Aegrotatio

            • Scientist says:

              And the voters decide who the Preisdent is. If David casts his based on who has provided the most birth information, he will be voting for Obama.

              Farrar is an O-bot, who knew?

            • David Farrar says:

              Again with the reductio ad absurdum argument. Interesting.

              History, itself, of course will decide who is right, and by the way you guys are fighting a full examination of the Obama’s record now…it would seem you too already know the answer.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Scientist says:

              David: You have all the information you are going to get. You will get nothing more. Nada. Zip. Will you cry and hold your breath? Please shoot some video and post.

            • John Woodman says:

              The argument, as you note, is ridiculous.

              What you fail to note, however, is that it is no more ridiculous than the behavior and demands of birthers, including yourself.

              You have a good deal of very solid and credible evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, including two certified birth certificates which have been personally seen and handled by members of the media, an entire series of official statements by various state officials of BOTH parties, the personal recollection of Obama’s high school English teacher who has publicly stated she remembers his birth in Honolulu, statements going back decades that Obama was born in Honolulu, unfakeable newspaper announcements on microfilm from 1961, and so forth. Including the mind-numbing implausibility of any scenario by which he actually could have been born in Kenya.

              And yet you demand to see the absolutely-original birth certificate AND hospital records from more than 50 years ago — and you won’t be satisfied until you do.

              Your basis for wanting to see this? Well, let’s see. After literally thousands of people have scoured the entire planet — literally — looking for stuff, you have a conflicting paragraph in an obscure old biography written by somebody else and circulated only among a few people in the publishing industry that says Obama was born in Kenya. (It’s worth noting at this point, by the way, that Barack Obama, Sr., actually was from Kenya. Gee. Do ya think there could’ve been any confusion there?)

              And you have a newspaper article from some half-baked unknown foreign reporter in a dirt-poor West African country that refers to Obama as having been born in Kenya.

              And you have MORE THAN A HUNDRED claims of ineligibility that have so far been shown to be WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT BASIS IN REALITY AT ALL.

              Which, by my very careful count, includes exactly and precisely all of them.

              So that’s your basis for demanding the original records.

              That’s no less ridiculous than my demanding we should dig up your back yard and send the cadaver dogs in to sniff your walls.

              I mean, for those who are observant, there are some very subtle but powerful signs there. You don’t even want to get me started on this, but…

              Well, let’s just take one little thing. Your signature.

              Why do you sign your name with small letters, and not capital letters?

              I know why.

              I know it’s because you feel inferior, unworthy.

              And why would you feel that way?

              It’s because of the guilt for the crimes you’ve committed.

              Likewise the omission of the space between your first and last names. A classic sign of squeezing things together, of hiding… something.

              And we know, of course, what that is. Don’t we, David?

              And then the curious “ex animo.” With a space in it, indicating that about that one thing, at least, you are being more open and honest.

              And most people think “ex animo” means from the heart. But it doesn’t. Anima, the feminine word, is heart, or soul.

              Animus, the masculine word used in your signature, is another matter entirely. The word is still used today. And it means… anger.

              So the signature is an open, honest confession… from anger.

              Is that why you did it, David? Is that the reason for your crimes? The boiling, seething, secret anger? I’d say the evidence is pretty clear.

              And don’t think I’m not qualified to do this psychological analysis. I took an entire course in psychology back at university.

            • John Woodman says:

              And once again, as you already noted…

              The arguments are ridiculous. Specious.

              But once again: The things I just said about you, my reasons for demanding that we dig up your yard and send cadaver dogs to sniff your walls, are no more ridiculous than the behavior and demands of you and your fellow birthers.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          David “out of breath” Farrar,

          You mistake a reductio ad absurdum PROOF for a reductio ad absurdum FALLACY. Mr. Woodman’s proof shows that your reasoning inevitably leads to absurdity, NOT the fallacy of distorting your reasoning to make it appear absurd—you don’t need any help to appear ridiculous and dishonest.

        • jayHG says:

          Yuo shant cause you CAN’T…..farrar, you’re a d****** birther snake oil salesman with the bad mustache. No more….

      • Slartibartfast says:

        John,

        I can provide independent corroboration that David “out of breath” Farrar has never once denied the allegations you made, thus, by his own standards, he is a rapist and a murderer. Not to mention being a vexatious litigant by reality-based standards (it would be nice if a court recognized this, but I’m not holding my breath…).

        • David Farrar says:

          From the reductio ad absurdum argument to argumentum ad hominem attacks…you guys must think your arguments are weak to want to discredit it so much with this nonsense.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • Suranis says:

            You still haven’t denied it.

            Therefore, you are indirectly confirming the allegations.

            You monster.

            Ex Adeo

          • Scientist says:

            Weak would be a gross understatement for what judges have said about your arguments Farrar. Non-existent, ridiculous, losing to an empty chair.

            What are your plans for Obama’s second term? Try collecting stamps or running model trains-that will be a far more worthwhile hobby than the collosal time waste you have passed his first term on.

            ars longa
            vita brevis

            • David Farrar says:

              “Little, if any probative value,” is what Judge Malihi observed.

              But “little, if any” is more than none, which is how much probative value Obama’s two state-issued birth certificates have, even with their verification by Hawaiian Health Department officials.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Actually David, “little, if any” means either none at all or a very small amount. In either case it’s not how you want a judge describing your evidence.

          • John Woodman says:

            My point, David, is simply to illustrate the utter unreasonableness and idiocy of your arguments by one simple step –

            Removing them from the context they were originally framed in, and simply putting them in another context.

            Or, to put it another way: Applying the exact same approach, as nearly as possible, to you, that you and other birthers have applied to the current President (and I may not having him in the office, but yes, he is currently the President).

            And your response is that the statements I have made are ridiculous.

            And you’re right.

            How is such an approach (guilty until proven innocent, forced to prove innocence, no reasonable standard accepted, based on a multitude of bogus claims), applied to you any more ridiculous than it is when applied by you to someone else?

            Can you answer that?

            If it is reasonable for Mr. Obama, having released copies of not one but two versions — long and short form — of his birth certificate, and having seen it repeatedly certified as genuine by Hawaii officials of both parties and a very substantial amount of corroborating evidence — if it is reasonable for Mr. Obama to do as you demand, then it is perfectly reasonable for someone else — anybody else — to accuse you of rape and murder, and your having to prove your innocence by allowing a full inspection of your premises (including the walls) for any suspicious evidence, have surveillance cameras put on you, etc.

            After all, that’s not really that much bother. And if it will resolve the questions, why not?

            I don’t know whether you’re capable of seeing the parallel. But I can tell you this: When they understand the massive extent of KNOWN, absolutely false and bogus charges brought by birthers, and the absolute lack of any REAL evidence in favor of their claims, most other people are capable of seeing it.

            • David Farrar says:

              “How is such an approach (guilty until proven innocent, forced to prove innocence, no reasonable standard accepted, based on a multitude of bogus claims), applied to you any more ridiculous than it is when applied by you to someone else?”

              I am not qualifying to take the oath of office for the presidency of the United States. I am but a simple, natural born Citizen elector.

              Whereas Barack H. Obama, if that is his present legal name, as amended, is constitutionally bound to “PROVE”, not presume, his claim to executive power.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

          • Slartibartfast says:

            David “out of breath” Farrar posted:

            September 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm
            From the reductio ad absurdum argument to argumentum ad hominem attacks…you guys must think your arguments are weak to want to discredit it so much with this nonsense.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Again you show that you don’t understand the meaning of the terms you use—in this case ad hominem. If someone says you are lying because you don’t agree with them, or because you are a communist or a socialist or an ignorant hick then it is an ad hominem fallacy. If, however, someone points out a lie you have told, then it is perfectly reasonable for them to call you a liar. In other words:

            When you display prejudice (which you have against president Obama) you invite being called a bigot.

            When you show your hypocrisy (such as holding President Obama to a higher standard than his predecessors and then refusing to meet that standard yourself), you invite being called a bigot.

            When you ignore repeated efforts to correct your mistakes (like your claim that there is credible evidence of fraud by President Obama), you invite being called willfully ignorant.

            When you constantly demonstrate your inability to comprehend terms like prima facie or natural born or reductio ad absurdum (all of which you have repeatedly shown an inability to use correctly) you invite being called unintelligent.

            Calling out shameful behavior is not a weak argument—in fact, it is a very strong one. The sad thing is that you are too much of a cowardly, willfully ignorant idiot to face up to all of your despicable behavior.

          • Northland10 says:

            David,

            Nugas garris! Derideo te!

    • I have never found evidence to be useful in convincing birthers of anything.

      Would you now concede, based on Woodman’s book and this new expert information that every birther objection to Obama’s long form PDF file has been answered and that no unexplained anomalies or indications of fraud exist?

      If not, then you’re immune to evidence, and it really doesn’t matter what you suggest in the way of more evidence.

    • Horus says:

      Because it will never satisfy you birfers, we’ve been down this road so many times we already know what will happen next.
      For a very long time all we heard was ” if he just released his Long Form Birth Certificate, that would clear up any doubt about Obama”.
      Then Obama released his LFBC and that was no longer good enough, now you want the microfiche released.
      The whole idea that you are claiming that a photocopy of the original document is a forgery is ridiculous in itself.
      The fact that a room full of reporters were given access to the original raised seal document means nothing to you, you just keep going back to the photocopy of the original.
      You’re wasting your life on trying to prove that a photocopy is not an original, well duh! It never will be!
      Life is short, stop wasting what little time you have left.

  9. gorefan says:

    This is probably a coincidence but Professor de Queiroz’s homepage is not connecting.

    “Oops! Internet Explorer could not connect to image.unb.br

    Try reloading: image.­unb.­br/­queiroz/”

    His site may be getting a lot of traffic.

  10. gsgs says:

    he thinks the halo may have been created deliberately ?!
    Then they did a good job to hide that,
    make it look randomn

    • gorefan says:

      I don’t think he is saying that.

      “There might be morphological dilation around the text mask or the segmentation is block-based. The halo could be caused by the foreground in a dilated mask, or by processing the background. One plausible alternative is that the algorithm finds text as the letters with a bit of the surrounding background for safety. Some Adobe tools do that.

      Furthermore, the text is lifted to the foreground and sharpened (nearly binarized) making the background surroundings to disappear. When the text layer is pushed back onto the background plane the letter surroundings become halo. There is also some grayish lifted text, which was perhaps found to have different statistics and was then treated differently. The mask is binary, the foreground (text) can have any color or texture, or even parts of the background around the text. All these are conjectures; different algorithmic choices might produce similar results.”

      • gsgs says:

        >About the halo around some text: I am not sure why they do it, …

        • gorefan says:

          I think the “they” he is referring to is the algorithms.

          The rest of the sentence “but it may be trying to suppress another halo problem caused by “lifting” scanned text that leaves some of the foreground in the background and vice-versa causing trouble to compress the layers.”

          • gsgs says:

            gorefan, it doesn’t matter who “they” is. RQ thought it was done deliberately
            by the software. What was the purpose ? “Trying to suppress another halo
            problem” doesn’t make sense to me.
            The lifted text was replaced with other pixels,
            we don’t yet understand how exactly those were calculated, but the average value of the 8×8 block comes close. So, no lifting halo risk here.

            Are there other examples for such halos ?
            He says they wrote papers about it.
            (not that the halo would be a sign for forgery,
            just curious)

            • Ricardo de Queiroz says:

              Pardon my English and lack of space. I meant by “it” as the software which made the MRC data and by “they” whoever conceived and wrote the software. The halo problem is simple. Scanned b&w text has gray parts, e.g. at its borders. If you are going to put the text onto the pure black foreground, what happens to the gray borders? They can show up as dark pixels in the otherwise white background, or light pixels in the otherwise black foreground. Or both. The FG/BG planes should be flat-coloured to enhance compression, but the text contours are there. These halos affect the compression and could damage the image reconstruction. One paper I referred to is: http://image.unb.br/queiroz/papers/scannedmrc-jei.pdf which has some examples. To counter the effect, these algorithms that sharpen text (like the one used in the certificate) typically process the data around the text to remove these gray parts. When the planes are put back together, the background may be affected and it should shows up as halos in the final image.

            • gorefan says:

              Bom Dia, Professor de Queiroz,

              I would like to thank you for taking the time to review the birth certifcate pdf.

              Your professional analysis filled a void that up until then had been filled by a virtual rogues gallery of non-experts, carnval barkers and charlatans.

            • John Woodman says:

              Yes. I would like to thank you again as well. It’s been a controversial topic.

              Unfortunately, I’m afraid that there are still many people who are fully prepared to reject the evaluation of genuine experts in favor of that of charlatans. This has been a topic of discussion recently on another thread here.

              But for those who are reasonable, I think the fact that you have said you don’t see anything that looks like “forgery” will resolve any lingering doubts.

          • gsgs says:

            thanks for replying !
            I know, it’s time consuming …
            but maybe one of your students can write
            on it ? It’s not really scientifically interesting
            but “historically”.
            I did put my thoughts here:
            http://letsrollforums.com/birth-certificate-analysis-t28401p2.html
            but lost some interest recently.
            I don’t think the halo can just be explained by grey border pixels – it’s too big for that.
            We also have an unprocessed high-res. image:
            http://theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg
            I’m going to look at the paper now …

            here is a pic of the pdf in original resolution
            with the layer-borders and the 16×16(8×8) – grid points, and hollow text showing how
            the text pixels were replaced before (JPG-) compressing the background

            http://magictour.free.fr/OUTLINE.BMZ

            ( decompress with gzip into a .bmp )

            • gsgs says:

              And the text that was left in the background has halos too.
              And the halos in the foreground text are not uniform but have great variation
              in different parts of the document.
              And the replacement pixels are mostly white because of the -preexisting- halo.
              And we have black text on greenish background but white halos.

              So it looks more like a hardware problem.

              ( I’m not arguing here that any of this would show signs of human forgery )

            • gorefan says:

              gsgs,

              What do you think of the two layers which contain only “dots”. The one down near the date stamp appears to be related to the raised seal. Could the light from the scanner reflecting off the bumps of the seal be points of high contrast that were than interpeted by the sotware as separate elements? Same with the “dots” near the top, could they be a crease or fold in the paper caused by handling?

              Could the fact that when the “dots” are turned off, the green security paper is seen underneath be due to the compression of the background layer by a lossy algorithm filling in the spaces with the security paper background?

            • gsgs says:

              gorefan,
              afair we checked this earlier and the dots don’t quite match the
              exact seal’s hits.
              Even if the supposed original color was indeed, what the software later assigned to it,
              then it’s still unclear why they were picked. There are areas that seem to be better
              candidates (color uniforme and different from the rest), but I haven’t tested/calculated this.
              So, I have currently no good explanation – maybe even a software-bug.
              It’s not a critical point for the forgery theories, since there is no
              motivation for a forger to do such things.
              Well, maybe we should search the dots for hidden encrypted messages …

              The color that was assigned to the vacant places in the background, when the dots were lifted,
              to replace them, is consistent with the main assignment rule,
              to chose the average color of the remaining pixels in the 8×8-box.
              (plus some minor modification, which I haven’t yet figured out)

            • John Woodman says:

              Guenter, the comment system works just fine.

              If you post more than a certain number of links, it goes into moderation and i approve it later.

    • John Woodman says:

      My understanding is that Professor de Queiroz saw nothing — including the halo — that could not be readily attributable to innocent, expectable, non-human-manipulation processes. I confirmed this understanding with question 3) above.

      His evaluation, incidentally, matches my own assessment of the evidence, published a year ago. I would’ve published it even if it hadn’t. But it did.

  11. I will be linking to this article at Bad Fiction tomorrow.

  12. gsgs says:

    how many other professors did you ask ?

    • John Woodman says:

      My approach was to first ask: Who would be the most obvious candidate I could come up with to be, quite possibly, the top expert in the world that I might ask about the capabilities of mixed raster content (MRC) compression?

      Generally speaking, information from one genuine, world-class expert is better than the opinions of a hundred clowns. Still, if you want to ask other genuinely knowledgeable people in the technical field of image optimization, feel free to knock yourself out. Here is a list of some names you might begin with:

      • Peter D McCandlish
      • Michael Gormish
      • Reiner Eschbach
      • Donald Curry
      • Zhigang Fan
      • Leon Bottou
      • Yann LeCun
      • Slartibartfast says:

        John said: “Generally speaking, information from one genuine, world-class expert is better than the opinions of a hundred clowns.”

        Or, to paraphrase Richard Feynman, one world-class expert is far smarter than the average of one hundred birther “experts”.

  13. gsgs says:

    remember the Corsi experts.
    He published only those opinions that did fit his agenda.
    So, I think it’s better to announce in advance whom to ask ?!

    • Suranis says:

      No-one in the world would do so as it would remove the ability for people to say they simply dont want to get involved.

      I know you have hung around with liars and stalkers for the past 4 years but in the real world no-one does that. Even WND did not announce their experts till they had agreed to look at it.

    • John Woodman says:

      Well, I would have published Professor de Queiroz’s opinion even if it hadn’t agreed with mine. Heck, I’ve publicly acknowledged and in that sense given publicity to the opinions of pretty much all of those claimed to be experts on the birther side of things. Compare that to the treatment given to all contrary opinions by WorldNetDaily/ Jerome Corsi/ Arpaio’s posse/ the birther “news” (i.e., propaganda) outlets on the web, and all of the various birthers and their web sites. It’s either complete silence, false accusations of collusion, or cursory straw-man “debunkings” that don’t actually address the points made by those who have given opinions contrary to the birther party line.

      Or avoiding the question. Or baseless, unprofessional ridicule (Mara Zebest: “I’ve heard more coherent ramblings from the Unabomber… Only six people visit John Woodman’s site, and one of them’s his mother.”) Or other personal attacks, such as when one birther attempted to label me a “pervert” simply because I told the truth.

      Anyway, if you want some genuinely knowledgeable people in the field of image compression, as I say, there’s a starting list. Go and ask those folks what they think. Frankly, I don’t think you’ll find even one real, world-class expert who will support the birther technical quackery.

  14. hey john great to see you back !

    i’ll have to take awhile to digest all of this. catch any fish ?

    • John Woodman says:

      Aaaah, I really don’t fish, Scott.

      I have been out in nature at least a little bit lately, though. More walking than fishing.

      Hope you’ve been well. ;-)

  15. Slartibartfast says:

    I was getting lost in the nesting, so I brought this back to the top…

    Scientist says:
    September 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm
    And the voters decide who the Preisdent is.

    This is a true statement (although they do so indirectly through the Electoral College—sorry David, I didn’t mean to confuse you with nuance :-P )

    If David casts his based on who has provided the most birth information, he will be voting for Obama.

    This is a conditional statement—”IF A, THEN B”. It says that if the condition A is true (David casts his vote for the person who has released the most birth info) then outcome B is true (David will be voting for President Obama). The statement itself is obviously true if President Obama has released the most birth info—something which, at this point, can be trivially established in any US court of law (David’s superstar lawyer, the yet-to-be disbarred Orly Taitz managed to do so in one of her losses to an empty chair).

    Farrar is an O-bot, who knew?

    If we equate being an “O-bot” with “voting for President Obama”, then this statement is valid as well (it depends on condition A [which implicitly depends on David "out of breath" Farrar not being a hypocrite---in other words, not very likely]).

    So all, in all, Scientist has put together a short, logically consistent line of reasoning that illustrates that David “out of breath” is a hypocrite. Let’s see what David thinks…

    David “out of breath” Farrar says:
    September 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    Again with the reductio ad absurdum argument. Interesting.

    For Scientist’s argument to be fallacious, there would need to be an illogical leap in his reasoning. However, as I have shown, there is not. Once again (as John did earlier) you have been demonstrated to be a hypocrite who doesn’t understand the difference between a valid argument and a fallacious one.

    History, itself, of course will decide who is right, and by the way you guys are fighting a full examination of the Obama’s record now…it would seem you too already know the answer.

    You’ll find yourself on the dustbin of history soon enough, David. We’re fighting to prevent dishonest, hypocritical bigots like yourself from smearing the president with your hateful lies and baseless accusations in blatant disregard of the Constitution and the ideas that made this country great.

    out of breath
    davidfarrar

  16. john says:

    “Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now.”

    The CCP welcomes an open invitation for Dr. Queiroz to come to Arizona and replicate the anomilies found in Obama’s Bc by scanning a birth certificate in a computer.

    Dr. Queiroz isn’t too impressive. He makes an opinion but his opinion is really just bunch of questions about the document he can’t explain.

    The CCP actually did hundreds of tests on the document and could replicate the anomilies in Obama’s BC.

    • Sactosintolerant says:

      Just stop already… pick up a new hobby… hunt Bigfoot… melt steel… just move on.

    • The Magic M says:

      > The CCP actually did hundreds of tests on the document and could replicate the anomilies in Obama’s BC.

      You obviously meant “could not”, didn’t you? Otherwise you just admitted the CCP lied about their findings (wouldn’t be the first time).

      Besides, you agree that the fact I cannot precisely replicate a photo that someone has taken (because I cannot replicate the lighting and optical “anomalies” without knowing what camera and lens he used, and because I cannot replicate the JPG compression “anomalies” without knowing what software – including camera and firmware version – created the JPG) does NOT prove the photo is a Photoshop job, right?
      Because if you don’t, then by your definition every single photo ever published on the web is a forgery.

  17. john says:

    Mike Zullo spoke at my tea party recently. His theory is this.

    - Obama’s BC on the White House server is a fake – period.

    - Zullo believes that Hawaii does possess Obama’s original BC.

    - Zullo believes that Obama did receive 2 copies of his birth certificate from Hawaii on behalf of the Perkins Coi Law Firm.

    - However, Zullo believes that the PDF BC is not what Hawaii gave to Obama.

    - Zullo believes the forgery was necessary to cover up the fact that Obama’s BC is AMENDED or UPDATED – And if so….Obama’s BC is legally nonvalid.

    - Zullo believes that they couldn’t show a BC with indications of AMENDMENTS on it and therefore a forged copy had to be produced.

    - Zullo believes Obama most likely updated or amended his BC in 2008 when he went to Hawaii to visit his dying grandma.

      • John Woodman says:

        This is what gets me about the hard core birthers like john. It doesn’t matter what the known, documented track record of false statements is by the people they want to believe and promote.

        I have commented on this before, comparing it to the experience I had in late 1999 and early 2000, pointing out to “investors” in Stock Generation that the “game” they were playing was a Ponzi scheme, and they were darn likely to lose their money.

        Generally speaking, the people in the Stock Generation forum were either hard-core gamblers who knew they were in a scam in which a lot of people (hopefully not them) were going to lose everything they put in, or sheep who found the group mentality of “this is fine” to be far more compelling than the few voices who were telling them, “uh… guys… this is a scam.

        As spring came and wore on, it suddenly became impossible for anyone to get any money out of Stock Generation. There were people, of course, who lost their entire life savings.

        Anyway, most of those in the forum were there of their own volition. They really didn’t care that they were both being scammed and drawing others into the con.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Couple questions, John:

      - Who paid Zullo’s expenses to attend your tea party?
      - Did he ever explain to your tea party that he is not a certified peace officer in Arizona and hence has no authority to investigate anything?

    • Scientist says:

      1. Amended birth certificates are not invalid. Errors happen and can and should be corrected. I believe John (Woodman, not birther john) had such an experience with one of his daughters, here an incorrect name was on the b.c. He amended it (I believe it took quite a lot of effort on his part). That in no way invalidates her birth certificate.
      2. Amendments have to be supported by evidence (unless it’s something like a given name, which is chosen at the parent’s discretion). To amend place of birth would require very convincing evidence. How exactly would one walk in 47 years later and say, “Ahem, I wasn’t really born in Kenya, I was actually born at Kapiolani hospital, right here in Honolulu”? And the clerk would say, “Oh, no problem, sir, let me change that.” Sure….
      3. Obama didn’t amend his birth certificate. He could petition to have it amended like anyone else, but he would have to support his request with evidence. See #2.
      4. The COLB issued in 2007 showed the correct birthplace (Honolulu). So no amendment made in 2008 could have changed that.

  18. john says:

    Zullo theory sounds plausible.

    - It explains why Hawaii wouldn’t show the original.

    - It explains why Alvin Onaka refused to verify that Obama’s BC is a “true and accurate” representationsof the WH BC when asked by AZ SOS Bennett and instead only said the information matched.

    It means that Obama’s BC is LEGALLY NONVALID and can now only validated in court with coorborating evidence because it has been UPDATE or AMENDED.

    This explains why the forgery is neccessary.

    • Suranis says:

      Sure John.

      Really.

      “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen,” Fukino said in a statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago.”

    • Sactosintolerant says:

      I have a theory that Zullo and Farah are the same person. I’ve never seen them in the same place at the same time. Farah has a financial and ego interest in keeping birtherism alive.

      This explains why “Zullo” was necessary.

    • The Magic M says:

      Unless you can explain and PROVE what allegedly was “amended”, that is idle speculation.

      Do you really think that vital facts (where he was born and when) can be “amended”? As in “Birthplace: Mombasa, Kenya; Amended birthplace: Kapiolani, Hawaii”? You must be out of your mind.

  19. john says:

    David,

    Based on research by Butterdezillion and others, Hawaii has indirectly confirmed Obama’s birth certificate has been UPDATED or AMENDED. This means Obama’s BC is LEGALLY NONVALID and can only validated in court with coorborating evidence. This explains why Alvin Onake COULD NOT verify Obama’s BC as a “True and Accurate” representation of the White House BC as asked specifically by AZ SOS Bill Bennett. Alvin Onaka only stated the information matched. Onaka can’t under law state the White House BC is a “True and Accurate” representation because Obama’s BC is legally nonvalid.

    • David Farrar says:

      John,

      as much as I would like to believe you, all you have is a working hypothesis, albeit, a very good one.

      You are absolutely correct when you use this ‘working hypothesis’ to explain the inherent limitations involved is any “verification” of the information contained in Obama’s Hawaiian two birth certificates…but try getting this lot to see your point is, I am afraid, hopeless, until the tables are turned.

      In my study, I believe Obama at some point either just prior to his election, or in 2009, went to Hawaii and changed his legal name back to Barack H. Obama from Barry Soetoro.

      By the way, John: is it just me, or did Obama stop demanding Romney’s tax returns soon after Mitt made his little ‘birth certificate’ joke? Somebody should do a Nexis search of Obama speeches just before (Romney’s birth certificate remark) and today to see if there was a significant drop off.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • gorefan says:

        “By the way, John: is it just me, or did Obama stop demanding Romney’s tax returns soon after Mitt made his little ‘birth certificate’ joke?”

        It is just you.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMl2AUIkFs4

        • David Farrar says:

          Thank you for your video. But I am afraid I was asking for rather specific instances where Obama, himself, made public demands for Romney to publish more of his tax returns after Romney made his “birther” joke.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

      • Suranis says:

        The ruling in Farrar V Obama says otherwise.

        Hey, you have the same sirname. Who would have thunk it. Ever heard of the case?

        ex acervus

      • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

        He never had to change his name back he was always Barack Huseein Obama. Take for instance the columbia day program that shows his name as Barack Hussein Obama

        Dos Equis,
        Stay Thirsty my Friends.

  20. gsgs says:

    I also think that they should allow the inspection of the original
    and the microfilms. Independent of how much avidence there
    is for this or that theory. Just who wants to investigate should
    pay for the additional costs.
    And I don’t understand the reactions here,
    which I consider inappropriate. John Woodman compares it
    with a murder investigation suggesting that the investigation
    itself makes you suspicious. Well, that depends on how the media
    cover it. He himself did the investigation and wrote a book about it
    and that’s why this blog exists.
    Title : “is Barack Obama’s birth certificate a fraud ?”
    This might have the effect that the title itself suggests
    there could be something fishy and an investigation
    was necessary/did make sense and people should buy the book.
    (a better title had been ; “no evidence for fraud in Barak Obama’s
    birth certificate”)
    Suppose I write an article : there is absolutely no evidence that
    DavidFarrar is a murderer
    Would he appreciate it ? Some people will say :
    what ? why was he suspected in the first place ? making the mere
    existence of the article an evidence that he could be regardless
    of what I write in the article.
    But should that be a reason to “forbid” or “ban” such articles,
    books,investigations ??

    • David Farrar says:

      Brilliant!

      there is an internal conflict in the title of John’s book and the point he is trying to defend here. In the end, John Woodsman believes Barack H. Obama is fully qualified to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States should he win in the general election.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Well, I guess we can add “marketing” to the list of things that David “out of breath” Farrar doesn’t understand…

        • David Farrar says:

          To answer your question below: “Why is it okay to ask things of President Obama that were never asked of any of his predecessors when he has presented evidence that the US CONSTITUTION requires be taken at face value?

          Because Barack H. Obama is the first president for whom his own, duly authorized, literary agent has stated he was not qualified.

          But for the record: Barack Obama wasn’t the only presidential candidate sued in federal court over his “natural born” Citizenship status in 2008. He wasn’t even the first. That honor went to John McCain.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Sorry David, he has—by all of the standards required by the Constitution. That make him president and satisfies his burden of proof (in truth, he has far more than satisfied that burden). It is now on you to satisfy your own burden—and the best you can do is quibble over whether your evidence has “little” merit or “no” merit after a humiliating loss to an empty chair (when you were offered a propaganda bonanza for free—talk about stupid…). In truth, there is nothing that can overcome the unimpeached official statement of the Hawai’i DoH and you have no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing by DoH officials.

            In other words, you lose—the only question now is how much more of your time, integrity (if there is any left—which I doubt), and treasure this will cost you. I suggest you cut your losses now and take up knitting—then at least you will have something tangible to show for your efforts.

          • The Magic M says:

            > Because Barack H. Obama is the first president for whom his own, duly authorized, literary agent has stated he was not qualified.

            That’s quite intellectually dishonest. You birthers asked these questions years before any “literary agent statement” became known.

            • Scientist says:

              The “literary agent” (a low-level flunkie at the time) has not the foggiest clue where Obama was born. So what she wrote is of ZERO value. As for whether Obama would be qualified depending on where he is born, YOU don’t get to decide that. Read the 12th and 20th Amendments. Congress decides if the President elect qualifies. Nowhere does it mention David “ex-rectum” Farrar.

              You think your opinion is law. It is not.

          • Scientist says:

            The “literary agent” was not “Obama’s employee” as Farrar says. They were a low-level person in an agency who prepared a blurb and, according to them, never checked the information with the authors. There is no evidence that Obama ever saw the blurb.

            Moreover, the “literary agent” never said Obama wasn’t qualified to be President. Not ever did they say that. However, I would say that virtually every President in history was called “unqualified” by someone or another. You should check the things Lincoln’s opponents called him. Speaking of Abe, prove where he was born. Go on…

            • David Farrar says:

              “Moreover, the “literary agent” never said Obama wasn’t qualified to be President.”

              It states Obama was born in Kenya, which if true, would disqualify him for the presidency of the United States.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

          • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

            You mean the same agent who said they didn’t check with Obama and they made a mistake. You were asking these questions way longer than before you guys discovered that unpublished blurb.

            ex orcist
            Dr Ken

            • David Farrar says:

              That may very well be true. But why should we settle on just a person’s testimony when we have the record. We are only asking to let the record speak for itself.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Scientist says:

              The birth certificate is the ONLY record that exists. It is the ONLY record that has legal weight. Show me another record. You can’t. End of story.

              You have no say in whether a President is qualified. Only Congress does.

          • Horus says:

            His literary agent never said any such thing!
            You are lying, again!

    • Slartibartfast says:

      gsgs,

      Why is it okay to ask things of President Obama that were never asked of any of his predecessors when he has presented evidence that the US CONSTITUTION requires be taken at face value? Especially when the people doing the asking cannot themselves meet the standards they set. I’m sorry, but your understanding of the situation and the absurdity of the birther’s requests seems pretty naive to me. Do you believe that it is okay to make allegations with no credible evidence to base them on?

    • Slartibartfast says:

      gsgs said: “But should that be a reason to “forbid” or “ban” such articles,
      books,investigations ??”

      Where is anything being “banned” or “forbidden”? Are you saying that ridiculous arguments don’t deserve ridicule? Are you saying that frivolous lawsuits don’t deserve sanction? Because these are things that are consequences of the points you seem to be arguing.

    • John Woodman says:

      Guenter,

      I think you misunderstand me slightly.

      I never had a problem with people asking questions or wanting to find out the truth about Obama’s birth certificate, and his birth. As you noted, I myself wrote a book entitled, “Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud?”

      And that was a question that — at the time at which I wrote it, now nearly a year and a half ago — quite a few people were — in my belief — honestly asking, based on things they had heard.

      Myself included.

      As you may be aware, I myself started the whole journey as someone who was clearly anti-Obama, and at least somewhat pro-birther. I would not have described myself as a birther, but I was certainly birther-friendly. And frankly, I was suspicious of what I would now call anti-birthers.

      In my mind, there were a lot of people with legitimate questions. So I set out to find some of the answers, being interested in the truth.

      I was frankly disappointed and (I almost blush to admit it now) somewhat surprised when virtually none of those with whom I communicated, whom I had taken at their word when they said they just wanted to know the truth, actually did seem to want to know the truth.

      And although I was no stranger to human nature, I still wasn’t really quite fully prepared for the level of venom and abuse that became directed against me by persons purporting to be conservatives and Constitutionalists. I must confess that it was very disorienting for a while to find myself on good terms with various people who were pro-Obama, and viciously attacked by people who, like myself, espoused to be conservatives and to honor the Constitution and the truth — as well as being opposed to the politics of the current President. Which I still am, by the way.

      [Vote Ryan 2012!]

      But no, I never had a problem with asking questions or with there being an “investigation.” I myself did 500 hours worth of investigation just in the first few months — with undoubtedly hundreds more of uncounted hours, probably far over 500 more additional hours of investigation into subsequent issues and the natural-born-citizen claims.

      It was those literally months and months of full-time equivalent which produced the clarity that I have now… which is a well-settled understanding, based on probably the equivalent of well over six months of full-time investigation, that every single substantial claim ever made by the birther movement is absolute nonsense, and that certain persons who are promoting the birther claims are nothing more than con artists deceiving my fellow conservatives.

      I’m all for investigation, and finding out the truth. But there comes a time when the truth is known. There comes a time when more than a hundred claims in a row have been found to be without any real basis whatsoever, and when any further inquiries are nothing more than the continuation of a known, disingenuous, scam, witch hunt.

      Or, to illustrate it another way: I have no problem with you coming over to my house, visiting, and making a sandwich from the fridge.

      I have no problem whatsoever with you having a glass of wine with your dinner, watching a movie, relaxing for a while, and eventually driving home.

      And I have no problem with you sending a happy anniversary card to me and my wife.

      I do have a problem with you coming over to my house, opening my refrigerator, emptying its contents into grocery sacks, grabbing my computer, my camera, my wife’s jewelry, her purse, and my wallet, loading them all into your car and driving away.

      I do have a problem with you drinking 17 glasses of wine and then getting behind the wheel of a car and trying to drive it down the freeway, or the street next to where my children play.

      And I do have a problem with you sending not only a happy anniversary card, but a birthday card to my wife, a Valentine’s Day card, admiring letters each week, and following her in your vehicle whenever she leaves the house.

      The first three instances are similar to what I did: Ask honest questions, and conduct a full, honest, and reasonable investigation. The last three instances are similar to the behavior exhibited by birthers.

      • David Farrar says:

        John Woodman,

        “I’m all for investigation, and finding out the truth. But there comes a time when the truth is known.”

        But John, the truth won ‘t be known — it can’t be known, it can only be believed, until the record speaks for itself.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • John Woodman says:

          The truth, David, is that among the now more than 100 substantial allegations and accusations leveled by birthers such as yourself, there is not one single such allegation or accusation that has enough demonstrable evidence behind it to justify it.

          Not one.

          And that is the truth.

          Or, to put it more succinctly: What the birther movement has now become is by far the biggest, stinkingest, most astonishing, most shameful, most ridiculous, most embarrassing, most massive mountain of absolute horse manure ever dumped upon the American political scene by people who — for the most part — claimed to be conservatives and Constitutionalists that I have ever seen, in my entire lifetime. And quite possibly in the history of the Republic.

          And I say that as someone who has wasted well over half a year of my time patiently sifting through every single dropping in that entire mountain that was bigger than a pea, looking for something that wasn’t made up entirely of horse manure.

          And I found not one single thing.

          I have never been ashamed to call myself a conservative. And I’m still not. But over the past year and a half, I have come to understand, painfully, that there are others who call themselves conservatives, who are the political equivalents of nutty Uncle Bob, who throws flowerpots at the neighbor’s cat while gardening buck naked at two in the afternoon, and of Uncle Ralph, who beat his wife in alcoholic rages for fourteen years while having an ongoing affair with his secretary, then embezzled $80,000 from his employer, tried to flee to Mexico, got caught, and then lied shamelessly and transparently about the crime and tried to blame his honest subordinate for it all.

          I honestly did not know that Uncle Bob and Uncle Ralph existed in the conservative movement, and finding out that they do has been a painful experience for me.

          • John Woodman says:

            And no, Uncles Bob and Ralph are not members of my personal family. They are the most colorful illustrations of embarrassing relatives I could think of off the top of my head.

          • David Farrar says:

            Since when do we need a justifiable cause to seek the indisputable truth?

            Obama, himself, has not only recently stated he was “born to a single mother”; he has also posted this same message on his website, so it is not a misquote. But is it just a figure of speech?

            There are only two places to go to get the indisputably true answer: the record itself and Barack Obama.

            Now I will ask you John Woodman; if your objective here is to seek the indisputable truth of the matter; where should you look: to Obama or to your own lying eyes?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • John Woodman says:

              As I’ve indicated before, David — although you don’t seem to get it — allowing anybody to go to unreasonable lengths to “seek the indisputable proof” just as easily justifies my demanding that we search your back yard and the walls of your home for bodies, frisk you for drugs, tap your phone, and put a permanent video camera in your car.

              And in light of the evidence that has already been produced, and in light of the fact that you and other birthers, in spite of making more than a HUNDRED different allegations and claims now, have failed to produce even ONE that constitutes any reasonable evidence or even reasonable suspicion, at all.

              Based on the mountains of garbage “evidence,” there’s no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion here.

              If you don’t get that, then I don’t really know what else to say.

              ex smoker
              John Woodman

            • gorefan says:

              I notice at your page on teapartyconstitionalist that you are a female. Do you prefer to go by Miss, Mrs. or Ms. Farrar?

              http://teapartyconstitutionalists.ning.com/profile/DavidFarrar

              Would that be considered prima facie or probative evidence?

            • “I notice at your page on teapartyconstitionalist that you are a female.”

              “David” Farrar has a terrible case of hirsutism.

          • Suranis says:

            *sigh*

            Yeah, Ann Dunham had an immaculate conception and had the baby without a father. Sure.

            My father left my family when I was 2 years old, and I was raised by a single mom who had to work and who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us the things that other kids had.

            So as you can see, it was perfectly true that Obama conciders himself raised by a single mom. That does not mean that his parents were not married or anything else.

            A single parent usually refers to a parent who has most of the day to day responsibilities in the raising of the child or children, which would categorize them as the dominant caregiver who is not living with a spouse or partner, or those who are not married. The dominant caregiver is the parent in which the children have residency with the majority of the time;[1] if the parents are separated or divorced children live with their custodial parent and have visitation with their noncustodial parent.[2] In western society in general, following separation, a child will end up with the primary caregiver, usually the mother, and a secondary caregiver, usually the father

            So, when Obama father left when he was 2, his mother became a single mom.

            And last I checked, having a nuclear family was not a qualification for presidency of the United states. “Birth is the most certain criterion, is is unnecessary to look any further”

            In the words of Farrar V Obama

            None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative
            value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
            that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.

  21. I should point out to John and everyone else, that argument with a birther is pointless. Evidence to a birther is like the proverbial water off a duck’s back.

    Failure to understand this principle leads to lots of wasted time (about 3,000 hours for me).

    • David Farrar says:

      Thank you Dr. Reductio ad Nauseam

      Translation: “Listen, these guys are killing you with the truth. You had better shut them down or they will spam you right off your own web site!”

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Suranis says:

        The Court finds testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.

        Farrar V Obama

        Ex Aestas Estas

        • David Farrar says:

          “little, if any, probative value”… yes I think I have mentioned that somewhere up post. And my point up there was “little, if any, probative value” is more than “none”, which is the probative value of Obama’s two state-issued birth certificates, verification and all.

          I want to take this opportunity to thank you for being just too stupid to read this entire thread before you posted your above remark, thereby giving me yet another opportunity to get the truth out.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • Suranis says:

            Yes I read the the whole thread, even the part where I posted

            “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen,” Fukino said in a statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago.”

            And you “forgot” to respond to it, when you responded both to the posts before and after it.

            But since you want to hide behind the word little. Lets look at what else the judge said

            NONE of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that NONE of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative
            value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
            that Plaintiffs’ claims are NOT persuasive.

            None. None. Not. Those are pretty definite words there about the value of your evidence.

            For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,

            CONCLUSION

            President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
            election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b)

            Thanks for helping prove Obama is entitled to be on the ballot.

            Ex Aedificium Edificium

          • John Woodman says:

            “little, if any, probative value”… yes I think I have mentioned that somewhere up post. And my point up there was “little, if any, probative value” is more than “none”, which is the probative value of Obama’s two state-issued birth certificates, verification and all.

            Two things.

            First, I think most people would profoundly disagree with your statement that official certification and specific and emphatic confirmation by the half dozen or so different official representatives of the State of Hawaii, from both parties, of not one but two official versions — both short-form and long-form — of a birth certificate issued by that State has a good deal more than “no” probative value.

            In fact, in any court of law, when such a document is produced — completely without any additional personal statement on the part of any state official — the presumption of the court is going to be that unless you can provide solid proof (and I’m not talking about speculation here) that the document is a fake, then that document is legally assumed to be an absolute proof that the birth in question took place exactly as stated.

            Secondly, regarding the “little, if any probative value” of what you and other birthers have produced — and I don’t mean to be unkind here — but the following video is probably fairly illuminating as to the meaning of that phrase:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULSszbA-Ek&feature=related

            • David Farrar says:

              Okay, John Woodman,

              Let me try and address your points, one by one. But first you have to keep in mind, all we are trying to do is access Obama’s records to establish the truth as to his qualifications; that’s it.

              I agree that all those officials half dozen or so different official representatives of the State of Hawaii, from both parties, of not one but two official versions — both short-form and long-form — of a birth certificate issued by that State all relate to the same record. In fact no one has ever doubted the fact that the Hawaiian Health Department has a record of a live birth event, but unless little Obama Jr. was born in a closet in the Hawaiian Heath Department building, all the other information about this “live birth event” must have been produced independently of the Hawaiian Health Department record. Hawaiian Health Department records in and of themselves are only prima facie evidence.

              Now I have presented you with but one prima facie evidence that refutes this claim. We may disagree as to whether it is enough, but my contention is, it doesn’t matter since all we are asking for is to allow the RECORD ITSELF TO SPEAK .

              One would think, since we are talking about meeting the constitutional qualifications of the most powerful executive position in our government, in the abundance of caution, we should allow the whole record to speak for itself as the best and most direct means of establishing the truth as to whether Barack Obama is qualified.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Scientist says:

              David (ex-rectum) Farrar: The law has entrusted birth records to the states, not to hospitals or doctors. The law doesn’t even require them to keep birth records for 51 yers. You have no evidence that hospital records even exist.

              As for your prima facie evidence, you have NONE. ZERO. A publisher’s brochure is not evidence by any standard. It is hearsay at best. In this case it is even less than hearsay, because the person who wrote it did not get the information from Obama, but rather MADE IT UP IN ERROR (her words, not mine).

              Let’s try this: I say Mitt Romney was born in Canada. I say that I was personally present at his birth in Windsor, Ontario, right across the river from Detroit. That statement has exactly the same evidentiary value as the publisher’s brochure. Zero. Yet, by your lights, I should be able to examine all of Romney’s records (not that he will ever be President).

              ex post facto

          • sfjeff says:

            “And my point up there was “little, if any, probative value” is more than “none”, ”

            Does this remind anyone else of that old (sad) joke:

            Sally: I would only go out with you if you were the last man alive!

            John: So I still have a chance!

    • John Woodman says:

      Yeah. I knew that. Should put it on a poster on my wall. Thanks for reminding me of it.

    • @ Doctor Conspiracy

      When you are dealing with a group of morons that will not take the word of multiple officials of one of the states of the union it is obviously a waste of time to try to reason with them. Such people (like Out of Breath guy who is suing Judge Clay D. land) are beyond reason. However, there are those who are not as engaged in politics and current events as Birthers and Anti-birthers are who need a place to find the facts easily. That is why sites like this one and yours are of value.

      As Foggy has said given his knowledge of the Birther lies he could construct and argument and have you believe the lies in an hour. Papit’s analysis might look convincing to a casual reader, especially if they already have a dislike for the President in the first place. I think any self proclaimed tea party member is a Birther in waiting. That is your why debunking efforts are not a waste of time. As Foggy says: “Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.”

    • Someday Dr. Con will explain why a LFBC PDF is proferred while the document from which it is scanned, i.e. the evidence, must remain hidden.

      Dr. Con religiously fails to understand that believing anything “obama” says leads to a lot of wasted time…

  22. john says:

    “Because Barack H. Obama is the first president for whom his own, duly authorized, literary agent has stated he was not qualified.”

    You got that right David. It’s pretty damning. The agent’s reason behind is absurd and I believe the agent is lying to cover for Obama.

    • David Farrar says:

      You are welcome to your own beliefs, John (Woodman). But I don’t see it as being absurd, or even correct. In fact, the statement may well prove to be simply a mistake made by one of Obama’s duly authorized agents. The point is, it doesn’t matter. It is a legal statement made on the record. The only question before us now is how best to “prove” which statement is correct; Obama’s or his agent’s? And I am saying since the place of birth isn’t the only thing that may be in Barack H. Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department files that, if known, would disqualify him from taking his oath of office, a complete examination of his record — in the abundance of caution — should now be undertaken to “PROVE” he is qualified to take the oath of office.

      Yes, it is just that serious. Wars have been fought over issues far smaller.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Bran Mak Morn says:

        No, it was not a legal statement. It was from a preview of possible books from a given publisher, a text which had all kinds of errors about the other authors as well. In other words, it was a preliminary, uncorrected, draft — which is not a legal declaration about anything. And since the book never came out, and the description never used for an actual book, and the author of the text said it was mistaken, it is clear — not only is it not a legal declaration, it is a rejected declaration by the author of the text itself.

        BTW, you claim to be simple a natural born American citizen. Prove it. Show everyone here you birth certificate. Give us the phone number of the doctor who helped your mother give birth to you. Show us the hospital. Give us full access to all your private documents so we can prove you are also the same person you claim to be and not someone who is taking over the life of another. Prove it. I have doubts you are an American citizen. So now, you say you are, you have every reason to prove it. Prove it.

        Now you might ask, “Why do I have to prove it? I’m not running for President.” Good that you would ask. You are using American courts. You need to prove yourself worthy of such.You need to prove yourself qualified to make a case in the courts before you can ask the courts anything. I’ve not seen that proof.

        • David Farrar says:

          Federal Rules of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(D)

          The rest of your post is simple reductio ad absurdum argument and irrelevant.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • Bran Mak Morn says:

            And once again, you prove you don’t know the law. That rule doesn’t say an erroneous piece of paper declared to be erroneous by the one who wrote it is a legal statement. And the rest, you skip over, because you know full well when the questions are put back on you, you know where it ends up and this proves, beyond a doubt, you know your whole argument is full of bovine excrement. Have a good fail.

            • David Farrar says:

              Bran,

              You are assuming the statement is erroneous. We can, of course, take the testimony of the person who wrote it as evidence, but why not simply allow the indisputable record to speak for itself?

              Come on John Woodman; answer the question. Why can’t we simply allow the indisputable record to speak for itself when impeachable prima facie evidence has been brought forward?

              And, no, my friend: a state-issued birth certificate is not the record. It is prima facie evidence of the record, unless the birth occurred at the state-issuing agency itself. Ha! Ha! Ha!

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Scientist says:

              The birth certificate IS the record. There is no evidence that any other records exist.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              David “out of breath”,

              For the thousandth time, the fact that the LFBC and COLB are prima facie evidence means that, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary*, they are both to be taken at face value. In addition, given the extraordinary validation that both certificates have received, the simple truth is that there is no possible evidence strong enough to throw these documents into doubt in a US courtroom. In other words, all your bluster and frivolous court cases are just a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing and all you have to look forward to in your Quixotic struggle to denigrate the Constitution is loss after loss and ridicule for your incompetence—with the possibility of sanctions at the end of the road… enjoy.

              * your evidence, having been determined by a judge to be of no probative value, doesn’t count.

    • David Farrar says:

      Thanks John,

      But it really doesn’t matter one way or the other. The point is, it’s pretty evident, if Obama doesn’t care to “prove” his qualifications and bring this country together; we must try and do it ourselves for the common good of the country and the Republic.*

      ex animo
      davidfarrar
      *Within the limits of the U.S. Const.

  23. David Farrar says:

    Okay, John Woodman,

    let’s go over your, so-called: “Very solid and credible evidence”, one by one and see just how solid they are. Remember now, we are looking for independent, corroborative evidence that would substantiate Barack H. Obama’s two state-issued birth certificates. And remember, too, the easiest way to get to the bottom of this issue IS BY ALLOWING THE RECORD TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

    Let’s see; you said,

    “You have a good deal of very solid and credible evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, including two certified birth certificates which have been personally seen and handled by members of the media*, an entire series of official statements by various state officials of BOTH parties*, the personal recollection of Obama’s high school English teacher who has publicly stated she remembers his birth in Honolulu*, statements going back decades that Obama was born in Honolulu,* unfakeable newspaper announcements on microfilm from 1961, and so forth*. Including the mind-numbing implausibility of any scenario by which he actually could have been born in Kenya.*”

    By my count that is: six (6) prima facie evidence you bring to this discussion; am I correct?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast says:

      David “out of breath” Farrar said: “By my count that is: six (6) prima facie evidence you bring to this discussion; am I correct?”

      David,

      I think this sentence indicates that you don’t understand the term “prima facie”. Can you prove me wrong by defining it correctly and explaining how the definition applies in context? In return, I’ll address the credibility of the six pieces of evidence you list.

      • David Farrar says:

        Call them whatever you like…you and I both know, none are independent, corroborative evidence that would substantiate any of the information contained in Obama’s two state-issued birth certificates.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast says:

          David “out of breath” Farrar,

          I know that every single court of law in the US, up to and including the SCOTUS, agrees with me and that, should you or your lawyer ever get the chance to argue the merits of your case you will be lucky if you can escape without sanctions. I also know that you don’t have the slightest clue what “prima facie” means…

    • Slartibartfast says:

      David “out of breath”,

      Let’s take a look at your “six (6) prima facie evidence” (sic):

      1) The COLB and the LFBC: A certified paper copy of either of these constitutes prima facie evidence of the president’s birth in Hawai’i (and thus his status as a natural born citizen), but we’ve gone far beyond that now. At least three states now have had President Obama’s birth directly confirmed by Hawai’i and a half dozen or more have recognized the precedent set by the Ankeny decision as persuasive that President Obama is natural born. This is what inevitably happens to a god of the gaps argument when it starts running out of gaps…

      • Slartibartfast says:

        2. Official statements from Hawai’i: This is not a separate piece of evidence, it is corroboration of the information on the COLB and LFBC. At this point, as mentioned above, that information is now bulletproof (there is no way to prove differently in a court of law). This is not, however, prima facie evidence.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        3. Personal recollections—this is anecdotal evidence. Not admissible in court and, at this point, merely a trivial addition to the already overwhelming evidence regarding President Obama’s birth.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        4. See #3

      • Slartibartfast says:

        5. Newspaper birth announcements—These corroborate the birth being registered immediately (although that is already effectively proven) as they came through the Hawai’i DoH. They are not, however, prima facie evidence.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        6. The lack of a theory which explains how and why Dr. Dunham would have gone to Kenya to give birth and how the facts on the COLB and LFBC could have been registered. This is very damming (especially if you understand Ockham’s razor—the birthers can’t come up with any explanation, let alone a simple one), but, again, not prima facie evidence in any sense.

  24. David Farrar says:

    I don’t know about you, John,

    But we had better leave this site before we get accused of child abuse.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Suranis says:

      Are you indirectly confirming that?

      Ex Adulescentia

    • John Woodman says:

      At least my dialogue with you has been presented as a ridiculous hypothetical made in order to make a point: That your claims and behavior, and those of your fellow birthers, are well beyond the bounds of anything that can be considered reasonable. And it was made clear that I am not actually, seriously, accusing you of any crime.

      And at least you have the opportunity to speak in your defense.

      Compare that to how I was treated at one of the more prominent birther blogs, where I was first slandered — technically libeled — in a serious manner. It was also intimated that I was a sexual pervert. Then, when I made a temperately-worded and factual reply to establish that claims were being made against me that were not truthful, that temperate and factual reply was promptly deleted, and I was permanently banned from ever commenting again.

      As far as I know, the libel against me, and the evil and unfounded intimation that I must be a sexual pervert, are still on the site.

      Oh. And that’s only one instance of how I’ve been treated by birthers, simply for making truthful and factual commentary. There are others that are just as bad.

      • David Farrar says:

        I apologize for my last remark, John. I try not to engage in such banter and focus on the matter at hand, to which your blog has been remarkably dedicated to as well — until my usual followers arrive that is.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Suranis says:

          And your time on TPM where you were talking about how much fun puttering about on your yaught amply demonstrated. Along with a whole host of other bullshit.

          I seem to remember you claiming that Barack Obama was “committing sedition against the US constitution” too.

          Fact is, your name is on the case certifying Barack Obama as eligible in your state. That’s what history will remember you as.

          Ex Aegresco

        • Slartibartfast says:

          David “out of breath”,

          In point of fact, you followed us here—most, if not all, of the people pummeling you with facts on this thread are long time posters on this site. I’m sure you found it from the link at Squeeky’s blog—and, if you look at the beginning of the thread, you will see that I am the one who informed her about it. In other words, I’m responsible for letting you know about this site and you followed me here.

          John,
          I’m sorry to have brought the stupidest troll in the birtherverse to your site…

        • John Woodman says:

          David,

          At least you seem to be more civil than a lot of birthers I’ve dealt with.

          And Slartibartfast — from what I’ve seen, Mr. Farrar so far seems a cut above some of the birther folks I’ve dealt with. And I’ve always wanted this site to be open to reasonably-behaved people on both sides of the issue. So, no problem.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            John,

            Yes, David “out of breath” is civil. He is also many other things that are not to his credit. In addition, I don’t think that he was blessed with much in the way of thinking ability—which is not his fault, but he really shouldn’t flaunt it so much. I can only hope that the shame he feels for being part of what might well be the worst birther defeat ever (Taitz v. empty chair I) makes up, in some small way, for his inability to understand just how badly he is dishonoring himself and his country—and there’s always the chance that his attorney will get him on the hook for sanctions (he is, after all, in the process of suing a federal judge…).

    • David

      Why are you suing Judge Clay D. Land?

    • Horus says:

      No, not abuse.
      Prove you’re not a serial child molester.
      Go on now, prove it!

  25. Sactosintolerant says:

    Good work. I patiently await the WND article on your work, Papit’s response, and Arpaio’s invitation for you to join the CCP.

  26. Keith says:

    Brilliant, John.

    I found and quoted from that 1999 paper by Dr. Queiroz in a thread on ATS a while back. Everybody was absolutely adamant that there could only be one foreground and one background layer, yadda, yadda, yadda. Pointing them to the article and that 2nd diagram that you republished shut them up immediately.

    I have honestly never seen anything like it, usually they yammer on for denying the impossible, but this time they just shut up. Actual PROOF that they were being lied to, and hadn’t been even remotely critical of assertions that had been pulled out of someones backside.

    Don’t be surprised if when it comes up again (and these things come back like zombies) I point them here, and you get invaded by the body snatchers :)

  27. gsgs says:

    John,
    to abbreviate your lengthy reply,
    I repeatedly said they should pay for the cost of the investigation
    since their is no official reason, OK ?
    And the Hawaii or Microfilm investigation should be independent on
    “what the truth or evidence” is about this
    And once you are president, you are a public figure,
    don’t compare with your family.

    (I didn’t read the whole thread)

  28. gsgs says:

    as for the software that made the pdf – I think we should rewrite it,
    if the WH doesn’t say what it is.

    The certificate compression utility , using the algo from the software that was used
    in POBC. Then apply it to some thousand other BCs and documents ,
    improve it
    goal is not to make it better but to make it more similar to the secret WH-program

    open source, of course

    • Sactosintolerant says:

      I think we should all try figuring out what temperature steel melts at, tell Elvis the results, and ride Nessie off into the sunset.

      • gsgs says:

        not all, but all together.
        i.e. one/some of us, and then publish
        it for the others

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Actually, the melting temperature of steel is quite interesting—because the mixture of iron and carbon is something known as a eutectic mixture (a combination of two or more compounds that has a lower melting temperature than either one has individually). Low carbon steel melts at nearly the same temperature as iron—around 2800°F, while steel with 2% carbon (any higher and it’s cast iron) melts around 2400°F. Do you have an email address for Elvis? Nessie is in a hurry to get going…

  29. naturalizedcitizen says:

    Mr. Woodman,

    Could you create a video describing steps to create a file (from a document scan), which will have the same characteristics as Obama’s pdf file – multiple layers of which:
    1) one layer contains only security background and nothing else.
    2) one layer contains only a timestamp
    3) one layer contains only a signature and n0thing else.

    As far as I know there is no software that can automatically convert a document scan into a pdf file with these characteristics.

    I have asked this question many times before and not a single Obama apologist could provide such instructions.

    If you provided such video instructions, allowing others to replicate your results, I will send you $1000 as a reward for your effort.

    • Suranis says:

      You do know that the Whitehouse PDF’s background layer contains a lot more than just the security paper, right? It contains all the lines, half of Ann Dunhams signature, random letters all over it and the last number of the document number. And while halos where the rest of the stuff was cut out

      So you are offering money for something that does not actually duplicate the White house PDF.

      Gotta love birthers.

    • gsgs says:

      timestamp and signature were separated because they
      have different color and/or were distant to the rest

  30. Lupin says:

    Dear Mr Woodman: I know nothing about such matters, but I admire your resourcefulness, determination to get the obviously best qualified person in the world to comment on the matter, and clarity in exposing the facts. You are to be commended for such efforts.

    I am perhaps naive, but I belong to the vast majority of people who trust their state (or country) to issue proper and correct documentation. If the State of HI declares that Mr. Obama was born there, this is good enough for me.

    As for the pdf — to quote Magritte: “This is not a pipe.”

  31. M. Heuss says:

    Excellent article. Thank you.

  32. Bran Mak Morn says:

    David asks for proof that Obama is a natural born citizen, and since he thinks he doesn’t know, he thinks he should be able to use the courts to pry into private documents. He thinks as long as someone is asking a question, it’s good enough to use police state tactics to leave “no stone unturned,” even if and when primary documents (which the Constitution accepts) demonstrates Obama qualifies. He questions the documents (which the Constitution doesn’t) and so thinks he has a right to snoop further.

    Of course, he still needs to show he has a right to use US courts to make any kind of case against the president. I think he is a foreign agent. He could be someone switched at birth with a real US citizen, or he might just be a later transplant with records created to allow him access to the US courts to try to destroy the US political system from within. He needs to prove he is qualified before he can use the US courts. He needs to give us:

    His long form birth certificate (the original, not a copy)
    The names and numbers of witnesses of his birth
    A copy of his birth footprint and finger prints
    DNA evidence from his placenta to identify him with the one born at the hospital
    Hospital records of his birth
    Any education records
    His bank accounts to make sure no foreign agent is paying him
    His social security number to make sure everything is alright
    And whatever else I might demand once he gives me those

  33. All the competing technical explanations are moot in light of the pretensident’s behavior. If the LFBC PDF is genuine, there is no reason for “obama” to conceal the original from which it was allegedly scanned. If the LFBC PDF is a forgery and a fraud, “obama” has every reason to conceal the original from which it was allegedly scanned.

    The pretensident’s actions speak louder than all the words in the world.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      If, as all of the credible evidence indicates, the COLB is authentic, then President Obama had far exceeded the standard set by his predecessors before the first frivolous birther lawsuit was filed. So far courts in 8 states recognize the reasoning in Ankeny that President Obama is natural born as persuasive—only 45 more to go… :-P I hope you enjoy losing.

    • Horus says:

      It was never concealed, a room full of reporters were allowed to touch and photograph the original.
      You just refuse to accept the word of all those in the room, one being Savannah Guthrie, another was Les Kinsolving of WND who said afterwards that that put the issue to bed as far as he was concerned.

      • The document which the “scan” allegedly represents is not available for scrutiny. Until it is available, all the pretensident’s actions in this matter are evidence of bad faith, and all the words uttered in support of his actions are evidence of profound gullibility or willful dishonesty.

        • David Farrar says:

          I agree. Until the scanned document is publicly available for forensic examination, we must assume it is fraudulent.

          This is also the reason why a downloaded image of a state-issued birth certification is inadmissible in court.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • gorefan says:

            No David – you must assume it is a fraud. For the rest of the nondelusional world it is assumed to be real.

            You must really hate the whole presumed innocent until proven guilty thing.

          • CarlOrcas says:

            David Farrar writes:

            “I agree. Until the scanned document is publicly available for forensic examination, we must assume it is fraudulent.”

            Why?

            • David Farrar says:

              Well, we can ask John Woodman here:

              Can a forensic document examiner definitive determine the authenticity of a document downloaded from the Internet?”

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • CarlOrcas says:

              To David since the thread has run out of replies:

              The question relates to your assertion that we must “assume it is fraudulent” if we can’t examine it.

              John Woodman is absolutely correct.

              You, on the other hand, are proceeding from a premise that is dubious at best.

            • John Woodman says:

              The world is shy of absolute certainties.

              Death. Taxes. That’s about it.

              Is there conceivably a chance that Mr. Obama is a reptilian alien from Alpha Centauri, secretly ruling the United States government by having installed other, disguised aliens in positions of power? Yeah. Probably. But I would put the odds of that at something less than 0.000001 percent. Probably considerably less.

              Is there a chance that a gamma-ray burst is going to pop tomorrow and extinguish all life on my side of the earth? Ab-so-lutely. There is a definite chance of that.

              But I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

              Birthers seem to regularly confuse what is possible or conceivable with what is likely.

              It’s kind of like worrying that your house is going to be struck by a meteor.

              The question is: Given the available evidence, is there a large enough likelihood that President Obama’s birth certificate could be a fake to justify any concern whatsoever about the possibility?

              And the answer to that question is no. No. There is not enough of a likelihood to be concerned about it, and there is not enough concern to justify any further inquiries, on the part of anybody, whatsoever.

              Now, for those who doubt the truth of that statement, where does that doubt come from?

              It comes from the fact that numerous allegations have been made that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.

              In the birther mind, the existence of these allegationsevery single one of which has been shown to be baseless — is quite MORE than enough cause for concern.

              In other words, if a thousand people accuse David Farrar of being a rapist — even if all of those allegations are shown to be sheer nonsense — well, then, there must be some valid reason for that suspicion.

              Birthers are incapable of understanding that this is an invalid conclusion.

              “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Well, no. Not necessarily.

              Where there is “smoke,” and the “smoke” is tested repeatedly, and found to be dry ice vapor every single time it’s tested, that is actually a pretty darn good indication that there’s NOT fire.

              There’s only someone with a dry ice machine blowing fake smoke. And no fire brigade, in that case, is necessary or called for.

              So it is with the birther claims. Quite frankly, I find the evidence at this point quite compelling that the entire thing, from start to finish, is absolutely nothing more than a big bunch of birthers working very hard to blow an awful lot of fake “smoke.”

              That’s it.

        • Suranis says:

          Put it up for scrutiny? That worked so well at convincing birthers when Factcheck was allowed to handle and photograph the COLB.

          Ahh remember the days when Birthers bellowed that “Obama could end this tommorow if he released a certified copy of his Birth records,” and that the fact that he hadn’t done so meant that he obviously had something to hide?

    • Yes, I think President Obama should call a press conference and let a bunch of reporters see it and get a letter from the state of Hawaii attesting to the authenticity of the LFBC. That would really shut up the Birthers, right?

      • David Farrar says:

        Why do that? Obama can simply allow Hawaiian Health Department officials to publish his index upon demand by the general public, as well as his natal hospital records.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • CarlOrcas says:

          David Farrar asks: “Why do that?”

          Since he already has done those things I guess the answer is so that you can move the goal posts one more time and demand Lord knows what.

          • David Farrar says:

            Let’s be clear: Obama has never allowed either of his to Hawaiian Health Department birth certificates in a position to where they could be professionally examined by trained forensic document examiners.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • Suranis says:

              … like birth-er dentists, photocopying salesmen, failed computer writers, typesetters and Professors of statistics. Oh and poker players. Amazingly the experts hired by WND refused to certify that they were fraudulant.

              Of course the experts on Hawaiin Birth certificates say they are genuine and have verified their information in statements to court and state officials.

              But its ok. we know you are going to repeat this statement 50 more times.

            • David Farrar says:

              Or even to be placed in a judicial setting that required his two birth certificates be entered into evidence.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • CarlOrcas says:

              As predicted…..you have now moved the goal posts.

              It appears you are now saying ignore all that talk about PDF’s. Now it’s the State of Hawaii that delivered fraudulent birth doctuments to the White House or that the White House replaced the certified documents from Hawaii with forgeries and the State of Hawaii has lied about them.

              You bring a whole new dimension to the notion of sophistry, David.

        • Northland10 says:

          “publish his index upon demand”

          Okay, you win.. Hawaii decided to do just that:

          The index data regarding President Obama is:
          Birth Index
          Obama II, Barack Hussein
          Male

          http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

          And if read the page I listed, they even explain how you can see the birth index for your very own.

          On the same page, they also mentioned that Obama posted his certified birth certificate online. One would think that they believe it is a scan of the certified copy they sent to the President.

          Funny how states seem to think that they are the custodians of vital records to ensure safe, accurate and viable records in a central location versus many different hospitals that merge, fail, consolidate and toss old records.

        • Once again sarcasm is completely wasted on a Birther.

  34. Pingback: Obama birth certificate analysis - full documentary online - Page 15

  35. Pingback: obama's birth certificate PDF examined by actual expert. - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

  36. Our Constitution holds that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Denialists have reversed that – the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence.

    Which proves my contention that Denialists are fascists, in the literal sense of the word. Orly Taitz is a fascist in the real meaning, which is breathtaking for someone Jewish like myself.

    This is where Orly Taitz is from: “Settler leader calls democracy an obstacle to Israel’s higher calling – Veteran settler leader Benny Katzover: ‘We didn’t come here to establish a democratic state.’

    Israel’s democracy has long been a point of pride for its citizens, setting the country apart in a region of autocratic governments. But veteran settler leader Benny Katzover says democracy is getting in the way of what he believes is a higher purpose.”

    Read on: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settler-leader-calls-democracy-an-obstacle-to-israel-s-higher-calling-1.407490

  37. BillTheCat says:

    Farrar said:

    “History, is the arbiter of the truth, my friend.”

    That’s for sure – and history is not going to be kind to you and your friends in the Birther movement.

  38. richCares says:

    How in the world would downloading a computer image for forensic examination make any sense, especially since the original was viewed by multiple reporters and one took a photo of it plus Hawaii verified the document on numorous occasions. How did silly birthers dream this total bull up? Really silly!

    • David Farrar says:

      Allowing a few ‘reporters’ to feel a document isn’t a very sound authentication process for someone who has their finger on the nuclear button; wouldn’t you say?

      Shortly, I will be trying to get Romney to publish his hospital birth certificate, as well as his state-issued birth certificate, and, of course, a few other eye-witnesses, just to show you how it is done, and challenge Obama to do the same. I would like to do this in a court, through proper “discovery”. If I can get Romney’s permission to access his natal records, as well as full access to his Michigan state records, all that will remain will be for Obama either to allow full access to his natal records, so that the qualifications of both presidential candidates can be “PROVEN”BEFORE the election.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Scientist says:

        Romney was born in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, just across the river from Detroit, so it’s a provincial birth certificate, not a state one. I am sure you will be very successful in getting him to release it along with 10 years of his tax returns.

        As far as fingers on the nuclear button, I see no connection between trustworthiness and place of birth. Do you have actual data correlating the two? I didn’t think so.

      • Suranis says:

        Allowing a few ‘reporters’ to feel a document isn’t a very sound authentication process for someone who has their finger on the nuclear button; wouldn’t you say?

        Allowing reporters to feel your manparts would be a very good way of authenticating the unproven fact that you are Male, don’t you think?

        Other wise any picture of your manparts could be a computer generated forgery. Are you willing to allow your medical records to be checked before you access places where it is illegal for women to go, such as Men’s toilets? Surely you would want this issue put to rest.

        Ex

  39. David Farrar says:

    gorefan says:
    September 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    OMG! you are right. I have my, otherwise, manly face up there, but I have listed myself as a female.

    Well, I’ll see if I can correct the record. Thank you.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • CarlOrcas says:

      David Farrar writes: “Well, I’ll see if I can correct the record.”

      I’m sorry but my reading of your posts on the subect indicate you don’t find mistakes correctable:

      “In fact, the statement may well prove to be simply a mistake made by one of Obama’s duly authorized agents. The point is, it doesn’t matter. It is a legal statement made on the record. The only question before us now is how best to “prove” which statement is correct; Obama’s or his agent’s?”

      So, David, how are you going to “prove” what gender you are? It matters and we have a right to know.

      • “David, how are you going to “prove” what gender you are? It matters and we have a right to know.”

        See my post below on this sad turn of events. We’ve all been taken in. No more.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        I guess the only thing that David “out of breath” can do now is to get a sex-change operation… By his own standards, he can never again be considered a man.

      • John Woodman says:

        We have it on good authority that David is female.

        But as David said:

        Since when do we need a justifiable cause to seek the indisputable truth?

        Since this point is in contention, there is only one way to resolve the issue, and that is via webcast.

        After all, all we we are seeking is a confirmation of the truth of the matter.

        We are only trying to prove a positive — aren’t we?

        We need to allow the real evidence to speak for itself.

        As it stands now we are still left with simply taking somebody’s word for the truth, when the truth can easily be discovered and independently verified for ourselves by an examination of the direct evidence.

        There is really nothing that should prevent such an examination.

        If our objective is to seek the indisputable truth of the matter; where should we look: to David’s statement or to our own lying eyes?

        • CarlOrcas says:

          John Woodman writes: “Since this point is in contention, there is only one way to resolve the issue, and that is via webcast.”

          Indeed. We need to see real proof…visual proof…..of his/her manhood/womanhood…..right here on our screens.

          It isn’t going to be pretty…..but we have a duty.

        • David Farrar says:

          I’ll be glad to allow full access to my natal history when I seek to qualify to take the oath of office of the President of the united States, as Obama still hasn’t done.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • Scientist says:

            Do you know for a fact that hospital records of your birth exist? From your picture, you appear to be perhaps 60 years old, so it is doubtful that they do.

            • David Farrar says:

              I know for a fact that Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital has all the records they were required to keep for the years 1960-1961.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Slartibartfast says:

              David “out of breath”,

              Your statement is trivially true—Kapiolani was not required to keep any records at all from 1961 until 2012.

    • John Woodman says:

      You have to admit, David… this turn of events is darn funny. :lol:

      • David Farrar says:

        John,

        Sure it’s funny. But like most reductio ad absurdum arguments, it’s purpose is to avoiding facing the truth when the truth cannot be faced.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast says:

          David “out of breath”,

          Once again, you get it wrong. Your argument was proven to be ridiculous by following it to its logical conclusions.

    • gorefan says:

      Don’t mention it. I grabbed a couple of screen shots for you just in case you want a momento of the occasion.

      • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

        But according to David those screen shots are the record and the record should speak for itself even though the creator of the record says it was a mistake.

        • gorefan says:

          I also went to the wayback machine website and added it to their archives. Years from now Breitbart will be able to do a story about him.

        • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

          According to David Farrar’s own words we shouldn’t take his word that he’s not a female:

          David Farrar says:
          September 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm
          That may very well be true. But why should we settle on just a person’s testimony when we have the record. We are only asking to let the record speak for itself.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

    • Suranis says:

      It would be really easy to put this issue to rest David.

      It simply requires you to release a video of you stark naked with your genitalia in view. Then, to prove that it is not actually a latex forgery or a surgical addiction, we require you to submit your genitalia to stimulation in order that we can observe the normal penile response to stimulation.

      I find your refusal to release this easily obtainable piece of evidence to be deeply suspicious. Surely you could put this issue to rest with a webcam, an upload site account and half an hour of your time.

      Until then, I’m afraid we have conclude that people calling you a woman are drawing reasonable conclusions from the available evidence.

      Ex Architecture.

  40. “I have my, otherwise, manly face up there, but I have listed myself as a female. Well, I’ll see if I can correct the record.”

    “David” Farrar is a woman masquerading as a man – she is an impostor at all avenues. Beware dealing with her. I’m just wondering where she lifted that mug shot from. Is that person even alive? I doubt it, or we would be hearing about improper use of the picture.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      I fear it may even be worse than you suspect. Gender is only part of the problem!

      Check the profile on his blog:

      http://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614

      Notice that in one place he mentions Georgia, United States but in the other he ONLY says Georgia!! You know….like Georgia in the old CommieSSR. Something doesn’t add up here. I think he has a lot of explaining to do.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        OMG! Any patriotic American would refer to Georgia, USA—he has indirectly confirmed that he is a Soviet spy! Davette “out of breath” can’t meet the demands that he produce his original birth records because he was born in Valdivostok (hey—it’s more likely than Kenya!).

  41. David Farrar says:

    Actually, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Romney to challenge Obama to allow “full public access” to his Hawaiian natal hospital records, as well as “full public access” to his Hawaiian Health Department records during their first debate. Romney has gone on record stating many times he believes Obama was born in Hawaii. By this one simple stroke…Romney could show much needed leadership to his base, while explaining it is simply the responsible thing to do to help bring the country together no matter who wins the election.

    Since everybody here also believes Obama has met his qualifications; there shouldn’t be any objections to such a challenge; is there?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Actually, I think it is an absolutely brilliant idea. No objection at all on my part.

      Maybe he could also promise to appoint Joe Arpaio as director of the FBI. And how about jobs for Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi?

      This could be just the breakthrough move that Romney needs.

    • gorefan says:

      It would be political suicide for Romney to make such a challenge.

      Debate Scenario:

      Romney: “I challenge you to allow full public access to your records.”

      President: “Ok, if you release 12 years of your tax returns.”

      Romney: “Never mind.”

      • David Farrar says:

        Why would you suspect Obama would want to throw up a roadblock to such a challenge in the first place; if he does actually qualify?

        This would be a direct quid pro que challenge to remove the issue of meeting their constitutional requirements from any further debate and allow the country to come together in support of the next president elect for the common good of the country.

        If Obama tried to lay down such a roadblock from getting this matter resolved, Romney could beat him up all day long over it, especially among the independents.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Scientist says:

          There is no Constitutional requirement to “establish” anything. Which President ever “established” where or when they were born? None, except Obama. It is up to the judgement of the voters and Congress. On the other hand, every President and candidate in the last 40 years have released 10 years of tax returns, a custom started by Mitt’s Dad. Mitt demanded 10 years of returns from Ryan, but won’t disclose his own.

          And you wouldn’t “support” Obama, no matter what he did. He could cure cancer and end world hunger and you wouldn’t support him.

          Will you ever stop lying? Answer: No.

          • David Farrar says:

            I am sure Obama can use any such self-serving lie he likes to try and explain why he won’t allow public access to his hospital record.

            And it’s true, I may not support Obama if he should win the next election. But he will be my President.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • Obama will be re-elected, and I hope it makes you, Orly and the rest of your ilk miserable. Just think – four more years of your crowd of malcontents licking their wounds. I am especially happy that Hagee will have conniption fits. Popcorn.
              misha marinsky
              deus ex machina

            • Slartibartfast says:

              David “out of breath”,

              It is not President Obama refusing access to hospital records—it is the same privacy laws that apply to everyone’s records (plus the fact that the records weren’t required to be kept this long and may no longer exist…).

            • David Farrar says:

              Slartibartfast,

              Romney would not be asking Obama to do anything Donald Trump couldn’t do. Ha! Ha! Ha!

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • “to do anything Donald Trump couldn’t do”

              Trump could not remove that badger from his head.

              ex anus
              misha marinsky

            • Suranis says:

              New York’s records laws are different from Hawaii’s.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              David “out of breath”,

              President Obama is just asking Romney to do what George Romney said was necessary to avoid suspicion. How can you trust someone when their own father thinks they are suspicious?

        • gorefan says:

          Ms. Farrar,

          The President has already proven his qualifications with the release in 2008 of his COLB. His mother’s hospital records would not add to or subtract from those qualifications.

          On the other hand as Mrs. Romney said the taxes contain more ammunition for Mitt’s enemies. So he will never make a challenge

          • David Farrar says:

            That’s great if you really believe your own statement. Obama should jump at the chance to put this issue behind him. Although just why you think allowing access to Obama’s natal hospital records would not add to or subtract from those qualifications remains a mystery to me.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • “remains a mystery to me”

              I love a good mystery. Sir Conan Doyle wrote an entire canon of mysteries. Highly recommended.
              misha marinsky
              deus ex machina

            • Slartibartfast says:

              David “out of breath”,

              I’m sure that many things remain a mystery to you and always will, but birthers in general and you in particular have shown that you will never drop this issue no matter what level of proof is shown. Remember when you said you would accept the decision of the Georgia courts?

        • Slartibartfast says:

          David “out of breath”,

          President Obama wouldn’t want to throw up road blocks—on the contrary, he’s got incontrovertible proof of his birth in Hawai’i. On the other hand, Mr. Romney has incontrovertible proof of something (probably taking amnesty for a tax felony) which would make him unelectable in his income tax returns. Politically, calling attention to what Mitt is hiding is a no-brainer…

          • David Farrar says:

            The thing you don’t realize is that the longer we beat each other over the heads, the candidates get away with not supplying the information voters need to make the right choice. Without accurate information, Surowiecki ‘s ‘Wisdom of the Crowds’ will be reduced.

            Let’s get Romney to call Obama’s bluff over his birth certificates, and afterwards; Obama can raise hell over Romney’s failure to release his tax information.

            But as long as we distract ourselves, the ‘tick’ in politics will win, as we say in these parts

            Slartibartfast:

            If you want Romney to go first…that’s fine with me. Have Obama pose just such a deal during their first debate, and I will blog my head off (and so will a lot of other Tea Party supporters) if Romney refuses.

            IT’S A DEAL THEN?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • Slartibartfast says:

              David “out of breath”,

              How about this, you get Mitten’s to release his tax records (like every candidate since his father has done) and after that you will be provided with proof that President Obama is a natural born citizen (which, in fact, he did before you or any birther ever raised the issue).

  42. Dan Crosby says:

    Breaking News: “Hawaii’s Issues Obama A Paper Birth Certificate That Magically Changes To PDF Image And Posts Itself To Obama’s Official Government Website…Obots Have No Explanation.”

    Here’s some context for all the deranged Obotic overbenders. Mitt Romney just posted .pdf images of tax returns he filed for the past ten years. Repeat: Romney posted .pdf images of paper documents. Romney posted them, not someone else. The images are posted on the RNC website for everyone to download and examine. The records verify that he indeed paid taxes and that he did not violate any laws. The images were posted after being “scanned” from paper documents allegedly released and certified by his accountants and a legally qualified notary. Although the paper documents have been concealed from the public, the images contain signatures and notary seals which “prove” they are authentic. However, these validations can be moved from the images. The images also reveal that the information was assembed into layers, electronically or manually, any one of which contain information which, if desired, could have been manipulated prior to digital fabrication.

    Using the same arguments in support of Romney’s bullcrap “tax return” images as Obots use for Obama’s bullcrap birth documentation: “He produced the documents, now shut up.”

    Ah. The spectacular liberal delusions of Obama’s grandeur.

    • Link, please. I could not find it on Google.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Wrong website, Dan. You wanted The Onion.

    • Hi Dan!

      What have you folks been photoshopping lately? Your previous attempts were not bad as photosopping goes but you got caught with your pants down. That lie about what Obama’s attorney said at the Apuzzo hearing in New Jersey was very amateurish though. Even Apuzzo wouldn’t back you guys on that one. I still love it that you suckered in Corsi, Zullo, Gillar, and Arpaio on the fake code book thing and they made complete asses of themselves. Even the Obama supporters couldn’t have pulled that one off if we tried. Well done Dan!

      • David Farrar says:

        If it is such a good deal for Obama; why doesn’t he take it?

        All he would have to do is make the challenge during the first debate. If Romney says, ‘no’, he will lose significant support among Independents and even among his own grassroot base — not that they will actually vote for him; but many will either stay home or not vote for either one.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Suranis says:

          Like a typical girl, you try and bring irrelevent facts into a discussion to distract from the fact that Dan Crosby made bad photo-shop attempts and lied though his ass.

          Go play with your doll, adults are talking.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Ms. Farrar (aka “out of breath”),

          Regardless of your delusions of grandeur, you can not offer any kind of “deal” nor are you even worthy of a moment’s notice from President Obama’s lowliest staffer. Sorry girl, but you had your chance and you embraced mediocrity and incompetence and came up with a FAIL of epic proportions—we both know that was the high point of your life to date and at least one of us knows that you’ll never get anywhere near it again.

          Besides, Romney has already lost support amongst independents—that’s why President Obama is at or around 50% in the polls (I guess President Obama has found the 3% he needed… ;-) ). Even John can’t bring himself to support Romney (or so I infer from the “Vote Ryan” comment… :-P ).

          So you can just sit in the dark pretending that your birther “October surprise” is going to happen any. day. now. but that doesn’t change the fact that it is looking very likely (above 80% according to Nate Silver at 538) that President Obama will be reelected.

          Enjoy the next four years—don’t worry, under President Obama there wont be discrimination against people of your sexual orientation or gender (whatever they may be…) ;-)

          • John Woodman says:

            Even John can’t bring himself to support Romney (or so I infer from the “Vote Ryan” comment…

            Perceptive. Lol.

            Honestly, last election, I supported the Sarah Palin ticket. This election, I’m supporting the Paul Ryan ticket. ;-)

  43. CarlOrcas says:

    David Farrar says:
    September 29, 2012 at 11:37 am
    I know for a fact that Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital has all the records they were required to keep for the years 1960-1961.

    How do you know? Have you seen them? If not…..how do you know?

    • “I know for a fact”

      I know for a fact that Obama’s re-election will give Hagee conniption fits. I know for a fact that Rick Santorum runs a white slavery ring.

      ex anus
      misha marinsky

      • David Farrar says:

        Do your own homework.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • I have done my homework. That’s how I know for a fact that Rick Santorum runs a white slavery ring.

          ex anus
          misha marinsky

        • Northland10 says:

          David: “Do your own homework.”

          You make a claim, Carl asks for proof or evidence of this claim and your response, “Do your own homework.”

          So David, how does it feel to have your pants on fire? Good thing your female because most guys just can’t do hot pants well.

          • David Farrar says:

            Look,
            if I am wrong, it only hurts my case, not his, or yours. So he can do his own homework in support of his own claim, and I’ll do mine.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • CarlOrcas says:

              David,

              I don’t have a “case”. I haven’t made a
              “claim”.

              You, on the other hand, have:

              David Farrar says:
              September 29, 2012 at 11:37 am
              I know for a fact that Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital has all the records they were required to keep for the years 1960-1961.

              So….now you say you could be wrong which means you don’t know “for a fact”.

              It’s dizzying enough trying to follow your stuff. I can’t imagine what it’s like trying to produce it.

  44. David Farrar says:

    Slartibartfast:

    If you want Romney to go first…that’s fine with me. Have Obama pose just such a deal during their first debate, and I will blog my head off (and so will a lot of other Tea Party supporters) if Romney refuses.

    Is it a DEAL?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Scientist says:

      How can anyone here make “a deal”? Do you think any of us are advisers to either campaign?

      Get over yourself, Farrar, you are insignificant. You lost to a empty chair. Your blogging is farting into a hurricane. No one cares what you think.

      Neither candidate’s birth certificate will be mentioned in the debates. I will gladly bet $100 on that. I doubt Romney’s taxes will come up directly either, though the President may say that people like he and Romney should pay more.

      Speaking of taxes, Ms Farrar, are you in Romney’s 47%?

      • David Farrar says:

        Looking for an out already, I see.

        We can send emails to each campaign, stating that we have made this bargain between two forum of electors who wish to be informed before they vote on November 6, 2012.

        As I have stated before: Romney has already thrown down the gauntlet to Obama with his so-called “birther joke”, which promptly shut Obama up over the subject.

        If you really think Obama is legit; let’s try and flush both of them out so the electorate can be as informed as possible on election day.

        We can call ourselves ‘The Committee of Informed Voters’.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • ‘We call ourselves ‘The Committee of Informed Voters’.’

          If you are so informed, where did Mitt Romney bury the girl he strangled in 1987?

        • Scientist says:

          Do you pay federal income taxes, Ms Farrar? Remember, if you don’t, Romney definitely does not think you matter. He said so himself.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Ms. David “out of breath” Farrar,

          We don’t need an out—President Obama has already proven his Hawai’ian birth in a manner that is sufficient for the SCOTUS and every other US courtroom. In addition, there is no way that Mitt Romney will ever release his income taxes—the political damage from not releasing them is over (it’s already priced into the polls) so it would take a true idiot (although it sounds like you’d be game…) to voluntarily take on the political damage from releasing them (whatever that is—I suspect he is hiding a one-time tax amnesty from 2009) in exchange for any addition to the already insurmountable proof of President Obama’s natural born citizenship. In any case, I am aware (as Scientist notes) of my own insignificance in this area, but I am starting to suspect that you are in denial—for a brief moment, before the empty chair took you out to the woodshed, you thought you were going to be someone important, didn’t you? Now you just can’t accept that the closest you’ll ever get to fame is your failure to provide enough credible evidence to beat an empty chair. Not to mention the fact that you could have had it all—a default judgement issuing a non-binding recommendation to the Georgia SOS that President Obama should be removed from the ballot. It would have unquestionably been the bigest birther PR coup ever—and it could have been yours, had you and your birther buddies not seriously overestimated your ability to out-argue an empty chair. All the hate-filled octagenerian widowers a girl could ask for and the lion’s share of the birther bux (well, I’m sure Orly would have taken all of those—maybe someday you’ll realize that being in Orly’s shadow is very much the same as being in the dark in many ways…).

          That’s right little missy, if you had just accepted Judge Malihi’s offer of a default ruling, you would have been able to say, “I am woman, hear me ROAR!”, but instead you’re just girl, interrupted…

          • David Farrar says:

            Isn’t anybody thinking on this sight?

            If you really believe President Obama has already proven his Hawai’ian birth in a manner that is sufficient for the SCOTUS and every other US courtroom, why wouldn’t Obama take the free shot:*

            “I will allow you full access to my Hawaiian Health Department and natal hospital records in return for full access to your (Romney’s) last ten years of tax returns?”

            If Obama doesn’t challenge Romney during this debate over his tax returns, I think we can safely assume Romney’s “Birther joke” paid off — Obama cannot qualify to take the oath of office if he allows his natal records to be publicly accessed.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar
            * Most of Romney’s base think he is ahead in the polls.

            • CarlOrcas says:

              David Farrar writes:

              “If you really believe President Obama has already proven his Hawai’ian birth in a manner that is sufficient for the SCOTUS and every other US courtroom….”

              The silliness continues. No one has said any such thing. The matter has not been before the Supreme Court and every other lower court has turned away the question for a variety of reasons.

              But, for the sake of discussion, exactly how do you see the matter getting to the Supreme Court in a way that would have it deciding to your satisfaction that he was born in Hawaii?

            • David Farrar says:

              But CarlOrcas,
              I was directly quoting from Slartibartfast’s post above:

              “We don’t need an out—President Obama has already proven his Hawai’ian birth in a manner that is sufficient for the SCOTUS and every other US courtroom.”

              But, please, try again to explain to me why Obama, if he knows he is legit, won’t take the free shot? If Romney refuses, unquestionably, it will act to demoralize his base.

              It’s these types of questions that keep coming up that simply can’t be jived with recent courtroom decisions.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

              .

            • “But, please, try again to explain to me why Obama, if he knows he is legit, won’t take the free shot?”

              One last time: Our Constitution holds the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

            • Suranis says:

              Isn’t anybody thinking on this sight?

              Its spelled site.

              And his reasons might not be obvious to you, as President Obama is a male winner and you are a loser whose gender has yet to be determined. In fact, if you say it would be a good idea to release his records as it would remove all doubt, he would most likely gain better success by doing the opposite, given your legal track record?

            • Scientist says:

              Ms Farrar: Can you tell us what presidential campaigns you have managed? What makes you think that David Axelrod and David Plouffe are looking to you for advice? They seem to be doing pretty well without your help.

        • Suranis says:

          I’m sorry, girlfriend, but Mitt Romney’s Birther joke did not make Obama shut up about the Tax returns. And dropping it in the middle of a wall of text so people would not notice it inside your stream of raw sewage does not make us “admit it” because we didn’t see it to deny it.

          Sadly, all you are is the girl that has her name on the case that copperfastened and proved beyond doubt Barack Obama’s right to run for president in Georgia. That’s how you are going down in history.

          Maybe you should just take up knitting.

          • David Farrar says:

            source, please.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Ms. Farrar,

              I was referring to some stupid redneck’s “case” in a tiny administrative court in Georgia. It was only noteworthy for the fact that the plaintiffs lost to an empty chair and unintentionally established President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i.

            • John Woodman says:

              That case was certainly a remarkable one… as concretely evidenced by the fact that it was much remarked upon.

              I mean, to have your entire stable of experts show up, put their best foot forward, make a full presentation of their case, then have the other side respond by making no defense against their arguments at all… and then lose… well, as I already remarked, that’s remarkable.

              I think at that point, most folks would say to themselves, “Hmm. If I can’t convince a judge when I have nothing but an empty chair to rebut my arguments, it just might be that my arguments are less than compelling.”

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John said: I think at that point, most folks would say to themselves, “Hmm. If I can’t convince a judge when I have nothing but an empty chair to rebut my arguments, it just might be that my arguments are less than compelling.”

              Which corroborates my argument regarding David’s thinking ability. Given who his lawyer is, we all know that he didn’t have any input into the losing strategy, but not learning a lesson from the blunder is all on Miss Farrar.

            • Suranis says:

              You haven’t heard of Farrar V Obama?

  45. Tim Selaty Jr. says:

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I wanted to reach out to you in reply to your message to me. I’ve replied with the same message on my site, as I wasn’t sure if you were subscribed to message updates over there.

    Thanks for pointing out the spam, a parasite on many sites.

    The information presented on the link you provided [this page] is insightful and explores different avenues especially through contrast and comparison, great material. Perhaps there might’ve been a bit too many negative connotations and disrespect for others, but I can appreciate the ferocity and perseverance — something that’s needed in achieving a goal.

    I always keep an open mind to new information, technology, and suggestions. For example, John Woodman writes, “In the real world, there are almost limitless possible variations. There are, for example, adaptive compression algorithms, algorithms that fully follow the MRC standard, MRC-like algorithms, similar DJVu algorithms, DJVu-like algorithms, and so forth.]” and “There might be morphological dilation around the text mask or the segmentation is block-based. The halo could be caused by the foreground in a dilated mask, or by processing the background. One plausible alternative is that the algorithm finds text as the letters with a bit of the surrounding background for safety. Some Adobe tools do that.” I thought that provided light to others and shows that linear thinking won’t provide much help in a field like this, as things aren’t nearly as black and white as people seem to think it is.

    However, John also writes, “In fact, while I have broad experience in many different aspects of computer technology dating back more than 30 years, I am not an expert in the specific field of mixed raster content (MRC) compression. Neither, by the way, is Garrett Papit. Papit is basically a computer programmer for JC Penney.”, which scrutinizes the individual with an unfortunately condescending tone.

    With respect, I appreciate all that’s written — the good and the bad.
    -Tim Jr.

  46. Monkey Boy says:

    I have it on good authority that David Farrar is a stolen identity. Also, that he/she was a seducer of Darren Huff, of the pink dildo fame.

    My informant tells me that the person posing as David formed menage-a-trois with another GA resident, who is the owner of a computer store, that partied mostly by using mechanical aids. A prompt search of DF’s premises (before he/she can dispose of the evidence) will turn up a case of rechargeable c cells used to power the dildo[es]. Poor besotten and dim-witted Darren was coerced in journeying to TN to rendesvous with some other dupes to take part in an uprising against the government. It was projected as a Waco type incident that would swell the ranks of dissident militias to subvert the US government. This has been a pipe dream of neo-Confederates since Appomattox. Fortunately, the participants–who had sworn to give their lives–lost their poop and, sensibly, their nerve when they were faced with that possibility. Poor Darren was meant to be sacrificed.

    Wait…there’s more. David Farrar is a manufactured identity. My informant says that in 1981 a Belfast resident, Breanne Donahue, seduced a cell of Catholic dissident activists and lured them into an ambush by Unionist militias. Eleven Catholics were slaughtered. Since her identity was known, and her photo available, she was spirited out of Northern Ireland and the UK to avoid revenge by the IRA.

    The Thatcher government got the Reagan regime to create a false identity and legend for her. It was decided that since the IRA has powerful connections in the US, and that they would never stop searching for her, that a gender change was in order to throw them off the scent. The subsequent regime of testosterone injections caused breast shrinkage and copious facial hair growth, but unfortunately, provoked out of the ordinary weight gain, and did not abate the feminine characteristic of a fleshy derriere.

    It was decided to use the birth data of and already existing person to form a credible ancestry for subject. An ex post facto birth certificate using the birth data identical to a Farrar boy born in GA.

    David Farrar cannot dispute this! I challenge him to present the hospital records of his birth. He won’t. He can’t. He is a complete fraud and probably illegal, since there is no record of his naturalization.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Thanks for the info, Monkey Boy! ;-)

      Miss Farrar,

      So, which is it, are you a woman or are you gay? Mr. Huff’s known proclivities suggest that the answer might be “both”…

    • Monkey Boy says:

      typo: “subsequent regime” = “subsequent regimen”

  47. john, were the copies passed out on 4/27 copies made from the pdf or the other way around. why did ap have a “high resolution” copy. are all copies high resolution ? was the pdf enhanced ? if so how and what parts ?
    i know two came from hawaii. did they scan one or both of those to make more copies to pass out ? did the WH end up with all copies ? thanks

    • Suranis says:

      Photocopys made from a PDF?

      (a) How are they supposed to do that, plant the monitor face down on the photocopying machine?

      (b) The Photocopy has much higher detail than the PDF. I suppose in Orlyworld photocopiers are magic and can turn low detail Images into high detail masterpieces.

      And what other documents might they have used to photocopy other then the ones from Hawaii. Maybe they used the toilet paper?

      Sometimes its best to not answer idiotic questions by morons, and just point out the questions are utterly stupid and leave it at that.

  48. CarlOrcas says:

    David Farrar says:
    September 30, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    But CarlOrcas,
    I was directly quoting from Slartibartfast’s post above:

    “We don’t need an out—President Obama has already proven his Hawai’ian birth in a manner that is sufficient for the SCOTUS and every other US courtroom.”

    But, please, try again to explain to me why Obama, if he knows he is legit, won’t take the free shot? If Romney refuses, unquestionably, it will act to demoralize his base.

    It’s these types of questions that keep coming up that simply can’t be jived with recent courtroom decisions.

    We ran out the responses on that thread so let’s start over.

    First, I suspect that the reason Obama won’t take the “free shot” you wish for is because it would be stupid. My guess is he’s got better things to do with him his time.

    Second, the word is “jibed”. Jive is what you are spreading all over this website.

    • David Farrar says:

      Thanks for your corrections.

      “Obama has better things to do”… oh, never mind. Just keep that thought until November 7th. Ha! Ha! Ha!

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • CarlOrcas says:

        David Farrar writes:

        “Just keep that thought until November 7th. Ha! Ha! Ha!”

        It will all be over on November 6th, David.

  49. Slartibartfast says:

    Ms. Farrar said: “Most of Romney’s base think he is ahead in the polls.”

    Unfortunately for them, the actual experts on reading the polls seem to think that President Obama has about a 4:1 chance of winning the election.

    I think we can safely assume that Miss Farrar has no more ability at analyzing politics than he does analyzing the law.

    • David Farrar says:

      Great,

      That’s makes the question even more intriguing. If Obama is polling 4:1, why not go for the knock out punch?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Sorry girl, but Romney is punch-drunk and reeling from his own missteps. When you opponent is shooting himself repeatedly in the foot, the best thing to do is to get out of the way and let him…

      • Suranis says:

        Because you pretend to think its a good idea. Ergo it’s a suicidally bad idea.

  50. David Farrar says:

    Scientist says:
    September 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    “Ms Farrar: Can you tell us what presidential campaigns you have managed? What makes you think that David Axelrod and David Plouffe are looking to your for advice? They seem to be doing pretty well without your help.”

    You don’t have to be a political genius to know that Obama can’t afford to give up a free shots at Romney, if he can take them; that will cost him nothing, while demoralizing Romney’s base.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Ms. Farrar,

      Trying to satisfy the birthers is not a “free shot”—it is playing in the mud with pigs (you just get muddy and the pigs like it). What you suggest wouldn’t (even if the birthers believed him—something that you yourself have demonstrated you will never do) win him a single vote and would add credibility to an issue which currently taints any Republican who panders to your feckless crew.

      • David Farrar says:

        Nonsense.
        Even Obama understands the next four years is going to require whomever is elected president to be able to rally the public around their initiatives. If Obama doesn’t clear this matter up for the good of the nation it will be because he can’t and still remain in power.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

    • CarlOrcas says:

      David Farrar writes:

      “You don’t have to be a political genius to know that Obama can’t afford to give up a free shots at Romney, if he can take them; that will cost him nothing, while demoralizing Romney’s base.”

      What you propose is a stupid stunt and Obama definitely doesn’t need that. He is doing just fine in the polls. He leads in all the major polls – including Rasmussen and Fox.

      Take a look at the Real Clear Politics average and explain what the upside is for him….

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

      • David Farrar says:

        The upside is he will bring this country together simply by proving a positive. But you and I both know he can’t do it.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Sorry Ms. Farrar, but you and your ilk have demonstrated that you will not accept reasonable evidentiary standard—nor will you accept extraordinary standards—and whenever the evidence you asked for is provided you will move the goalposts. Sorry, but the only thing the birthers deserve is ridicule (and court sanctions—here’s hoping you and Orly get a boatload!) for their patently dishonest behavior.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Miss “out of breath”,

          You can’t “bring the country together” when you political opponents have decided that beating you is more important than doing the job they were elected to do. President Obama is not to blame for unprecedented Republican obstructionism—the Republicans are responsible for their own actions.

        • CarlOrcas says:

          David Farrar writes:
          “The upside is he will bring this country together simply by proving a positive.”

          To quote you: Nonsense.

          He will never prove it to your satisfaction. Ever!

          • Scientist says:

            Let me just ask this Ms Farrar: assuming that Mr Obama were eligible, would you support him?

            My fingers are crossed in breathless anticipation of your answer. Could my search finally be at an end? (readers of Doc C’s site may know what I am speaking of, but please keep quiet until Ms Farrar answers).

            • Suranis says:

              Oh come on, Farrar is trustworty. Remember when he said if the court ruled against him in Farrar V Obama he would accept it and sing cum by yah?

        • Northland10 says:

          Ah, I am finally seeing where David is at. He is under the impression that the whole birther issue actually means anything to the people on the street. He thinks that what the President does in response to the birthers, and includes a challenge to Romney will somehow have usefulness. He couldn’t be more wrong.

          Most Republicans and Democrats find the whole birther thing to be some freak side show to their normal, everyday lives. It has little to no bearing on their political concerns. For most people, “it’s the economy, stupid.” So they look toward the one they think will do the best.

          David, do not mistake the presence of debunkers as some sort of concern about the President being in trouble or stopping “We the people/goofballs” from prevailing. As for me, I am here, not only to protect the Constitution from those who would trample it, but because of my various interests that have come together. I have always have had a fondness for history, researching various legal history, and following various angry conspiratorial types, especially right-wing ones. The Birthers have provided a hobby which engages all three. If they could find a way to bring in debates and conspiracies regarding liturgical history and the music therein, I would be in heaven.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Romeny’s base is demoralized because they have a completely inept candidate that cannot in any way connect with the American middle class. President Obama needs to fire up his own base—which he has been effectively doing with his state-of-the-art GOTV efforts (as opposed to Romeny’s ground game which is best described at “hapless”…).

  51. john this is all very interesting, but after soaking it all up, in my mind still begs the question: if the issue has been fully laid to rest, why all of this ?
    why are you reaching up for additional expertise at this point in time, while all of this past year and a half, YOU have been “the world class expert” that the anibirthers cite, and gravitate towards, ??

    • Suranis says:

      Because people like you are too stupid to admit when they have been had. And to admit it when they have lost the argument. And still think you can unseat Obama with a stupid vicious lie rather than real politics.

      This isn’t 2004, and too many people on both sides were sickened by that Swiftboat debacle to allow a vicious blatant lie to derail a US election ever again.

    • Scientist says:

      I don’t think John ever claimed to be a world class expert on image processing software. I think it’s fair to say he isn’t. Of course, neither are the birther “experts”, though they claim to be. The one who indisputably is a world class expert in the field is Prof de Queiroz.

      But as Prof de Queiroz and John and the rest of us have pointed out, the pdf is irrelevant. And it was the CCP who decided to waste 2,200 hours studying an irrelevant document, not us.

      So what document is relevant? The actual birth records in Hawaii. And who are the sole world class experts as regards Hawaiian birth records? There is only one-the Hawaii DOH. And what have they said on countless occasions and in countless form, written and oral? That Obama was born there. What about that is so hard for you to accept, given that his mother lived in Hawaii at the time of the birth? Why invent some cockamamie story about a jaunt to an underdeveloped country and some elaborate conspiracy when the plain truth is so clear and simple?

      • Suranis says:

        Because then they would have to actually admit Obama is actually the President. And of course as a bonus they feel that they are hurting him personally and directly with this nonsense. Causing Obama pain is a patriotic thing to do, after all.

        Lets face it, if they had said half the things about MY mother that they have said about Ann Dunham , they would be at present enjoying the accommodations in a very deep hole somewhere assisting teams of large men with their inquiries.

        • Scientist says:

          I sincerely doubt that Obama reads birther blogs. I’m sure he is aware that there are people who hate him. I think he probably takes the same attitude that another President running for re-election took towards those who hated him:

          “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred. ”

          http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

        • David Farrar says:

          Of course ‘birthers’ don’t admit Obama’s bona fides. If Obama was totally legit, he would have been all over Romney after his ‘birther joke’. Instead, what do we get: almost complete silence from him on the subject. Obama could have simply offered a quid pro quo for Romney’s federal tax returns. If Romney had turned down the offer, it would have invariably cost him base points.

          In other words, if Obama is legit, this would have been a free shot at Romney expense. But, strangely, Obama failed to respond to Romney’s obvious birth certificate challenge.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • Suranis says:

            Listen woman. He’s released his birth certificate TWICE. He does not have the power to just open his birth records up to inspection even if he wanted to. If he help up Romney to your ridiculous quid pro quo all Romney would say is “What, was there something wrong with the last 2 times you released your birth records? Are you saying there’s legitimate doubt?” And suddenly a dead issue would be all over the news as a legitimate news story of inquiry. And Romney would still not have had to release his tax returns.

            Instead, after Romney did his stupid birther joke, Obama kept right on swinging at his tax returns, which left Romney’s tax returns as a legitimate bone of inquiry and Romney was left looking more extreme and ridiculous than he did before. There was no reason to respond directly to Romney’s birther joke as it was adicuatly responded to a year and a half ago. There no such thing as a free shot in politics. There is always blowback, and the blowback hurt Romney far more than Obama

            Anyone who want convinced in April 2011 will never be convinced.

            That’s why you have utterly failed at everything you have tried, Ms farrar. You have no idea of consequences or of the long game, like for example having Farrar V Obama as a precidential ruling reinforcing Ankeny V Daniels as binding precident, and having it cited in cases thereafter. That’s the result of your dumn 50 state strategy.

            There, I explained it to you. But you are such an idiot you wont understand it anyway. If Obama wins you will probably be saying he would have had a BIGGER landslide if he had opened the vault, or why not make Ronmey look worse by opening it.

            Typical woman.

            • David Farrar says:

              Obama may have kept right on swinging, but he didn’t offer to give Romney access to his Hawaiian natal records in return for Romney’s tax returns. Without this offer, the issue was largely ignored by Romney’s base.

              A recent NBC blog observed: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. We don’t have to take Obama’s word for this.”

              My repartee: “We may not have to take Obama’s word for it, but we have to take somebody’s word for it, and that’s the problem birthers see. If you want to look at somebody else’s word for it, Miriam Goderich, an ‘authorized’ literary agent for Obama says he was born in Kenya, and Obama, himself, says he was ‘born of a single mother’, and just to make sure we don’t misunderstand his point, he has even posted it on his website.

              Sure, all of these things may have “little, if any probative value”, but without Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records, and only those records; Obama’s birth certificates have absolutely no probative value, none at all!

              If we are going to error, shouldn’t we error on the side of finding the “provable” truth to Obama’s presidential qualifications and Romney’s tax returns?

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • Suranis says:

              Obama may have kept right on swinging, but he didn’t offer to give Romney access to his Hawaiian natal records in return for Romney’s tax returns. Without this offer, the issue was largely ignored by Romney’s base.

              You mean the birther issue? Yep, thats true. Romney’s base meanwhile was trying to make excuses for Romney not actually obeying the precedent set by his Father. And Romney got rattled having to defend himself all the time, which lead to him making further mistakes, which rattled him more till he was “47%” the candidate he used to be. Ryan would be a far better presidential candidate than Romney is with far less baggage.

              You ever been a boxer? When your opponent is hurt and on the defensive, you don’t give him an out by dodging to defend against a weak jab.,you keep on hammering him. When an opponent is reeling you hammer him to get him out of the ring.

              And Romney’s birther joke was a weak jab.

              Fact is, birtherism is not an issue in the campaign, and responding to it would have simply made it an issue. The Democrats learned that lesson when Bill Clinton made his biggest mistake and formed the special grand jury of investigation on him. He thought it would shut up his critics. He was wrong and it nearly destroyed his presidency.

              Sure, all of these things may have “little, if any probative value”, but without Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records, and only those records; Obama’s birth certificates have absolutely no probative value, none at all!

              If we are going to error, shouldn’t we error on the side of finding the “provable” truth to Obama’s presidential qualifications and Romney’s tax returns?

              Actually, I’m just going to repeat what the judge actually said about your evidence.

              NONE of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that NONE of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative
              value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
              that Plaintiffs’ claims are NOT persuasive.

              Sorry Ms Farrar, its your statements that have been legally ruled, in court, to have NO probative value.

              Now go play with your dolls.

          • gorefan says:

            ” If Obama was totally legit, he would have been all over Romney after his ‘birther joke’”

            To quote Napoleon:
            “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

            In this case having already proven his birth in the Hawaii, President Obama sat back and watched as Gov. Romney made a fool of himself. Gov. Romney ended up having to admit that Obama was born in Hawaii and was eligible to be President.

            Very smart move on Obama’s part.

            • David Farrar says:

              But it actually wasn’t, if Obama is legit. If he was legit, as anybody would have when their credentials were publicly challenged, he would have been able to walk all over Romney for insinuating that he wasn’t as qualified as Romney — but he didn’t. In fact, he was completely silent on the subject.

              Moreover, without offering up his Hawaiian birth certificate for public scrutiny in return for Romney’s tax returns, Romney’s base was not involved …which is the name of the game in politics…demoralize your opponent’s base, while energizing your own.

              ex animo
              davidfarrar

            • gorefan says:

              Missy Farrar,

              What was Gov. Romney challeging? A Hawaii verified and certified birth certificate.

              Gov. Romney having to admit that President Obama was born in Hawaii and was eligible for the Presidency is better than any document the President could have produced.

              Some in the Governor’s base called him a traitor for that admission.

              Many in the President’s base called the Governor a slime for a playing to the right wing fringe of the GOP.

              Pi$$ing off both your base and your opponents base at the same time – priceless.

          • CarlOrcas says:

            David Farrar writes:
            “But, strangely, Obama failed to respond to Romney’s obvious birth certificate challenge.”

            Only in your mind, David, does someone acting like an adult equate with acting “strangely”.

      • David Farrar says:

        But why go through the expense of keeping the truth hidden if there wasn’t something in those hidden records that would prove him unqualified to take the oath of office of the President?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Suranis says:

          You mean the expense of having his taxes pay for the public defenders that succesfully defended 99% of birther cases? He probably hasn’t spent a dime on defense, and since the Democratic laywers have gotten inviolved they are activly asking for costs and sanctions, so they will recoup whatever espenses they have incurred. Which means will have effectively not spent a dime at the end once those sanctions are granted.

          And he released his birth certificate twice. Thats a funny way of keeping the truth hidden.

          Hell, there was no expense whatsoever in Farrar V Obama as the Defense didn’t even turn up. You still lost.

        • Scientist says:

          I don’t get this oath thing. Anyone can take the oath as President. I could take it right here and now (goes away from the computer and takes the oath). OK, I just took the oath. What are you gnoig to do about it little girl?

        • Monkey Boy says:

          But why go through the expense of keeping the truth hidden if there wasn’t something in those hidden records that would prove him unqualified to take the oath of office of the President?

          Breanne, you have truths that are hidden. And you can’t produce your hospital natal records. There is good reason to believe that you are illegally residing on American soil and using a manufactured BC. Prove that you are not.

        • CarlOrcas says:

          David,

          The “truth” is not being hidden. There are no “hidden records”.

          That you can persist in saying that says more about your grip on reality than you will ever understand.

        • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

          The truth hasn’t been hidden. He showed his birth certificate something no president has done while in office. Just admit it David there is no standard of proof you would accept.

      • i was saying I think john is world class, certainly on the subject of obama, pertaining to documents and eligibility. he is certainly the front line expert for your team, and frank of course.

        why are you antibirthers answering for mr. woodman ??

        • Suranis says:

          Because John has better things to do than respond to a world class buffoon with questions so stupid a baby not totally crippled by hate could answer them. Was the AP photocopy made from photocopying the PDF? Really?

          And the best you have is a photocopying salesman. We have everyone that lives in the real world.

          • but it’s his website.

            he’s always been nice to me.

            i’m afraid you 0 people have taken over this nice website, you’re like an internet street gang.

            • Suranis says:

              You mean John Woodman is a far better man than me?

              On that, we can agree.

            • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

              Says the guy who begged for a debate with Frank Arduini then pussied out when it came time and then had a hissy fit and wandered off. You’re not one to talk about people’s behavior.

          • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

            Remember Suranis there are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

        • John Woodman says:

          Scott,

          Thanks for your compliment. I am afraid that I really don’t have the time to do a lot of interaction at this point. I think almost of what I have had to say has been said. I’ve actually retired twice from the issue and consider myself mostly-retired at this point. I had intended for the site to become solely an archive well before now. However, the surprising developments of Arpaio’s July press conference have led to me keeping it open for comments.

          I may do a couple more posts, but at this point I’m planning for that to be it. I’m trying get out of the birther issues analysis field.

          I will say this: At this point, I have less sympathy for those promoting the birther doctrines than I did at first. Does that mean I would abandon being nice to people, or at least trying to (some, I would note, just don’t even seem to merit very much of that)? No. Does that mean that I generally condone nastiness? No.

          But from my point of view, it has been resoundingly established that there’s not a single piece of significant, verifiable, documentable evidence of any truth at all in any of the major birther claims. That makes it pretty hard for me to be very sympathetic — particularly when I have now documented more than a hundred significant birther claims, not one of which is supportable by the evidence.

          I think I advised you some time ago that your time would be better spent than on birther issues, if you were to go fishing. Where I am, the weather is still pretty good for that. I think that would still be my advice to you. I’ve certainly seen nothing in the past year and a half now that merits any support.

          Or, if you prefer… get out and campaign for Romney/ Ryan. That would be more productive. And I would advise anybody the same. The birther claims simply aren’t anything except a dead end. And I think it’s in the interests of everybody (except for a few con men who are playing false claims to their personal benefit) to finally acknowledge that.

          JW

          • Suranis says:

            Or, if you prefer… get out and campaign for Romney/ Ryan. That would be more productive. And I would advise anybody the same.

            Seconded. Not only will you be participating in a positive way in the democratic process, but you will get exercise and make some friends. And as a bonus you will actually be doing something that might actually prevent Obama being elected in November! All advantages that Birtherism does not share.

  52. Slartibartfast says:

    John said:

    “I had intended for the site to become solely an archive well before now. However, the surprising developments of Arpaio’s July press conference have led to me keeping it open for comments.”

    One thing you could do (to herd off-topic birther trolls like TJ) would be to just start creating open threads for discussion (read: pointing out the inadequacies of birther trolls like TJ and Miss Farrar). Once an open thread becomes too large, just close it to comments and open a new one. This seems like it would allow you to stop “policing” (except to the extent you want to police the existing article threads) and give you a place to move new off-topic posts. I think this would also help this blog to make “steerage”—i.e. keep it viable as the valuable anti-birther resource it is. Just my $0.02.

    p.s. just another nudge to think about getting rid of comment nesting…

    • John Woodman says:

      Kevin,

      The thing is, I want to basically archive the entire site. I want it to remain as a place of reference — where anybody can come to get information on, say, Lynch v. Clarke or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 — but I don’t want to have to spend any time even monitoring it.

      I am really and truly attempting to move on from the issue. I have other things to do with my life.

      That’s a reason why I’m simply refusing to debate TJ McCann. The discussion here has been extensive, it’s covered (as far as I can tell) everything in — for example — the uninformed birther paper he wrote, and if he wants to debate, I will be happy for him to debate folks over at Dr. C’s or Squeeky’s or over at the site of someone who has the attention level to remain involved in the issue. And good folks like you can refer back to the site guide as needed for a refresher on any details that were discussed here.

      If I were going to really keep operating this site long term as an active site, then I would certainly be amenable to considering doing something with the comments. As it is, the comments that exist are all nested, and for one thing I don’t want to risk messing those up.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        John,

        That’s reasonable (as if you would be anything else :-P ). Leaving this site as an archive is another great service to the anti-birthers. Just in case I miss it when you actually ;-) re-retire, best of luck with whatever comes next for you and your family—I’m sure someone of your integrity and intelligence will do very well!

        Kevin

        • John Woodman says:

          Thanks, Kevin!

          My goal is to exit gracefully and get all of my time back on business. Computer-related business, for one thing. Marketing my own business has suffered because of the whole Obama issue. Ironically, a lot of my reason for making my original YouTube videos on Obama’s birth certificate was thinking, “Hey, looks like I can explain some things technically here that are tripping people up… who know? Might be good for business.”

          I’m also starting up some real estate-related activities. This entire past weekend, all day Fri/Sat/Sun was spent on a real estate-related seminar.

          • Suranis says:

            If you want to take my advice, just archive it now, or fairly soon. there will never be a “perfect” time to end it, and if its affecting your business then that’s a double reason for closing shop.

            Just pick a time that’s “good enough” and do it. As the Russians say “better is the enemy of good enough”

  53. there seems to be this notion that birthers like me a going to stop investigating obama’s past and provenance if he loses the election. this speaks to the underestimation of the subject and the tenacity/interest of the birther movement. with the advent of benghazi, new avenues of concern have been opened up as to how the obama administration does business. there are many of us (especially me being born and raised on the edge of chicago) that find it difficult to separate the chicago machine from the man who was propelled at least in part by that democrat order. corruption is a way of life in chicago/illinois politics, i believe those chickens are coming home to roost. i believe that the obamas are hiding something big about the past, something he doesn’t want anyone to know.

    as for the rise to power? obama didn’t build that campaign on his own. i think it’s safe to say some deals were made along the way. all of this history simply hasn’t played out yet. (for example rod blogojevich is sitting in colorado with lots of time on his hands and probably resents some of the chicago machine that sold him out. bet he’s got some good stories. payback is a big thing in chicago).

    all the best john, i’ll continue to hang out here from time to time and do battle with the fogbow crew, if that’s ok with you. i’m still searching for why they are so vehement and wage personal character attacks on people they don’t know, for such a silly subject that they insist was laid to rest years ago. those two things continue not to square with each other. i’m afraid they forgot to tell the rest of the world that the controvesy is over. this story is still in motion, and i am in no hurry to end the discussion. by the looks of it, neither are the players on this forum.

    • John Woodman says:

      Scott, you’re certainly welcome to hang out here, for as long as I keep comments open. The goal is to bring everything to a graceful conclusion and let the site remain as an archive for reference.

      If you’re ever down my way, let me know. ;-)

      • i hope you do keep some version of this open, it’s turned out to be one of the best forums.

        i’m due in chicago sometime next summer, maybe MO too. i went to school in carbondale. maybe i’ll take a sentimental journey, count on a few brews for sure !

        • John Woodman says:

          Thanks, Scott. Coming from an avowed birther, that is indeed a high compliment.

          I’ve tried to keep things cordial, although I will admit we can be a bit hard on birthers sometimes. But hopefully that happens more when it’s well deserved, and less when it isn’t so well deserved. I frankly don’t have as much tolerance for folks when they come across as arrogant know-it-alls.

          In any event, if you’re in MO next summer, do let me know. This local restaurant-with-microbrewery has a really, really good wheat beer and some fantastic pizza as well.

          • john i tried to tell you and the others about the chicago way, and that i as a musician can spot a phony from a mile away. that’s where it all started. then you did your thing. but everyone
            knows that something is not quite right with this guy, and it’s not because he’s black.

            so, with all due respect, and my fondness for you, let’s see how it all plays out. please keep this line open, cause it a good one, and it’s a sincerely level playing field because of you. cheers amigo, let’s keep it going for awhile. and tomorrow i’m making a brand new batch of vermontropy green mountain ale…

            • John Woodman says:

              Hey, I’m plenty happy to see Obama get to go out and golf full-time next year, and even if I’m no big Romney fans, I’m still glad to see Mr. Romney taking it to Mr. Obama at the debate level. I frankly hope to see more of the same.

              But that’s politics, and debate. And did you notice what Romney didn’t major on in the debate? He didn’t claim that Mr. Obama is “ineligible.”

              I’ve always said: Being Constitutionally eligible doesn’t necessarily make someone the right person to be President. But if they aren’t the right person, let’s get ‘em out of office on that basis, and not some trumped up bogus nonsense like the birther stuff.

              Now tell me about the ale.

  54. As a Harvard-trained lawyer, obama might be familiar with the rules of evidence.

    Posting a pdf on the internet may be innovative, but it fails to meet any evidentiary standards.

    All the obama apologists in the world will never change that.

    • David Farrar says:

      I agree. As a Harvard-trained lawyer, Obama is perfectly familiar with the rules of evidence.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Miss Farrar,

        It’s too bad that neither you nor the law skool has shown any understanding of the rules of evidence (or was it your intent to present evidence with little or no probative value to an administrative court?)—just like you’ve never demonstrated the capacity to understand other legal concepts like prima facie evidence or the burden of proof.

      • Suranis says:

        Then why did your lawyer attempt to place into evidence the PDF of the LFBC with no objection from yourself, Ms. Farrar?

        • David Farrar says:

          You can stipulate to the Court the image of the document download from the defendant’s website is for illustration purposes only. If the Court agrees, it is entered into evidence for illustration purposes only. What’s so hard to understand there?

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

    • Suranis says:

      Well then, you will be happy with the certified paper originals handled by the reporters at the press conference and photographed by Savanagh Guthrie, no doubt.

      And I’m sure you would be willing to wait the approximately 57 years it would take to bring the originals to every single town in the USA for the inspection of the people. That’s assuming a generous 12 hour inspection and instant transport Between towns.

      Yes I worked out how long it would take once.

      If it came in front of a court Obama would of course send the certified copy or the verification by Hawaii of the information on the LFBC. You know, like he already has done.

      • David Farrar says:

        Well, I am not sure how much experience these reporters have in forensic documentation analysis, nor their political agendas. This is why Rules of Evidence in a court of law is required to “PROVE” Obama has met his burden.

        Let’s see: ” 57 years it would take” — reductio ad absurdum

        “If it came in front of a court Obama would of course send the certified copy or the verification by Hawaii of the information on the LFBC. You know, like he already has done.”

        Being a Harvard-trained lawyer, Obama would know he could not enter his LFBC into evidence without first allowing adequate “Discovery”, which would require a full inspection of the Hawaiian Health Department records by the plaintiffs.

        And even if the judge in our Georgia case denied “Discovery”, Obama still wouldn’t have been able to get his LFBC into evidence — Obama didn’t list any evidence on his PTO.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Northland10 says:

          “This is why Rules of Evidence in a court of law is required to “PROVE” Obama has met his burden.”

          Obama does not have a burden. He is not the plaintiff. All he has to do is knock down your attorney’s evidence, which appears to be so easy that his team does not even have to show up.

          The only burden to the candidate is to provide to the SOS and/or Election commission the various requirements in the state’s election laws. An objector or a plaintiff holds the burden to show the candidate is NOT eligible.

        • david, why do you think a.p. has a high resolution copy?
          do you think that the way they’ve handled benghazi is comparable to the handling of the birth certificate?
          was it a good idea to release the “long form”? should he have stayed with the original story.

          • David Farrar says:

            In my opinion, the Court should demand “proof” beyond prima facie evidence when ANY impeachment prima facie evidence is admitted into evidence. The reason being is because the Court is simply seeking the truth of the matter.

            When any documentary impeachment prima facie evidence is presented in court (having been moved into evidence according to the Rules of Evidence and all that that entails), irrespective of its probative value, the Court should demand “proof” beyond prima facie.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • Northland10 says:

              If a birth Certificate from another state, with different information, was also submitted, then further investigation may warranted. This would be two pieces that are normally considered prima facie. Nothing submitted by the birthers has that status.

        • Suranis says:

          Obama didn’t list any evidence on his PTO.

          He didn’t need to when your evidence established sod all. And that’s direct from the judge.

          He also, of course, didn’t provide a lawyer for the defense chair. Happily, the arguments of several billion air molecules were enough to beat your case.

          Being a Harvard-trained lawyer, Obama would know he could not enter his LFBC into evidence without first allowing adequate “Discovery”, which would require a full inspection of the Hawaiian Health Department records by the plaintiffs.

          Being a self edicated idiot who speaks no latin, you will of course be able to cite other cases where a full inspection of health department records were required. Otherwise one would have to regard this one as a reducio ad posterium argument.

          • David Farrar says:

            You are right, but we didn’t know that eight weeks before the judge’s ruling and neither did Obama. He was so sure his motion to dismiss would be granted, he didn’t present his case in his PTO.

            After the judge denied his MTD, Obama could not present a case base on his previously submitted PTO and had no where else to run except out the door, so to speak.

            As it turned out: we made our mistake when we were silly enough to believe the judge was going to base his decision on the evidence presented at the hearing. “Little, if any” is still more than “none”, which was the amount of Obama presented at the hearing.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            • gorefan says:

              A defendant doesn’t have to put on any evidience, none, nada, zip. It was entirely up to you to provide the evidence and prove that he was not eligible.

              And you f*cked that up.

              You presented no case and therefore the judge made the correct determination.

              He was all ready to give you a default judgement. If you had been able to put on a persuasive case, the judge would have ruled in your favor. But you couldn’t even put on a half-a$$ case.

              How weak was your case?

              Your witnesses didn’t even have to undergo cross examination and they still couldn’t persuade the judge. LOL

              You failed and you failed miserable. You may very well be the ultimate definition of a loser. Could not win a case when there was no opposition.

            • Suranis says:

              “Little, if any” is still more than “none”, which was the amount of Obama presented at the hearing.”

              Really. Because that’s not what the judge said about your evidence, and you know it because I keep waving it in front of your face and you keep pretending I didn’t say anything.

              NONE of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that NONE of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
              that Plaintiffs’ claims are NOT persuasive.

              Looks like he made a determination based on your evidence to me. He determined that your evidence would make some prime fertilizer.

              Reducio ad posterio indeed.

      • ah … originals, plural.
        then, what’s in the vault in hawaii ? a first degree original ? the original original ? a real original ? an original copy of the first original. organic original ? immaculate original…. the “only we can see it” original. you folks don’t know when you been had by a slick chi-town operator. but , he is an original.
        or, is dependent on what the original definition of original, is.

        is communde pare aqundaie

    • Northland10 says:

      Funny, Obama’s team never entered into evidence a PDF image. The closest they got was to be nice enough to present a cleaner version of the copy the David’s attorney entered in Mississippi. They were not entering it as an official BC.

      Now, a certified verification of the information on the PDF, sent directly to 3 states with one submitted in a court case is evidence.

      The PDF was posted, not for legal needs but to allow the people of the country to see a copy without having to travel to DC and see the hard copy from Hawaii. However, a Judge is allowed to take notice that it has been posted and Hawaii has verified that is a copy of what they sent.

      The burden for the birthers, which they appear unable to overcome is to show that Obama could not be born in Hawaii. Anything else, is DOA.

  55. i can’t believe that jablonski is on the election advisory board.
    this caper is so rife with chicago corruption. the benghazi fiasco cover up will make transparent the mechanism of deceit. we are getting a much better sense of the basics about obamavich. even john woodman himself entertained that obama might be corrupt. my dad used to say, you can’t be just a little bit dishonest.
    new videotape coming along at crucial times (there’s more). accent chameleon, i love that southern chicago twangdrawl. what a joke, what a fake phony actor poseur, i’ll be glad when he’s gone, but i still want to know details about all the dirt. he’s the most mysterious “president” ever, seems like he’d be fun to hangout with though, i’ll give you that. but he looks tired.

  56. Pingback: Why don't people even want to investigate the truth! - Page 7 - City-Data Forum

  57. I notice Garrett Papit seems to have disappeared. One would have thought he might comment on this article. Did you email him a link, John?

    • John Woodman says:

      You know, I must admit that I didn’t get around to it, which I really, ought to have done.

      I have actually emailed Papit now to make sure he is aware of the article.

      • John Woodman says:

        And in spite of Mr. Papit’s past ugliness here, I do apologize for the oversight.

        • gsgs says:

          photos/scans of black text on colored/grey background with white pixels in the 8×8 block (e.g. security paper)and then compressed as JPGs make a (small) halo of lighter color which can be
          enhanced with “enhance colors” in irfanview or similar with other software.
          We see this in most of the available (“AP-” birth certificates. Even the COLB from 2008 shows a small halo when enhanced this way.
          Such an enhancement could have been necessary to
          show the green background in the first place. It gives blue
          pictures when done on AP
          I speculate the enhancement just multiplies the color value by a factor and then substracts a constant to get it back into [0..255] again

    • John Woodman says:

      I did exchange a few emails with Garrett Papit over the past few days, RC. He said he had heard about the article from a friend, and that he was skeptical until and unless Professor de Queiroz would provide a demonstration that reproduced the characteristics of Obama’s PDF.

      My replies included noting that Mr. Papit (and other birthers) consistently refuse to accept a technological explanation without having a detailed reproduction — even though virtually all of the “troublesome” characteristics are well known to be produced through technological processes. However at the same time they readily accept the idea the document was hand-forged (one version) or “tampered with” (another version) without ever, ever demanding a reproduction of that theory.

      When they produce a hand-reproduction or “tampered” version which contains all of the known characteristics of the PDF, and can explain exactly why they did it that way, with an explanation that is even plausible, then they can start demanding the same from others.

      My own perspective on the file has not substantially changed since I completed my extremely detailed evaluation of it over a year ago. There have not been a large number of new arguments that have been brought forth. And none of the ones that have, have changed the results one bit.

      By my evaluation — now as well as then — it is perfectly plausible and reasonable, technically and otherwise, that the file is a result of innocent processes, chief of which is compression or “optimization” of the image and file.

      I still find it not even remotely plausible that the document is a hand-created forgery, for reasons I have reasonably well detailed elsewhere. That it was optimized and “tampered with” is more plausible, but I see no evidence to support that theory, and significant evidence — including the fact that the image and information match exactly with the Savannah Guthrie photo of an obviously physical paper document with a raised seal — against it.

      Or, to put it succinctly: More than one year later, the “forgery” claims still show no sign of being anything but bogus.

Comments are closed.